3a - Neuse River Waterdog Species Status Assessment v1-2

Species Status Assessment Report
for the
Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi)
Version 1.2
it
Neuse River Waterdogs
(credits: top left & right: NC Wildlife Resources Commission; bottom left: S.McRae, USFWS)
February 2021
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 4
Atlanta, GA

This document was prepared by Sarah McRae (USFWS-Raleigh Field Office/Region 4) with
assistance from Erin Rivenbark (USFWS-Region 4), Beth Forbus (USFWS-HQ), and the Neuse
River Waterdog SSA Technical Advisory Team (Jeff Beane -NC Museum of Natural Sciences, Jeff
Hall -NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Jeff Humphries -NC Wildlife Resources Commission,
Judith Ratcliffe -NC Natural Heritage Program, and Alvin Braswell -retired). Version 1.2 also
had valuable input from Jennifer Archambault (USFWS-Raleigh Field Office).
Valuable peer review of a draft of this document were provided by Jessica Homyack
(Weyerhaeuser Company). We appreciate the time and effort of those dedicated to learning and
implementing the SSA Framework, which resulted in a more robust assessment and final report.
Suggested reference:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Species status assessment report for the Neuse River
Waterdog (Necturus lewisi). Version 1.2. February, 2021. Atlanta, GA.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page ii February 2021

Summary of Version Updates
The change from version 1.0 (May 2017) and 1.1 (November 2018) was minor and did not
change the SSA Analysis for Neuse River Waterdog. The change was:
1) Removed mention of SmithEnvironment Blog in Section 4.6 under Regulatory Reform in
North Carolina.
The changes from version 1.1 (November 2018) and 1.2 (February 2021) were also minor and
did not change the SSA analysis for Neuse River Waterdog. The changes were:
1) Incorporation of new occurrence data provided during the public comment period for the
proposed listing of Neuse River Waterdog as a threatened species.
2) Addition of information for Red Swamp Crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) as a threat
affecting waterdog habitat.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page iii February 2021

Species Status Assessment Report For
Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi)
Prepared by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This species status assessment (SSA) reports the results of the comprehensive status review for
the Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi (Brimley 1924)), documenting the species' historical
condition and providing estimates of current and future condition under a range of different
scenarios. The Neuse River Waterdog is a permanently aquatic salamander species endemic to
the Tar -Pamlico and Neuse River drainages in North Carolina. The species occurs in riffles,
runs, and pools in medium to large streams and rivers with moderate gradient in both the
Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic regions.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we used
the principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (together, the 3Rs) to evaluate
individual waterdog life history needs (Table ES-1). The next stage involved an assessment of
the historical and current condition of species' demographics and habitat characteristics,
including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of
the SSA involved making predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. This process used the best available information to
characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time.
To evaluate the current and future viability of the Neuse River Waterdog, we assessed a range of
conditions to allow us to consider the species' resiliency, representation, and redundancy. For
the purposes of this assessment, populations were delineated using the three river basins that
Neuse River Waterdogs have historically occupied (i.e., Tar -Pamlico, Neuse, and Trent River
basins). Because the river basin level is at a very coarse scale, populations were further
delineated using Management Units (MUs). MUs were defined as one or more HUC 10
watersheds that species experts identified as most appropriate for assessing population -level
resiliency.
Resiliency, assessed at the population level, describes the ability of a population to withstand
stochastic disturbance events. A species needs multiple resilient populations distributed across
its range to persist into the future and avoid extinction. A number of factors, including (but not
limited to) water quality, water quantity, habitat connectivity, and instream substrate, may
influence whether Neuse River Waterdog populations will occupy available habitat. As we
considered the future viability of the species, more populations with high resiliency distributed
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page iv February 2021

across the known range of the species can be associated with higher species viability. As a
species, the Neuse River Waterdog has limited resiliency, with one population in moderate
condition, and two populations in low condition.
Redundancy describes the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic disturbance events; for
the Neuse River Waterdog, we considered whether the distribution of resilient populations was
sufficient for minimizing the potential loss of the species from such an event. The Neuse River
Waterdog historically has a narrow endemic range in the Tar -Pamlico River and the Neuse River
(including the Trent River) basins in North Carolina, but both the number and distribution of
waterdogs occupying that historical range has declined over the past 40 years.
Representation characterizes a species' adaptive potential by assessing geographic, genetic,
ecological, and niche variability. The Neuse River Waterdog has exhibited historical variability
in the physiographic regions it inhabited, as well as the size and range of the river systems it
inhabited. The species has been documented from medium streams to large rivers in two
physiographic provinces, in the Piedmont and into the Coastal Plain. Some of the representation
of the Neuse River Waterdog has been lost; physiographic variability has been lost with 13%
loss in the Coastal Plain and 43% loss in the Piedmont.
Together, the 3Rs comprise the key characteristics that contribute to a species' ability to sustain
populations in the wild over time (i.e., viability). Using the principles of resiliency, redundancy,
and representation, we characterized both the species' current viability and forecasted its future
viability over a range of plausible future scenarios. To this end, we ranked the condition of each
population by assessing the relative condition of occupied watersheds using the best available
scientific information.
The analysis of species' current condition revealed that Neuse River Waterdog abundance and
distribution has declined, with the species currently occupying approximately 73% of its
historical range. Many of the remaining populations are fragmented, occupying fewer reaches
than were historically occupied, with losses in the headwaters of each basin. Evidence suggests
that the range reduction of the species corresponds to habitat degradation resulting from the
cumulative impacts of land use change and associated watershed -level effects on water quality,
water quantity, habitat connectivity, and instream habitat suitability. The effects of climate
change have begun to be realized in current Neuse River Waterdog range and may have
contributed to habitat degradation.
Current Viability SummarX
The historical range of the Neuse River Waterdog included 3rd and 4th order streams and rivers in
the Tar, Neuse, and Trent drainages, with documented historical distribution in 9 MUs within
three populations. The Neuse River Waterdog is extant in all identified MUs, however within
those MUs it is presumed extirpated from 35% (14/40) of the historically occupied HUCs. Of
the nine occupied MUs, two (22%) are estimated to have high resiliency, three (33%) moderate
resiliency, and four (45%) low resiliency. Scaling up from the MU to the population level, one
of three populations (the Tar Population) is estimated to have moderate resiliency, and two (the
Neuse and Trent populations) are estimated to have low resiliency. 60% of streams that were
once part of the species' range are estimated to be in low or very low condition or likely
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page v February 2021

extirpated. The species is known to occupy streams in two physiographic regions, however it
has lost physiographic representation with an estimated 43% loss in Piedmont watersheds and an
estimated 13% loss in Coastal Plain watersheds.
Future Viability
To assess the future condition of the Neuse River Waterdog, a variety of stressors, including
pollution, reduced stream flow, and continued habitat fragmentation, and their (potential) effects
on population resiliency were considered. Populations with low resiliency are considered to be
more vulnerable to extirpation, which, in turn, would decrease species' level representation and
redundancy. To help address uncertainty associated with the degree and extent of potential
future stressors and their impacts on species' requisites, the 3Rs were assessed using four
plausible future scenarios (Table ES-2). These scenarios were based, in part, on the results of
urbanization (Terando et. al. 2014) and climate models (International Panel on Climate Change
2013) that predict changes in habitat used by the Neuse River Waterdog.
An important assumption of the predictive analysis was that future population resiliency is
largely dependent on water quality, water flow, and riparian and instream habitat conditions.
Our assessment predicted that all currently extant Neuse River Waterdog populations would
experience negative changes to these important habitat requisites; predicted viability varied
among scenarios and is summarized below, and in Table ES-3 and Figure ES-1.
Given Scenario 1, the "Status Quo" option, a loss of resiliency, representation, and redundancy is
expected. Under this scenario, we predicted that no Management Units (MU) would remain in
high condition, two in moderate condition, four in low condition, and three MUs would be likely
extirpated. Redundancy would be reduced to four MUs in the Tar Population and two in the
Neuse Population. Representation would also be reduced, primarily with reduced variability in
the Piedmont and Coastal Plain.
Given Scenario 2, the "Pessimistic" option, we predicted substantial losses of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy. Redundancy would be reduced to four MUs in one population,
and the resiliency of that population is expected to be low. Several (5) MUs were predicted to be
extirpated, and, of the remaining four MUs, all would be in low condition. All measures of
representation are predicted to decline under this scenario, leaving remaining Neuse River
Waterdog populations underrepresented in River Basin and Physiographic variability.
Given Scenario 3, the "Optimistic" option, we predicted slightly higher levels of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy than was estimated under the Status Quo or Pessimistic options.
Three MUs would be in high condition, one in moderate condition, and the remaining five would
be in low condition. Despite predictions of population persistence in the Neuse and Trent River
Basins, these populations are expected to retain only low levels of resiliency, thus levels of
representation are also predicted to decline under this scenario.
Given Scenario 4, the "Opportunistic" option, we predicted reduced levels of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy. One MU would be in high condition, three would be in
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page vi February 2021

moderate condition, three in low condition, and two would be likely extirpated. Redundancy
would be reduced with the loss of the Trent Population. Under the Opportunistic Scenario,
representation is predicted to be reduced with 67% of formerly occupied river basins remaining
occupied and with reduced variability in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Physiographic Regions.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page vii February 2021

Table ES-1. Summary results of the Neuse River Waterdou Species Status Assessment.
3111s
Needs
Current Condition
Future Condition (Viability)
• Excellent water quality
Projections based on future scenarios in 50 years:
• Flowing river
• Status Quo: Threats continue on current trajectory and species maintains
current level of response. One population is expected to be extirpated;
ecosystems
remaining populations has reduced resiliency
• Suitable substrate:
• 3 populations known to be extant
Resiliency
clean gravels and
• Population status:
• Pessimistic: higher level of threats and reduced species response. Two
(Large populations
bedrock
1 moderate resiliency
populations are expected to be extirpated; remaining population has low
able to withstand
• Abundant cover
2 low resiliency
resiliency
stochastic events)
• Multiple occupied
•Optimistic: minimal level of threats and optimistic species response. All
management units per
populations persist; one population maintains high resiliency condition
population
• Opportunistic: moderate level of threats and selective species response. One
population is expected to be extirpated; remaining two have reduced resiliency
• Genetic variation is
Projections based on future scenarios in 50 years:
assumed to exist
• Status Quo: 33% of river basin variability lost; losses in physiographic
Representation
between river basin
Compared to historical distribution:
variability in Piedmont (63%), substantial loss in the Coastal Plain (17%)
(genetic and
populations
• All river basin variability retained,
• Pessimistic: 67% river basin variability lost; considerable losses in
ecological
• Ecological variation
however two populations are in
physiographic variability in Piedmont (75%) and Coastal Plain (58%)
diversity to
exists between smaller
low condition
• Optimistic: River basin variability maintained; maintain physiographic
maintain adaptive
streams and larger
• Reduced physiographic variability
variability in Coastal Plain (87%) and in the Piedmont (57%)
potential)
rivers, and between
in Piedmont and Coastal Plain
• Opportunistic: 33% of river basin variability lost; losses in physiographic
physiographic provinces
variability in Piedmont (44%) and substantial loss in the Coastal Plain (17%)
• 5 MUs occupied in Tar Population
• 3 MUs occupied in Neuse
Population
Compared to historical
Projections based on future scenarios in 50 years:
Redundancy
redundancy:
• Status Quo: only one population (Tar) retains resilient redundancy; 3 of 9 MUs
(number and
• 18% (3/17 HUC10s) loss in Tar
likely extirpated
distribution of
• Multiple populations in
Population
• Pessimistic: no resilient redundancy; 5 of 9 MUs likely extirpated
populations to
each area of
• 30% (6/20 HUC10s) loss in Neuse
• Optimistic: two populations retain redundancy; no MUs predicted to be
withstand
representation
Population
extirpated
catastrophic
• 67% (2/3 HUC10s) loss in Trent
• Opportunistic: only one population (Tar) retains redundancy; 2 of 9 MUs likely
events)
Population
extirpated
• Overall loss of 27% redundancy
across range (29 out of 40 HUCs
currently occupied)
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page viii February 2021

Table ES-2. Future scenario and condition category descriptions for each of four scenarios used to predict Neuse River
Waterdog viability.
Scenario Name
1) Status Quo Scenario
2) Pessimistic Scenario
3) Optimistic Scenario
4) Opportunistic Scenario
Climate Future
Current Climate effects
continue on trend into
the future, resulting in
increased heat, drought,
storms and flooding
Moderate to Worse
Climate Future (RCP8.5')-
exacerbated effects of
climate change
experienced related to
heat, drought, storms anc
flooding
Moderate to Improved
Climate Future (trending
towards RCP 2.62)
resulting in minimal
effects of heat, drought,
storms and flooding
Moderate Climate Future
(RCP4.5/63) - some
climate change effects
experienced; some areas
impacted more than
others by heat, drought,
storms and flooding
Urbanization
Urbanization
continues on trend
with current levels
Urbanization rates at
high end of BAU4
model (^200%)
Urbanization rates
realized at lower
levels than BAU
model predicts
(<100•9/0)
Moderate EAU
urbanization rates
(-100%) realized
'Representative concentration pathway 8.5
2 Representative concentration pathway 2.6
s Representative concentration pathway 4.5/6
4Business as usual
5Water quality
6Interbasin transfer
Species Condition
Current level of species response
to impacts on landscape; current
levels of propagation &
augmentation and/or
translocation capacity
Species response to synergistic
impacts on landscape result in
significant declines coupled with
limited propagation capacity
and/or limited ability to
augment/reintroduce propagules
Optimistic species response to
impacts; targeted propagation
and/or restoration efforts
utilizing existing resources and
capacity
Selective improved species
response to impacts as a result of
targeted propagation and/or
restoration efforts utilizing
current resources and capacity
Future Condition Category Descriptions
Water Quality Condition Water Quantity Condition
Current level of regulation and
oversight, including limited Current level of regulation and
protective WQsstandards oversight, including sustained
requirements and utilization of IBTs6 and irrigation withdrawals;
basic technologies for effluent current flow conditions
treatment
Declining water quality
resulting from increased
impacts, limited regulation and
restrictions, and overall
reduced protections
Slightly increased impacts
tempered by utilizing impro%
technologies and implement
protection strategies
Moderate increase in WQ
impacts resulting from
continued levels of regulation,
protection, and technology
Degraded flow conditions
resulting from climate change
effects, increased withdrawals
and Mrs, limited regulation, and
overall reduced protections
Improved flow conditions
through increased oversight and
implementation of flow
improvement strategies
Targeted strategies to improve
flow conditions in priority areas
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page ix February 2021
Habitat Condition
Current level of regulation,
barrier improvement/removal
projects, and riparian buffer
protections
Degraded instream and riparian
habitat conditions from
increased impacts, limited
regulation, fewer barrier
improvement/removal projects,
and overall reduced riparian
buffer protections
Existing resources targeted to
highest priority barrier
removals; riparian buffer
protections remain intact;
targeted riparian connectivity
projects; regulatory mechanisms
remain the same
Targeted increase in riparian
connectivity and protection of
instream habitat in priority area
through targeted conservation
efforts

Table ES-3. Predicted Neuse River Waterdog population conditions under each of 4 plausible scenarios. Predictions were
made using a 50-year time interval.
Future Scenarios of Population Conditions
Populations: Management Units
Tar: Upper Tar
Very Low
'
Likely Extirpated
"...
Likely Extirpated
'
Low
Likely Extirpated
Tar: Middle Tar
Moderate
Low
Low
High
Moderate
Tar: Lower Tar
High
Moderate
Low
High
Moderate
Tar: Sandy -Swift
High
Moderate
Low
High
High
Tar: Fishing Ck
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Neuse: Upper Neuse
Low
Likely Extirpated
Likely Extirpated
Low
Low
Neuse: Middle Neuse
Low
Low
Likely Extirpated
Low
Low
Neuse: Lower Neuse
Moderate
Low
Likely Extirpated
Low
Low
Trent
Very Low
Likely Extirpated
Likely Extirpated
Low
Likely Extirpated
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page x February 2021

Current Distribution:
■
X
x
7 5 30 dQ
A1iN6
W10i11eierf
0 20 40 09
26m&. HW-10 occupancy " t�odh Carolina
- Dop�Pbd TarvP�rnlipp PoiyaioQrapnc Pruwroas:
- Rain InOcc,lpenry 0 Neuee OVMTAL "N
0 rrena pJECWNT
- J AM M ccc'pardy •NRYVD Xi> 34 1 aocui.— Fell Line
_ L+nly MM OmwW NTAU C�,-0,-i nd Sre — MrNr HYd+�Y
. NRWpenS.- D—,. —
Current Condition
Status Quo Condition:
North CBrolirr$
MU Resiliency: Po ulation Resilieric r:
High Moderate
PhysiographicPraviM6W--
Moderate
Law
COASTAL PLAIN
- LOW
Likely Extirpaletl
FlEOMONT
_ Likely Extirpated
NRWO Curren[ Occupied 5de
Fall Line
Major Hydrology
x NRW6 Below oetiruUon
Pessimistic Condition: Optimistic Condition: Opportunistic Condition:
Figure ES-1 Maps of current distribution, current condition, and predicted Neuse River Waterdog population conditions
under each scenario (see Table ES-3)
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page xi February 2021

Overall Summary
Estimates of current and future resiliency for Neuse River Waterdog are moderate to low, as are
estimates for representation and redundancy. The Neuse River Waterdog faces a variety of risks
from declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and
deterioration of instream habitats. These risks, which are expected to be exacerbated by
urbanization and climate change, were important factors in our assessment of the future viability
of the Neuse River Waterdog. Given losses of resiliency, populations become more vulnerable
to extirpation, in turn, resulting in concurrent losses in representation and redundancy.
Predictions of Neuse River Waterdog habitat conditions and population factors suggest possible
extirpation in two of three currently extant populations. The one population predicted to remain
extant (Tar) is expected to be characterized by low occupancy and abundance under a pessimistic
future.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page xii February 2021

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. iv
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................
3
CHAPTER 2 - INDIVIDUAL NEEDS: LIFE HISTORY AND BIOLOGY .......................................
5
2.1 Taxonomy..................................................................................................................................
5
2.2 Description.................................................................................................................................5
2.3 Reproduction..............................................................................................................................7
2.4 Movement and Home Range of Adults......................................................................................
8
2.5 Diet.............................................................................................................................................
8
2.6 Age and Growth.........................................................................................................................
9
2.7 Habitat........................................................................................................................................
9
CHAPTER 3 — POPULATION AND SPECIES NEEDS AND CURRENT CONDITION ..............11
3.1 Historical Range and Distribution...........................................................................................11
3.2 Current Range and Distribution...............................................................................................
14
3.2.1 Tar River Population................................................................................................15
3.2.2 Neuse River Population...........................................................................................16
3.2.3 Trent River Population.............................................................................................17
3.3 Needs of the Neuse River Waterdog........................................................................................18
3.3.1 Neuse River Waterdog MU Resiliency....................................................................18
3.3.2 Species Representation............................................................................................
23
3.3.3 Species Redundancy................................................................................................
25
3.4 Current Conditions...................................................................................................................26
3.4.1 Current Population Resiliency.................................................................................
27
3.4.2 Current Species Representation...............................................................................
31
3.4.3 Current Species Redundancy...................................................................................
31
CHAPTER 4 - FACTORS INFLUENCING VIABILITY.................................................................
33
4.1 Development & Pollution........................................................................................................
34
4.2 Agricultural Practices...............................................................................................................
38
4.3 Forest Conversion and Management.......................................................................................
40
4.4 Invasive Species.......................................................................................................................44
4.5 Dams and Barriers (Natural System Modifications)................................................................45
4.6 Energy Production and Mining................................................................................................47
4.7 Regulatory Mechanisms...........................................................................................................49
4.8 Climate Change........................................................................................................................
52
4.9 Conservation Management......................................................................................................
53
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 1 February 2021

4.10 Summary................................................................................................................................53
CHAPTER 5 — FUTURE CONDITIONS..........................................................................................
55
5.1 Future Scenario Considerations...............................................................................................
55
5.1.1 The Scenarios...........................................................................................................59
5.2 Scenario 1 — Status Quo...........................................................................................................
62
5.2.1 Resiliency.................................................................................................................62
5.2.2 Representation.........................................................................................................
63
5.2.3 Redundancy.............................................................................................................
63
5.3 Scenario 2 — Pessimistic...........................................................................................................
64
5.3.1 Resiliency.................................................................................................................64
5.3.2 Representation.........................................................................................................
65
5.3.3 Redundancy.............................................................................................................
65
5.4 Scenario 3 - Optimistic............................................................................................................
66
5.4.1 Resiliency.................................................................................................................66
5.4.2 Representation.........................................................................................................
67
5.4.3 Redundancy.............................................................................................................
67
5.5 Scenario 4 — Opportunistic.......................................................................................................
68
5.5.1 Resiliency.................................................................................................................68
5.5.2 Representation.........................................................................................................
69
5.5.3 Redundancy.............................................................................................................
69
CHAPTER 6 — STATUS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY....................................................................
70
References...........................................................................................................................................
74
Appendix A — Data for Population Factors and Habitat Elements .....................................................
84
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 2 February 2021

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
The Neuse River Waterdog is a permanently aquatic salamander that is endemic to the Atlantic
Slope drainages of the Tar -Pamlico and Neuse River basins in North Carolina. The species was
petitioned for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), as a
part of the 2010 Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Species from the
Southeastern United States by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD 2010, p.723).
The Species Status Assessment (SSA) framework (USFWS 2016, entire) is intended to be an in-
depth review of the species' biology and threats, an evaluation of its biological status, and an
assessment of the resources and conditions needed to maintain long-term viability. The intent is
for the SSA Report to be easily updated as new information becomes available and to support all
functions of the Endangered Species Program from Candidate Assessment to Listing to
Consultations to Recovery. As such, the SSA Report will be a living document that may be used
to inform Endangered Species Act decision making, such as listing, recovery, Section 7, Section
10, and reclassification decisions (should the species warrant listing under the Act).
Because the Neuse River Waterdog SSA has been prepared at the Candidate Assessment phase,
it is intended to provide the biological support for the decision on whether to propose to list the
species as threatened or endangered and, if prudent and determinable, where to propose
designating critical habitat. Importantly, the SSA Report is not a decisional document by the
Service, rather; it provides a review of available information strictly related to the biological
status of the Neuse River Waterdog. The listing decision will be made by the Service after
reviewing this document and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies, and the results of a
proposed decision will be announced in the Federal Register, with appropriate opportunities for
public input.
For the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of the species to sustain
resilient populations in natural stream ecosystems for at least 50 years. Using the SSA
framework (Figure 1.1), we consider what the species needs to maintain viability by
characterizing the status %J the species in terms of its redundancy,
representation, and resiliency (USFWS 2016, entire; Wolf et al.
2015, entire).
• Resiliency is assessed at the level of populations and reflects a
species' ability to withstand stochastic events (arising from
random factors). Demographic measures that reflect
population health, such as fecundity, survival, and population
size, are the metrics used to evaluate resiliency. Resilient
populations are better able to withstand disturbances such as
random fluctuations in birth rates (demographic stochasticity),
variations in rainfall (environmental stochasticity), and the
effects of anthropogenic activities.
SPECIES NEED
cyrnrnh
�r Av�u■r�lrgr or
SPECIES CON LIii ON
FwLw1w
Avall.all y 4r
con-d flion -ot
Cho "Ylffd!p
r3pea F5 VIA$IL ry
Figure 1-1 Species Status
Assessment Framework
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 3 February 2021

• Representation is assessed at the species' level and characterizes the ability of a species to
adapt to changing environmental conditions. Metrics that speak to a species' adaptive
potential, such as genetic and ecological variability, can be used to assess representation.
Representation is directly correlated to a species' ability to adapt to changes (natural or
human -caused) in its environment.
• Redundancy is also assessed at the level of the species and reflects a species' ability to
withstand catastrophic events (such as a rare destructive natural event or episode involving
many populations). Redundancy is about spreading the risk of such an event across multiple,
resilient populations. As such, redundancy can be measured by the number and distribution
of resilient populations across the range of the species.
To evaluate the current and future viability of the Neuse River Waterdog, we assessed a range of
conditions to characterize the species' redundancy, representation, and resiliency (together, the
3Rs). This SSA Report provides a thorough account of biology and natural history and assesses
demographic risks, threats, and limiting factors in the context of determining viability and
extinction risk for the species.
This SSA Report includes: (1) a description of Neuse River Waterdog resource needs at both
individual and population levels (Chapter 2); (2) a characterization of the historic and current
distribution of populations across the species' range (Chapter 3); (3) an assessment of the factors
that contributed to the current and future status of the species and the degree to which various
factors influenced viability (Chapter 4); (4) a synopsis of the factors characterized in earlier
chapters as a means of examining the future biological status of the species (Chapter 5); and (5) a
summary (Chapter 6). This document is a compilation of the best available scientific and
commercial information (and associated uncertainties regarding that information) used to assess
the viability of the Neuse River Waterdog.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 4 February 2021

CHAPTER 2 - INDIVIDUAL NEEDS:
LIFE HISTORY AND BIOLOGY
In this section, we provide basic biological information about the Neuse River Waterdog,
including its taxonomic history and morphological description, and life history traits such as
reproduction and nesting, diet, age, growth, population structure, and habitat. We then outline
the resource needs of individuals and populations. Here we report those aspects of the life
histories that are important to our analyses. For further information about the Neuse River
Waterdog, refer to Brimleyana, the Journal of the North Carolina Museum of Natural History,
Number 10, published in 1985.
2.1 Taxonomy
The Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi) is one of three species of Necturus in North
Carolina. In 1924, Brimley described the Neuse River Waterdog as a subspecies of N.
maculosus (Brimley 1924, p.167), primarily because of the "spotted larvae". The type specimen
(USNM 73848) was taken from the Neuse River near Raleigh by F.B. Lewis in 1921. In 1937,
Viosca elevated it to a full species (Viosca 1937, p.138), primarily based on the ventral spotting
pattern. Brode (1970, pp.5288-5289) suggested that N. lewisi (as N. maculosus lewisi) and N.
maculosus (as N. maculosus maculosus) formed an intergrading series of populations. However.
in 1980, Ashton et al. (pp.43-46) compared electrophoretic data for N. maculosus, N. punctatus,
and N. lewisi, and determined that each is a distinct species.
The currently accepted classification is (Integrated Taxonomic Information System 2016):
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Amphibia
Order: Caudata
Family: Proteidae
Genus: Necturus
Species: Necturus lewisi
2.2 Description
Neuse River Waterdogs are from an ancient lineage of permanently aquatic salamanders in the
genus Necturus. Adult Neuse River Waterdogs have been described by Bishop (1943, p.32),
Brimley (1924, p.167), Cahn and Shumway (1926, p.106-107), Viosca (1937, p.138), and Hecht
(1958, p.15), while the first accurate descriptions and illustrations of hatchlings and larvae were
documented by Ashton and Braswell (1979, pp. 15-22).
Hatchlings are light brown in color with dark lines from each nostril through the eye to the gills,
with a white patch behind the eye and above the line (Ashton and Braswell 1979, p.17; Figure 2-
1). Their heads are round compared to the square, elongated heads of the adults. Hatchlings
have melanophores scattered on the gills, upper surfaces of the legs, lower jaw, and parts of the
head, with concentrations highest on the tail, making the tail darker than the head and trunk
(Ashton and Braswell 1979, p.17). Hatchlings have developed forelimbs, with three complete
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 5 February 2021

toes and the fourth, inner toe is only a bud and the hindlimbs are pressed close to the lower tail
fin and not fully developed (Ashton and Braswell 1979, p.17).
Figure 2-1 Neuse River Waterdog hatchling (from Ashton and Braswell 1979).
Most post-hatchling larvae have a broad, light tan, dorsal stripe from the snout to the tail, and
along the dorsal region are small, poorly defined, dark spots (Ashton and Braswell 1979, p.20;
Figure 2-2). The underside of the larvae is white, or has a faint network of lines. A major
difference between the larvae of N. lewisi and other members of the genus Necturus is the
difference in pigmentation - N. maculosus has a dark dorsal stripe bordered on each side by a
thin, light stripe and dark sides, and N. punctatus are uniformly grayish brown with no striping
pattern.
Figure 2-2 Neuse River Waterdog post-hatchling larvae (from Ashton and Braswell 4979).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 6 February 2021

Figure 2-3 A young Neuse River Waterdog from the Little River, Johnston County, NC (credit: Jeff
Beane)
Adults lose the striped pattern (Figure 2-3), and the side melanophores decrease in intensity
while the dorsal melanophores increase in intensity and definition, on top of a reddish brown
skin (Ashton and Braswell 1979, p.20; Figure 2-4). The underside is brown/grey and also has
dark spots but smaller than those on the back. Adults have a set of external bushy dark red gills.
Their tail is laterally compressed, and each foot has four toes (as referenced in Lai 2011, p. 3).
Adults can be up to 11 inches long.
Figure 2-4 Adult Neuse River Waterdog (credit: NCWRC).
2.3 Reproduction
Neuse River Waterdogs reach sexual maturity at around 5.5-6.5 years, or at a length of 102 mm
(-4 inches) SVL (snout -vent length) for males and 100 mm SVL for females (Fedak, 1971). The
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 7 February 2021

sexes are similar in appearance and can be distinguished only by the shape and structure of the
cloacal area.
Neuse River Waterdogs breed once per year, with mating in the fall/winter and spawning in the
spring (Pudney et al. 1985, p.54). After courtship, the male will deposit a packet of sperm which
the female places into her vent, thus fertilization occurs internally (Pudney et al. 1985, p.54).
During the spring (May -June), females will lay a clutch of —25-90 eggs in a rudimentary nest,
under large rocks in moderate currents (Cooper and Ashton 1985, p.5). Ashton (1985, p.95)
noted that nest sites were often found under large bedrock outcrops or large boulders with sand
and gravel beneath them, often placed there by the waterdogs. Females guard the nest (Braswell
2005, p.868).
2.4 Movement and Home Range of Adults
The species is cold -adapted, and is much more active in colder seasons and when water is near -
freezing. Braswell and Ashton (1985, p.29) documented activity decreasing after the water
temperature rises above 18°C, possibly because of increased predatory fish activity, nest
guarding, and also a greater supply of prey items that reduce foraging activities. In winter at a
monitored site with tagged animals, most (85%) time is spent under large granite rocks or in
burrows in the bank, and in early spring they move into leaf beds that are formed over mud
banks on the low -energy sides of riffles and where leaves were intact or only slightly
decomposed so many potential food invertebrates are present in the leaf litter (Ashton 1985,
pp.95-96). Activity is also stimulated by rising water and higher turbidity, likely because of the
"cover" turbidity provides, as well as an increase in terrestrial food items produced by runoff and
rising water (Braswell and Ashton 1985, p.29). Overall, movements increase during the spring
and fall, and decline during the winter and summer (Ashton 1985, p.93). There is no evidence of
migrational movement for the species.
Home ranges of waterdogs often overlap, regardless of the sex or season. Males have a larger
home range of —73 m2 compared to —17 m2 for females (Ashton 1985, p.93). Waterdogs do
defend a territory, usually referred to as a home retreat area in a burrow or under a rock (Ashton
1985, p.96).
2.5 Diet
Neuse River Waterdogs use both olfactory and visual cues to detect prey (Ashton 1985, p.83).
Both adults and larvae are opportunistic feeders (Braswell and Ashton 1985, p.13), and most
commonly waterdogs lie in wait for a small organism to swim or float by (Ashton 1985, p.97).
However, Neuse River Waterdogs also use other feeding techniques when they are active at
night, often leaving their retreats to actively search of food.
Larvae eat a variety of small aquatic arthropods (primarily ostracods and copepods), and adults
eat larger aquatic arthropods and also any aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates (including
hellgrammites, mayflies, caddisflies, crayfish, beetles, caterpillars, snails, spiders, earthworms,
centipedes, millipedes, slugs) and some vertebrates (including small fish like darters and pirate
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 8 February 2021

perch) (Bury 1980, p.16; Braswell and Ashton 1985, p.23). All prey are ingested whole, and
larger items are sometimes regurgitated and then re -swallowed.
2.6 Age and Growth
Longevity of Neuse River Waterdogs is not known, however its close relative N. maculosus may
live for 30+ years (McDaniel et al. 2009, p.182). Like many long-lived animals, breeding is
delayed until a minimum body size is reached and they tend to grow slowly. Generation time for
Neuse River Waterdogs is between 10-15 years (A.Braswell, pers. comm. to S.McRae on
3/20/2017).
2.7 Habitat
The Neuse River Waterdog is endemic to the Neuse and Tar drainages of North Carolina. They
are distributed from larger headwater streams in the Piedmont to coastal streams up to the point
of saltwater intrusion, and none have been found in lakes or ponds (Braswell and Ashton 1985,
p.13). Braswell and Ashton (1985, p.13) noted that waterdogs are usually found in streams
wider than 15m (although some have been observed in smaller creeks (S.McRae, USFWS, pers.
obs.), deeper than 100cm, and with a main channel flow rate greater than 1 Ocm/sec. Further,
these stream salamanders need clean, flowing water characterized by high dissolved oxygen
concentrations (Brimley 1924, p.168; Braswell and Ashton 1985, p.13; Ashton 1985, p.103).
The preferred habitats vary with the season, temperature, dissolved oxygen content, flow rate and
precipitation (Ashton 1985, p.103), however the waterdogs do maintain home retreat areas under
rocks, in burrows, or under substantial cover in backwater or eddy areas.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 9 February 2021

Table 2.1 Life history and resource needs of the Neuse River Waterdog.
Life Stage
Resources and/or circumstances needed for
Resource
Information
INDIVIDUALS to complete each life stage
Function
Source
(BFSD*)
• Clean, flowing water with moderate current
- Pudney et al.
(-10-50cm/sec)
1985, p.54
• Sexually mature males and females (-6 years
- Cooper and
Egg/Embryo
old)
Ashton 1985, p.5
- May -June
• Appropriate spawning temperatures (8°C-
B
- Braswell and
22-C)
Ashton 1985,
• Nest sites (large flat rocks with gravel
p•21
bottoms)
- Ashton 1985,
• Adequate flow for oxygenation (7-9ppm DO)
p.95
• Clean, non -turbid, flowing water (-10-
Hatchling
50cm/sec)
B, S
- Cooper and
- late summer
• Adequate food availability
Ashton 1985, p.5
Post-hatchling
• Clean, flowing water (-10-50cm/sec)
Larvae
• Adequate food availability (opportunistic
F S
- Ashton 1985,
- 1 to 2 inches
feeding; primarily invertebrates)
p.95
long
• Clean, flowing water (-10-50cm/sec)
Juveniles
. Adequate food availability (primarily
- Ashton 1985,
- Up to 5.5 to 6.5
invertebrates)
F, S
p.95
years; 2 to 4
- Braswell 2005,
inches long
• Cover (large rocks/boulders, outcrops,
p.867
burrows) for retreat areas
• Clean, flowing water deeper than 100cm with
flows 10-50cm/sec
• Streams >15m wide
- Braswell and
• High dissolved oxygen (7-9ppm)
Ashton 1985,
Adults
• Appropriate substrate (hard clay bottom with
p.13,22,28
- 6 to 30+ years
leaf litter, gravel, cobble)
F S D
- Ashton 1985,
- 5 to 9 inches
. Little to no siltation
p.95
long
. Adequate food availability (aquatic and
- Braswell 2005,
terrestrial invertebrates)
p.868
• Cover (large rocks/boulders, outcrops,
burrows) for retreat areas
*B= Breeding, F=Feeding, S=Sheltering, D=Dispersal
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 10 February 2021

CHAPTER 3 — POPULATION AND SPECIES NEEDS AND CURRENT CONDITION
In this chapter we consider the Neuse River Waterdog's historical distribution, its current
distribution, and the factors that contribute to the species current condition. We first review the
historical information on the range and distribution of the species. Next we evaluate species'
requisites to consider their relative influence to Neuse River Waterdog resiliency, representation,
and redundancy. Through the lens of the 3Rs, we then estimate the current condition of Neuse
River Waterdog populations.
3.1 Historical Range and Distribution
The Neuse River Waterdog is endemic to the Tar -Pamlico and Neuse River basins in North
Carolina. Its historical distribution includes two physiographic provinces (Piedmont and Coastal
Plain) comprising all major tributary systems of the Tar and Neuse, including the Trent River
Basin (Cooper and Ashton 1985, p.1; Figures 3-1 and 3-2). Because of salt water influence, the
habitats in the Trent River system are isolated from the Neuse River and its tributaries; therefore,
we consider the Trent River system as a separate basin (i.e., population), even though it is
technically part of the larger Neuse River Basin.
a °
�D n +° ••aih 0 o
° o o •y_.. �? a
o oo _I oo tr • / °•
/ • o °
00
b � �•� � I o ° gar».. " o� +' ' 2> r
io o•
o ) o°
0 °.°_d°... 91 bc:�p ° IN"el�O`. -Q -
0
° i •1� Q \
°
Fig_ 1. Sites sampled for Necturus lewisi, 1978 through 1981, Neuse and Tar
River drainages. Solid dots are positive sites, hollow dots are negative sites.
Inset shows location of Neuse and Tar River drainages in North Carolina.
Figure 3-1 Survey locations for Neuse River Waterdog (from Braswell and Ashton 1985,
p.19).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 11 February 2021

Fie. 2. All known records for ?Yecrurus lewisi. Solid dots are localities sup-
ported by voucher specimens; small hollow dots are sight records believed valid;
and large hollow circles are localities supported by voucher specimens with
imprecise locality data.
Figure 3-2 Historical distribution of the Neuse River Waterdog (from Braswell and Ashton
1985, p.20).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 12 February 2021

Map Date: 05/01/2017 File :NRWaterdog_Mapa.mxd
Data Source: USFWS
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 13 February 2021

3.2 Current Range and Distribution
For the purposes of this assessment, populations were delineated using the river basins that
Neuse River Waterdogs have historically occupied. This includes the Tar, the Neuse, and the
Trent River basins, and from here forward, we will use these terms to refer to populations (e.g.,
the Tar Population).
Of the three historical Neuse
River Waterdog populations,
all have observations in the
last 10 years (Figure 3-4).
Because the river basin level
is at a very coarse scale,
populations were further
delineated using
management units (MUs).
MUs were defined as one or
more HUC 10 watersheds
that species experts
identified as most
appropriate for assessing
population -level resiliency
(see Section 3.3). Range -
wide species occurrence data
were used to create
"occurrence heat maps" that
categorize HUC 10
watersheds based on
occupancy. These heat
maps display recent
observed occurrences in red,
newly occupied HUC 1 Os in
pink, recently presumed
losses in HUC 10 occurrence
in light blue, and presumed
extirpated occurrences are
displayed in dark blue
(Figure 3-4). Documented
species occurrences are
Figure 3-4 Neuse River IIICurrent Distribution
x X X10
X
X
o is ao so
Miles N
Kilometers
o zo ao so
2010s HUC10 Occupancy River Basin: North Carolina
- Occupied
Tar -Pamlico PhysiographicProvinces:
- Gain in Occupancy Neuse COASTAL PLAIN
Trent PIEDMONT
- Loss in Occupancy • NRWD Historical Occurrence Fall Line
- Likely Not Occupied NRWD Current Occupied Site Major Hydrology
X NRWD Below Detection
included to show distribution within HUC 1 Os and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission has
documented sites where the Neuse River Waterdog is below detection ii in Figure 3-4), based
on their most recent comprehensive surveys (NCWRC 2015). Throughout this section, heat maps
are used to characterize the historical and current distribution of Neuse River Waterdog among
MUs for each of the three populations.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 14 February 2021

3.2.1 Tar River Population
Basin Overview: The Tar -Pamlico River basin is contained completely within the state of North
Carolina and has a drainage area of approximately 6,148mi2 with over 2,500 miles of rivers and
streams (NCDEQ 2016d).
The headwaters of the Tar
River originate in the
piedmont of central North
Carolina in Person, Granville
and Vance counties, and the
river flows southeast through
the Coastal Plain until it
reaches tidal waters near
Washington where it becomes
the Pamlico River and
empties into the Pamlico
Sound. The entire basin is
classified as Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW),
meaning excessive amounts of
nitrogen and phosphorus run
off the land or are discharged
into the waters, thus the basin
has a special nutrient
management plan to help
reduce nutrients that cause
excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation and lead to
extremely low levels of
dissolved oxygen in the water
(NCDEQ 2016d). Based on
the 2011 National Land Cover
Data, the Tar -Pamlico River
basin has approximately 7%
developed area, 29%
agriculture, 23% wetlands,
12% grassland, and 27%
forest. Development and
population growth are centered around the municipalities of Greenville, Rocky Mount, and
Washington and in rural areas within commuting distance to Raleigh (NCDEQ 2016d).
The Tar population consists of five MUs, herafter referred to as the Upper Tar MU, Middle Tar
MU, Lower Tar MU, Fishing Creek Subbasin MU, and Sandy -Swift Creek MU. The species
was first documented in the Tar River Basin in 1971, and it has been documented as recently as
2019 in the Tar River and Fishing Creek (NCWRC 2019). Four out of the five MUs have
experienced losses in occupancy based on survey results from 2010-2019 (Figure 3-5).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 15 February 2021

3.2.2 Neuse River Population
Basin Overview: The Neuse River basin is contained completely within the state of North
Carolina and has a drainage area of
approximately 6,062mi2 with over
3,400 miles of rivers and streams
(NCDEQ 2016c). The headwaters
of the Neuse River originate in the
Piedmont of central North Carolina
in Person and Orange counties, and
the river flows southeast through
the Coastal Plain until it reaches
tidal waters near New Bern where
it empties into the Pamlico Sound.
Major tributaries include Crabtree,
Swift, and Contentnea Creeks and
the Eno, Little, and Trent Rivers
(although the Trent River is
considered a separate population —
see below). Like the Tar River
basin, the Neuse River basin is
classified as NSW due to large
quantities of nutrients (especially
nitrogen) contributed by fertilizers
and animal waste washed from
lawns, urban developed areas, farm
fields, and animal operations
(NCDEQ 2016c). In addition,
more than 400 permitted point
source sites discharge wastewater
into streams and rivers in the basin
(NCDEQ 2016c Based on the 2011
National Land Cover Data, the
wo ome.remrzov Furxrrvxmm�y Mew.m�a
WmSamre USiWS
Neuse River basin has
approximately 13% developed area, 28% agriculture, 21% wetlands, 12% grassland, and 25%
forest. Development and population growth are centered around the Triangle (primarily Durham
and Raleigh) and the municipalities of Smithfield and Kinston. The Neuse River basin contains
one -sixth of the entire state's human population (NCDEQ 2016c), and increased development
pressure has increased stormwater runoff, contributing to the basin's pollution and flow issues.
The Neuse population consists of three MUs, herafter referred to as the Upper Neuse MU,
Middle Neuse MU, and Lower Neuse MU. The species was first documented in the Neuse River
Basin in 1921, and it has been documented as recently as 2019 in Middle Creek (Appendix A).
All three MUs have experienced losses in occupancy based on survey results from 2010-2019
(Figure 3-6).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 16 February 2021

3.2.3 Trent River Population
Basin Overview: Technically the Trent River basin is within the greater Neuse River basin. The
Trent River basin is contained completely within the state of North Carolina and has a drainage
area of approximately 540mi2 with over 1,400 miles of rivers and streams. The headwaters of
the Trent River originate in the 1.. ,
Coastal Plain of eastern North
Carolina in Lenoir and Jones
counties, and then the river flows
southeast until it reaches
confluence with the Neuse River
and the tidal waters near New
Bern where it empties into the
Pamlico Sound. A major
tributary is Tuckahoe Swamp.
Like the Tar River basin, the
Neuse River basin (including the
Trent River basin) is classified as
NSW due to large quantities of
nutrients (especially nitrogen)
contributed by fertilizers and
animal waste washed from lawns,
urban developed areas, farm
fields, and animal operations
(NCDEQ 2016c). In addition, 12
permitted point source sites
discharge wastewater into streams
and rivers in the basin. Based on
the 2011 National Land Cover
Data, the Trent River basin's has
approximately 6% developed
area, 20% agriculture, 35%
wetlands, 5% grassland, and 34%
forest. The watershed is mostly
rural, and the Croatan National
Forest covers a large portion of
the lower watershed. Development and population growth are centered around New Bern.
The Trent population consists of one MU, herafter referred to as the Trent MU. The species was
first documented in the Trent River Basin in 1979, and it has been documented as recently as
2019 in Tuckahoe Swamp (NCWRC 2019). This MU has experienced losses in occupancy
based on survey results from 2010-2019 (Figure 3-7).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 17 February 2021

3.3 Needs of the Neuse River Waterdog
As discussed in Chapter 1, for the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of
the species to sustain populations in the wild over time (in this case, 50 years). Using the SSA
framework, we describe the species' viability by characterizing the status of the species in terms
of its resiliency, redundancy, and representation (the 3Rs; Figure 3-8). Using various time frames
and the current and projected levels of the 3Rs, we thereby describe the species' level of viability
over time.
Figure 3-8 Resiliency is measured at the population level, representation is measured at the species and, possibly,
population level, and redundancy is measured at the species level (after Fig 4, USFWS 2016). MU=Management Unit;
HUC10 = Hydrologic Unit
3.3.1 Neuse River Waterdog MU Resiliency
As previously described, Neuse River Waterdog populations were delineated at the river basin
level, while MUs were defined at the finer geographic -level of HUC 10 watersheds that
encompass historically or currently documented occupied habitat. Note that MUs may be made
up of one or more HUC10 watersheds, depending on the distribution of the species (see Section
3.2). Because the river basin level was determined to be too coarse of a scale at which to
estimate the condition of factors influencing resiliency, MUs were used to evaluate assess this
metric. Given the hierarchical nature of the relationship between MUs, populations, and species
(Figure 3-6), we first consider resiliency at the level of an MU, then scale up to populations, and,
ultimately, make inferences at the species -level.
Resiliency (measured at the population level) is the foundational building block of the 3R SSA
Framework; thus, for the Neuse River Waterdog to be viable, some proportion of MUs must be
resilient enough to withstand stochastic events. Stochastic events that have the potential to affect
waterdog populations include high flow events, droughts, pollutant discharge failures, and
sediment pulses. Given the data available, the metrics that were used to assess resiliency were
categorized as population factors (MU occupancy over time and Site occupancy over time) and
habitat elements (water quality, water quantity, habitat connectivity, and instream substrate)
(Appendix A). In the next section, we discuss the methods used to estimate resiliency metrics,
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 18 February 2021

and we explore potential causal relationships between resiliency and waterdog habitat requisites
(see Figure 3-7).
HABITAT FACTORS Cover {flat rocks
and burrows) Substrate Water ualit Water Quantity &
Q y Flaw Habitat Connectivity
BREEDING,
FEEDING,
SHELTERING Suitable Habitat Reproduction Food Availability
FACTORS
DEMOGRAPHIC Adult Sury
FACTORS ival Juvenile Survival
Neuse River
Waterdog
population
maintenance and
growth
Figure 3-9 Neuse River Waterdog Ecology: Influence diagram illustrating how habitat factors influence
breeding, feeding, and sheltering factors, which in turn affect demographic factors that ultimately drive
waterdog population growth and maintenance. Diagram was developed by a group of waterdog experts and
substantiated from literature.
Population Factors that Influence Resiliency
Management Unit Occupancy - The known historical and current distribution of the species
within HUC10 watersheds was used to document MU occupancy (Figures 3-3 and 3-4). Neuse
River Waterdog presence was compiled from survey data made available by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission. Historical surveys were conducted by Braswell and Ashton
(1985, pp.15-18). Recent (2010s) surveys repeated methods from Braswell and Ashton, and
involved setting 10 minnow traps baited with chicken livers in appropriate waterdog habitat at
each site. Traps were deployed during winter months (December -February) for a maximum of
five days/four nights and checked daily. If waterdogs were present in traps, specimens were
measured, sexed, and tail clipped, returned to stream, and all traps were pulled.
Site Occupancy — A resilient site will be one that maintains Neuse River Waterdog occupancy
over time. Based on the information available for surveys done in the late 1970s-early 1980s and
repeat surveys done in the 2010s, we examined changes in site occupancy. For this analysis we
considered changes in number of occupied sites as well as changes in the overall percentage of
sites that were occupied over time. In the earlier surveys, the range of the species was not
known, therefore many sites (360+) were surveyed, and only —30% of the sites were found to be
positive for waterdog occurrence (Figure 3-1). The more recent surveys were targeted, based on
known positive locations from the 1980s effort. Detection probability was approximately 82%
(J.Humphries, NCWRC, email to S.McRae, USFWS, on March 21, 2017).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 19 February 2021

Habitat Elements that Influence Resiliency
Physical, biological, and chemical processes influence instream habitat quality and quantity,
which, in turn, influence the condition and abundance of species using that habitat. In the case of
the Neuse River Waterdog, breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs such as appropriate nest sites,
adequate food delivery, and suitable stable habitat are all needs influenced by water quality,
water quantity, and suitable in -stream (substrate) habitat and habitat connectivity (Figure 3-8).
See Chapter 4 for further discussion about the many factors that influence the condition of these
habitat elements.
Water Quality - Clean, non -polluted water is essential to the survival of the Neuse River
Waterdog. Streams that have non -altered thermal regimes, average pH, low salinity, and
negligible chemical pollution provide suitable habitat for the persistence of waterdog
populations. As required by section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, all waters that do not meet
standards for the designated use of the particular waterbody (e.g., to support/protect aquatic life)
are placed on the Impaired Streams List. Note that not all streams throughout every river basin
are monitored, therefore it is possible that there are more miles of impaired streams than actually
reported. Water quality metrics that reflect aquatic impairment include (but are not limited to):
low bioassessment scores, low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, low/high pH values, high nutrient
inputs, and high levels of fecal coliform bacteria. As with many waterdogs, the Neuse River
Waterdog is sensitive to changes in water quality parameters such as DO, pH, and pollutants (see
Chapter 2 for more information). For this assessment, the number and miles of impaired stream
reaches (as designated by the NC Division of Water Resources), as well as the number of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) point discharges were used to
characterize water quality within a given MU.
Water Quantity — Optimal habitats for Neuse River Waterdogs are perennial streams with
continuous, year-round flow. Because a lotic environment is a critical need for the Neuse River
Waterdog, perturbations that disrupt natural discharge regimes have a potential negative
influence on Neuse River Waterdog resilience metrics. Neuse River Waterdog habitat must have
adequate flow to deliver oxygen, provide optimal water temperatures, enable movement, and
deliver prey items, as well as to carry away waste materials and remove fine sediments from the
bottom substrate. Stream velocity is not static over time, and variations may be attributed to
seasonal changes (with higher
flows in winter/spring and
lower flows in summer/fall),
extreme weather events (e.g.,
drought or floods), and/or
anthropogenic influence (e.g.,
flow regulation via
impoundments).
While waterdogs have evolved
in habitats that experience
seasonal fluctuations in
discharge, global weather
Figure 3-10 Fish kill on the Neuse River (credit: T.Graves)
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 20 February 2021

patterns can have an impact on the normal regimes (e.g., El Nino or La Nina). Even during
naturally occurring low flow events, aquatic species including salamanders can become stressed
during the low flow times of year, either because they have to tolerate less than ideal conditions
where water remains, or they are unable to find refuge and ultimately die (Turner 2004, p.6;
Figure 3-10). Because low flows in late summer and early fall are stress -inducing, droughts
during this time of year may result in stress and, potentially, an increased rate of mortality.
To understand whether Neuse River Waterdog populations were subject to droughts during low
flow times of the year (late summer, early fall), we compiled a series of US Drought Monitor
graphics. These were used to assess flow conditions during the first week of September during
years 2000 to 2015 to identify times that waterdogs were exposed to consecutive droughts
(Figure 3-11).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 21 February 2021

2000 2001 2002
2003
KtifI-1
2009
2004
f► ONYA
2010
W Pr
2005
K
2011
Mai L r. ��r N� AM -+
2012
2015
obi
2013
1st week of
September
2000-2015
Vi S. Drotrght Monitor
North Carolina
2014
�
.liry Rll
NJ
60 f4narmely Dry 03 E xtrame 6mughl
D7 Muaarela Cjruuyll a�€worpawre•Drou pnt
_ D25erere Draught
MR OMLVx dl M" rOrtl9e5 on DfWQLWa7a COMMorra.
Local canduvow rw %WY. see arrarrrpanyrng tece summery
sr forecast srarerrerrls
USDA C
;amWrv-
jtttpjro"ghtm riftin.0 ml.WyJ
Figure 3-11 North Carolina Drought Monitor annual images for 1st week in September
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 22 February 2021

Substrate and Cover — For sheltering, Neuse River Waterdogs need cover under flat rocks or in
burrows. For breeding, the Neuse River Waterdog also requires cover for nest sites — this is
usually in the form of flat rocks or logs (Braswell and Ashton 1985, p.13,22,28). In addition, the
Neuse River Waterdog requires predominantly silt -free stable gravel and cobble substrates as
optimal in -stream bottom habitat, and also stable root mats in coastal plain areas. Riparian
condition strongly influences the composition and stability of substrates that aquatic species
inhabit (Allan et al., 1997, p.149). Streams with urbanized or agriculturally dominated riparian
corridors are subject to increased sediment -loading from unstable banks and/or impervious
surface run-off, resulting in less suitable in -stream habitat for waterdogs as compared to habitat
with forested corridors (Allan et al., 1997, p.156). For this assessment, we considered the
stream -side riparian condition (as delineated by the Active River Area (ARA; Smith et al. 2008,
entire) as an indicator of in -stream habitat condition. Rather than a fixed -width riparian buffer,
the spatial extent of an ARA is defined by physical and ecological processes in areas of dynamic
connection and interaction between the water and land through which it flows (Smith et al. 2008,
P. 0.
Habitat Connectivity - The fragmentation of river habitat by dams and other aquatic barriers (like
perched or undersized culverts) is one of the primary threats to aquatic species in the U.S.
(Martin et al. 2014, p.7). Dams (whether man-made or nature -made (e.g., from beavers or
windthrow)) have a profound impact on in -stream habitat as they can change lotic systems to
lentic systems. Moreover, fragmentation by dams or culverts generally involves loss of access
to quality habitat for one or more life stages of freshwater species. In the case of waterdogs,
fragmentation can result in loss of access to quality habitat for one or more life stages, such as
preventing movement among habitats, thus potentially impacting overall distributions. Barriers
to movement can cause isolated or patchy distributions of aquatic salamanders which may limit
both genetic exchange and recolonization (e.g., after a high flow, scouring event) (Cartwright
and Wolfe 2016, p.136). To assess the influence of factors affecting Neuse River Waterdog
habitat connectivity, we considered the number of dams from the US Army Corps of Engineers'
(US ACE) National Inventory of Dams (NID) as well as the number of road crossings affecting
Neuse River Waterdog habitat (see Section 4.1 below).
3.3.2 Species Representation
Identifying and evaluating representative units that contribute to a species' adaptive potential are
important components of assessing overall species' viability (Shaffer and Stein 2000, entire;
USFWS 2016b, p.23). This is because populations that are distributed throughout multiple
representative units may buffer a species' response to environmental changes over time.
Representation for the Neuse River Waterdog can be described in terms of River Basin
Variability and Physiographic Variability. Below we examine these aspects of the historical and
current distribution of the Neuse River Waterdog and identify potential causal effects for
changes in representation over time.
River Basin Variability — The Neuse River Waterdog has likely maintained ecological
representation based on continued persistence in all three river basins. Despite losses at the
HUC 10 scale (see Table 3-2), each of the three populations remain occupied.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 23 February 2021

Physiographic Neuse River Waterdog Loss in
Variability — The
Neuse River
Waterdog is found
30
in two
s
25
physiographic
provinces —the
M
zo
eastern Piedmont
c
15
and Coastal Plain;
?
10
the majority of
=
extant Neuse River
°
5
Waterdog
0
Physiographic Variability
13%
Historically Occupied
HUCs
Currently Occupied HUCs
occurrences are Z
Piedmont Coastal Plain
found in the Coastal Physiographic Region
Plain (see Figure 3-
4). Monitoring data Figure 3-12 Change in physiographic variability for Neuse River Waterdog. Percentages are
the proportion lost from historically occupied HUC10s to currently occupied HUC10s.
indicate declines in
occurrence in both
physiographic regions; a 13% decline in
occurrence was estimated in the Coastal
Plain and a 43% decline in the Piedmont
(Figure 3-12). The species has declined
considerably from its once much larger
presence in the Piedmont, and nearly
every historically occupied Piedmont
HUC 10 has experienced a decline
(Figure 3-13). Of the 16 historically
occupied Piedmont HUC 1 Os, 7 are no
longer occupied, and 9 have experienced
loss.
Summary
As evaluated through the lens of river
basin and physiographic province, the
contemporary distribution of Neuse
River Waterdog reflects a considerable
loss in historical representation.
Because representation is an indirect
measure of a species' adaptive potential,
this trend is concerning in terms of the
ability of the species to respond to a
changing environment. Later, we
discuss the implications of a potential
continued loss in representation.
0 10 20
0 125 25
2010s HU1310 Occupancy
— Occupied
- Gain in Occupancy
- Loss in Occupancy
- Likely Not Occupied
..rze cmnax:maq xam.e
40 _
r_Mlles --
■ Ki lometers
50
River Basin
Tar -Pamlico
Neuse
Trent
• Ni Historical Occurrence
NRWD C—nt Occupied Site
x i Be lnw Oelereon
QNorth Carolina
Ph"iographi6 Provinces.
COASTAL PLAIN
PIEDMONT
Fall Line
Major Hydrology
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 24 February 2021

3.3.3 Species Redundancy
Redundancy reduces the risk that a large portion of the species' range will be negatively affected
by a natural or anthropogenic catastrophic event at a given point in time. Species that have
resilient populations spread throughout their historical range are less susceptible to extinction
(Carroll et al. 2010, entire; Redford et al. 2011, entire). Thus, high redundancy for Neuse River
Waterdog is defined as multiple resilient populations (inclusive of multiple, resilient MUs)
distributed throughout the species' historical range. That is, highly resilient populations, coupled
with a relatively broad distribution, have a positive relationship to species -level redundancy.
Evidence indicates that Neuse River Waterdog populations were once much more broadly
distributed throughout their historical range (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). However, several factors,
including impoundments (e.g., Falls Reservoir, Milburnie Dam, and Buckhorn Reservoir),
unsuitable water quality (e.g., the Neuse River downstream from the City of Raleigh's
wastewater treatment plant discharge) have resulted in population fragmentation (see Chapter 4),
making repopulation of extirpated locations unlikely without human intervention.
We assessed Neuse River Waterdog redundancy by first evaluating site occupancy within each
of the hydrologic units (i.e., HUC1Os) that constitute MUs (Appendix A), and then we evaluated
occupancy at the MU and ultimately the population level. This assessment revealed a decline in
the number of sites occupied in all MUs except for one (Sandy -Swift). At the population level,
the Tar Population experienced an estimated 3 1 % decline in site occupancy, the Neuse
Population experienced an estimated 40% decline, and the Trent Population experienced an
estimated 50% decline (Figure 3-14; Appendix A).
60
d
EL so
V
v 40
30
in
20
a 10
E
z
o
Changes in Neuse River Waterdog
Site Occupancy from 1980s to 2010s
Tar Neuse Trent
Population
■ 1980s
2 010s
Figure 3-14 Changes in NRWD site occupancy from surveys in 1980s to surveys in 2010s. Percentages
indicate declines.
Of the 40 HUC10s historically occupied by Neuse River Waterdog, 29 (73%) are currently
occupied (Table 3-2). Note that current occupancy was defined as the observation of at least one
Neuse River Waterdog during surveys conducted from 2010 to 2016, and some HUCs have only
one confirmed site of occurrence (Figure 3-4). Of those 29 HUC10s that were counted as
occupied, 19 (66%) have more than one site occupied during the current sample period (Table 3-
2). At the level of MUs, seven have experienced an estimated 17-67% decline, one (Sandy -
Swift) has experienced no decline, and one (Middle Tar) increased (Table 3-2).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 25 February 2021

Table 3-2 NRWD occupancy changes over time. Historical occupancy represents detections that occurred
from 1979 to 1980, while current occupancy represents a sample period from 2010 to 2016. Note: MUs can be
made up of one or more HUC10 watersheds, depending on the distribution of the species (see Section 3.3.1).
# Current
# Historically # Currently HUC10s with
Population/ Occupied Occupied % Multiple Sites
Management Unit HUC10s HUC10s Decline Occupied
Tar 17 14 18
Upper Tar
Middle Tar
Lower Tar
Sandy -Swift
Fishing Ck Subbasin
Neuse �L
Upper Neuse
Middle Neuse
Lower Neuse
LTrpnt
Totals
3.4 Current Conditions
3
1
67 0
3
4
+33 3
4
3
25 2
2
2
0 2
5
4
20 3
20
14
30
4
2
50 1
10
7
30 4
6
5
17 3
40 29
19
The results of surveys conducted since 2010 suggest that the currently occupied range of the
Neuse River Waterdog includes nine MUs from three populations in the Tar, Neuse, and Trent
River basins in North Carolina, however all MUs have experienced declines in site occupancy.
The species has experienced declines throughout its range, but most notably in the Piedmont and
the southern portion of its range, including a large portion of the Neuse River basin and the Trent
River basin. For context, Table 3-3 shows the current species status as tracked by national and
state entities that track conservation status of species:
Table 3-3 Current species status/ranks by other entities who track conservation status of
Neuse River Waterdog
Entity Status/Rank Reference
NatureServe G2N2 (Imperiled) iNatureServe 2015
IUCN NT ear Threatened IUCN 2001
North Carolina. Special Concern/S2 (Imperiled) NCWRC 2014; NCNHP 2014
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 26 February 2021

3.4.1 Current Population Resiliency
Methodology
To summarize the overall current conditions of Neuse River Waterdog MUs, we sorted them into
five categories (high, moderate, low, very low and o) based on the population factors and habitat
elements discussed in Section 3.3.1 above (Table 3-4). MUs assessed include those areas where
the species is presumed to be extirpated to portray the difference between the historical and
current condition of the species. The current condition category is a qualitative estimate based
on the analysis of the two population factors (MU Occupancy and Site Occupancy) and four
habitat elements (Water Quality, Water Quantity/Flow, Instream Substrate, and Habitat
Connectivity). Overall population condition rankings and habitat condition rankings were
determined by combining the two population factors and four habitat elements, respectively.
For example, for the Middle Tar MU, given the categorical scale of: High — Moderate — Low
— Very Low — o (see Table 3-4), the overall Current Population Condition is estimated to be
Moderate; the High MU Occupancy condition combined with the Moderate Site Occupancy
condition together is Moderate; the Site Occupancy has greater weight because of the finer
resolution at the site scale (Figure 3-14; Appendix A).
Population/ Current Condition -
Management Unit MU Occupancy Site Occupancy Population Factors
Tar/Middle Tar H + M
I
M E1� Moderate
Figure 3-14 Current Population Condition calculation is determined by combining the two population factors
(MU Occupancy Condition, Site Occupancy Condition).
Note: If MU Occupancy is estimated to be o, this extirpated condition supersedes all other
category rankings and is assigned as the Population Condition.
For the Habitat Elements, the scale included the following categories: High — Moderate — Low
— Very Low. For example, for the Upper Tar MU, the overall Current Habitat Condition was
determined by first combining the High Instream Habitat Condition with the Low Water Quantity
Condition to get Moderate; when this Moderate was then combined with the Moderate
Connectivity Condition and Moderate Instream Habitat Condition, the three Moderate ranks
combine to get an overall Current Habitat Condition of Moderate (Figure 3-15):
Overall Instream Overall
Population/ Habitat (Substrate) Overall Water Connectivity Overall Water Current Habitat
Management Unit Condition Quantity Condition Condition Quality Condition Condition
Tar/Upper Tar H + L M M
4
M + M + M
M Moderate
Figure 3-15 Current Habitat Condition calculation is determined by combining the four habitat elements
(Water Quality Condition, Water Quantity Condition, Connectivity Condition, and Instream Habitat
Condition)
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 27 February 2021

Because population factors are direct indicators of Neuse River Waterdog condition (Table 3-5),
we weighed population factors (direct measures greater than habitat elements (indirect measures)
when estimating the summary Current Condition. Table 3-6 displays the presumed ranges of
probabilities of persistence of a population with a given current condition category over 30-45
years (about 3 generations of the Neuse River Waterdog). These ranges were not calculated;
instead they serve to communicate what the experts mean when describing the current condition
of a population. Because the "high" condition category does not represent a reference condition
(i.e., a condition that implies the absence of significant human disturbance or alteration), the
probability of persistence for "high" condition was determined to be 40-70% (Table 3-6).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 28 February 2021

Table 3-4 Population and habitat characteristics used to create condition categories in Table 3-5.
Population Factors
Habitat Elements
Condition
Instream Habitat
Category
MU Occupancy Site Occupancy
Water Quality
Water Quantity
Connectivity
(Substrate)
Optimal flowing water
conditions to remove fine
Very little (if any)
Very few (if any) known
Predominantly natural
<10% decline or a
sediments, allow for food
known habitat
<10%decline in site
positive increase in
impairment or contaminant
delivery, and maximize
fragmentation issues
(>70%forested)ARA;
High
occupied HUC10s occupancy over
problems (<5 miles impaired
reproduction; no known flow
(<10 dams per MU; avg
<6% impervious
time
streams; no major discharges,
surfaces in HUC10
overtime
<10 non -major discharges)
issues; isolated low
#of Road Crossings
watershed
flow/drought periods; not
<300 per MU)
flashy flow regime
Water flow not sufficent to
Impairment or contaminants
consistently remove fine
Some habitat
known to be an issue, but not
sediments, drying conditions
fragmentation issues
20-70%forested ARA;
11-30% decline in 11-30% decline in
at a level to put population at
which could impact both food
Moderat(
occupied HUC10s site occupancy over
risk of being eliminated (5-50
delivery and successful
(10-30 dams per MU;
6-15%impervious
Avg#of Road
surfaces in HUC10
overtime time
miles impaired streams; 1-3
reproduction; moderate flow
Crossings 300-500 per
watershed
major discharges; 10-25non-
issues, including 3 to 4 years
MU)
major discharges)
of consecutive drought or
moderately flashy flows
Impairment or contaminants
at levels high enough to put
Water not flowing - either
31-70% decline in
31-70%decline in
the population at risk of being
inundated or dry; severe flow
LOW
occupied HUC10s
site occupancy over
eliminated (>50 miles
issues; more than 4
overtime
time
impaired streams; >4 major
consecutive years of drought;
discharges; 25+ non -major
flashy flow regime
discharges)
>70%decline in
>70%decline in site
Impairment or contaminant at
Very LOW
occupied HUC10s
occupancy over
levels that cannot support
Flow conditions not
rvival
support species survival
overtime
time
species survival
0
Total Loss
Total Loss
N/A
N/A
Habitat severely <20% forested ARA;
fragmented (30+ dams >15%impervious
in MU; 500+Avg Road surfaces in HUC10
Crossings per MU) watershed
Habitat extremely
fragmented and
unable to support
species survival
N/A
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 29 February 2021
Instream habitat
unable to support
species survival
N/A

Table 3-5 Resiliency of the Neuse River Waterdog populations. See Table 3-4 for condition categories. Data for categorization
are found in Appendix A.
Population Factors
Habitat Elements
Combined
Instream
Combined
Population/
MU
Site
Population
Water
Water
Habitat
Habitat
Management Unit
Occupancy
Occupancy
Factors
Quality
Quantity
Connectivity
(Substrate)
Elements
Overall
Tar
ivioaerate
Upper Tar
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Low
Very Low
Middle Tar
High
Moderate
Lower Tar
High
High
Low
High
Sandy -Swift
High
High
High
High
Low
moaerate
ivioaerate
High
Fishing Ck Subbasin
Low
Low
Low
Neuse
Low
Upper Neuse
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Middle Neuse
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Lower Neuse
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Trent
Very Low
Trent
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
High
High
Low
Very Low
Table 3-6 Presumed probability of persistence for current condition categories.
Likelihood of Persistence: High ivio, Low Very Low 0
Range of Presumed Probability
of Persistence over 30-45 years 50-70% 30-50% 10-30% <10% 0%
("3 generations*)
* Generation time for NRWD is -10-15 years
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 30 February 2021

Combined habitat elements, representing overall habitat condition, were moderate in seven MUs,
and low in two MUs (Table 3-5). Combined population factors were estimated to be high for
two MUs, moderate for two MUs, low for three MUs, and very low for two MUs (Table 3-5).
Figure 3-16 shows the MU resiliency mapped on the landscape.
At the population level, the overall current condition (= resiliency) was estimated to be moderate
for the Tar Population, low for the Neuse population, and very low for the Trent population
(Table 3-5, Figure 3-16).
3.4.2 Current Species Representation
We estimated that the Neuse River Waterdog currently has moderate adaptive potential,
primarily due to ecological representation in three river basins and two physiographic regions
(Figure 3-16). The species retains nearly all of its known River Basin variability, however, the
variability is reduced compared to historical distribution for all three populations. In addition,
compared to historical occupancy, the species currently retains moderate Physiographic
Variability in the Coastal Plain (87%) and in the Piedmont (67%), however the Piedmont has
experienced significant declines in occupancy, with nearly half of the MUs losing species
occurrence.
3.4.3 Current Species Redundancy
The range of the Neuse River Waterdog has always been very narrow — limited to the Tar and
Neuse River drainages (with the Trent River considered functionally a separate drainage).
Within the identified representation areas (i.e. river basins), the species retains redundancy in
terms of occupied HUC 1 Os within the Tar River population (82%) and the Neuse River
population (70%), however 67% of redundancy has been lost in the Trent River population
(Figure, 3-16, Table 3-2). Overall, the species has lost 27% (11 out of 40 historically occupied
HUC 1 Os) of its redundancy across its narrow, endemic range.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 31 February 2021

Map Date: 05/30/2017 HeNRWaterdog Maps—d
Data Source: USFWS
Note: This map does not show 2018/2019 survey records for NRWD found in Middle Creek (Johnston County), Tuckahoe Swamp (Jones
County), Tar River (Granville County), or Fishing Creek (Nash County)
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 32 February 2021

CHAPTER 4 - FACTORS INFLUENCING VIABILITY
In this chapter, we evaluate the past, current, and future factors that are affecting what the Neuse
River Waterdog needs for long term viability. Aquatic systems face a multitude of natural and
anthropogenic threats and stressors (Neves et al. 1997, p.44). The North Carolina State Wildlife
Action Plan has identified several factors that have impacts on Neuse River Waterdog habitats
(Table 4-1). Generally, the factors can be categorized as either environmental stressors (e.g.,
development, agriculture practices, or forest conversion and management), systematic changes
(e.g., climate change, invasive species, barriers, regulatory frameworks), or conservation
management practices (Figure 4-1).
ENVIRONMENTAL Develepmeat CllmatC Change
STRESSORS AND Regulatory
SYSTEMATIC Mechanisms
CHANGES Agri -ices l Forestry
Practises Management
Energy Production
Conservation
Pollution
Natural System
Management
Modifications
Cover (flat rocks
HABITAT FACTORS
and burrows) Substrate
Water Quality
Water Quantity S Habitat Connectivit
Ft.. y
invasive Species
Resiliency of
Populations: Ability
of Population to
BREEDING,
FEEDING,
SHELTERING
suitable Habitat
Reproduction Food Availability
Overcome Periodic
Perturbations
FACTORS
Redundancy:
Number of Resilient
Populations in Each
DEMOGRAPHIC
Adult survival
Juvenile Survival
River System
FACTORS
Representation
(Genetic/Ecological
Neuse River
Diversity
Waterdog
Represented within
population
xisting
maintenance and
populations)
growth
Figure 4-1 Influence diagram illustrating how environmental stressors and systematic changes influence habitat factors
which in turn influence breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs of the species; in turn, these affect demographic factors
which ultimately influence waterdog population growth and maintenance.
Current and potential future effects, along with current expected distribution, determine present
viability and, therefore, vulnerability to extinction. Detailed information is provided for those
factors that experts deemed important (Figure 4-1), including those factors that ranked as "high"
as Wildlife Action Plan Conservation Concerns for the Neuse River Waterdog (Table 4-1), with
the addition of information about regulatory frameworks. Those factors that are not known to
have effects on Neuse River Waterdog populations, such as overutilization for commercial and
scientific purposes and disease, are not discussed in this SSA report.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 33 February 2021

Table 4-1 Threats to Neuse River Waterdog from the North Carolina State Wildlife Action
Plan (SWAP), including Conservation Concern Score and Scope and Severity
categorizations for each threat (NCWRC 2015, Chapter 5).
SWAP Metric:
Conservation
Concern Score Scope* Severity**
Development LOW WRESTRICTED
SLIGHT
Agriculture & Forestry LOW
RESTRICTED
MODERATE
Energy & Mining HIGH
LARGE
SERIOUS
Transportation LOW
SMALL
SLIGHT
Biological Resource Use LOW
SMALL
SLIGHT
Human Intrusions & Disturbance LOW
SMALL
SLIGHT
Natural System Modifications LOW
RESTRICTED
MODERATE
Invasives HIGH
LARGE
SERIOUS
Pollution HIGH
LARGE
SERIOUS
Climate Change LOW 16,
SMALL
SLIGHT
Disease & Pathogens LOW ESMALL
SLIGHT
*SCOPE
(a) Pervasive Affects all or most (71-100%) of the total population or occurrences
(b) Large Affects much (31-70%) of the total population or occurrences
(c) Restricted Affects some (11-30%) of the total population or occurrences
(d) Small Affects a small (1-10%) proportion of the total population or occurrences
(e) Unknown There is insufficient information to determine the scope of threats
(f) None
**SEVERITY
(a) Extreme Likely to destroy or eliminate occurrences, or reducethe population 71-100%
(b) Serious Likely to seriously degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat or reduce the population 31-70%
(c) Moderate Likely to moderately degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat or reduce the population 11-
30%
(d) Slight Likely to only slightly degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce the population 1-
10%
(e)Unknown There is insufficient information to determine the severity of threats
(f) None
4.1 Development & Pollution
We use the term "development" to refer to urbanization of the landscape, including (but not
necessarily limited to) land conversion for urban and commercial development, infrastructure
(roads, bridges, utilities) development, and urban water uses (water supply reservoirs,
wastewater treatment, etc.). The effects of urbanization include alterations to water quality,
water quantity, and habitat (both in -stream and stream -side) (Ren et al. 2003, p.649; Wilson
2015, p.424).
"Impervious surface" refers to all hard surfaces like paved roads, parking lots, roofs, and even
highly compacted soils like sports fields. Impervious surfaces prevent the natural soaking of
rainwater into the ground and slow seepage into streams (Brabec et al. 2002, p.499; NHEP 2007,
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 34 February 2021

p.2). Instead, the rain water accumulates and flows rapidly into storm drains which drain as
runoff to local streams (Figure 4-2).
This results in degradation of stream habitats in three important
1. Water Quantity: Storm drains deliver large volumes
of water to streams much faster than would occur
naturally, resulting in flooding and bank erosion.
Species living in the streams become stressed,
displaced, or killed by the fast moving water and the
debris and sediment carried in it.
2. Water Quality: Pollutants (gasoline or oil drips,
fertilizers, etc) accumulate on impervious surfaces
and are washed directly into the streams during storm
events.
3. Water Temperature: During warm weather, rain that
falls on impervious surfaces becomes superheated
and can stress or kill freshwater species when it enters
streams.
Concentrations of contaminants, including nitrogen,
phosphorus, chloride, insecticides, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, and personal care products, increase with
urban development (Giddings et al. 2009, p.2; Bringolf et al.
2010, p.1311). Water infrastructure development, including
water supply, reclamation, and wastewater treatment, results
in several pollution point discharges to streams.
Urbanization increases the amount of impervious surfaces
(CWP 2003, p.1). The resulting stormwater runoff affects
water quality parameters such as temperature, pH, dissolved
oxygen, salinity, and turbidity which in turn alters the water streams (Credit: NCDENR)
chemistry potentially making it inhospitable for aquatic biota (Figure 4-3.).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 35 February 2021

Good
R Fair
d
R
61
Poor
10% 25% 40% 60% 100%
Watershed Impervious Cover
Figure 4-3. Stream Quality is adversely impacted by increased impervious surfaces (from
CWP 2003, p.2)
Waterdogs prefer clean water with permanent flow and are not tolerant of siltation and turbidity
(Ashton 1985, entire). Benthic critters such as the waterdog have disproportionate rates of
imperilment and extirpation because stream bottoms are often the first habitats affected by
pollution (Midway et al. 2010, p.325). Furthermore, the Neuse River Waterdog could be
considered an "intolerant" species, meaning the species is most affected by environmental
perturbations (Ashton 1985, p.104-105).
Urban development can lead to increased variability in streamflow, typically increasing the
amount of water entering a stream after a storm and decreasing the time it takes for the water to
travel over the land before entering the stream (Giddings et al. 2009, p.1). In urban areas,
flooding is often reduced by draining water quickly from roads and parking lots which results in
increased amounts of water reaching a stream within a short period of time, leading to stream
flashiness and altered stream channels (Giddings et al. 2009, p.1). The rapid runoff also reduces
the amount of infiltration into the soil to recharge aquifers, resulting in lower sustained
streamflows, especially during summer (Giddings et al. 2009, p.1). Ultimately, when the
hydrology of the stream is altered and water quantities vary widely, the physical habitat of a
stream often becomes degraded from channel erosion or lower summer flows that ultimately
reduces feeding, spawning, and living spaces of the Neuse River Waterdog and other aquatic
biota living in the streams (Giddings et al. 2009, p.1).
Urban development can alter stream habitat either directly via channelization or clearing of
riparian areas, or indirectly via high streamflows that reshape the channel and cause sediment
erosion (Giddings et al. 2009, p.2).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 36 February 2021

Figure 4-4 Sedimentation from unstable banks, cleared riparian area (credit: Ann
Hamblin)
Figure 4-5 Sedimentation from construction flows (credit: Nancy Pierce)
A major component of urbanization is the resultant road development. By its nature, road
development increases impervious surfaces as well as land clearing and habitat fragmentation.
Roads are generally associated with negative effects on the biotic integrity of aquatic
ecosystems, including changes in surface water temperatures and patterns of runoff,
sedimentation, adding heavy metals (especially lead), salts, organics, ozone, and nutrients to
stream systems (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p.18). These changes affect stream -dwelling
organisms such as the Neuse River Waterdog by displacing them from once preferred, but now
polluted habitats, as well as increasing exposure and assimilation of pollutants that can result in
growth defects, decreased immune response, and even death. In addition, a major impact of road
development is improperly constructed culverts at stream crossings. These culverts act as
barriers, either as flow through the culvert varies significantly from the rest of the stream, or if
the culvert ends up being perched, and aquatic organisms such as Neuse River Waterdogs cannot
pass through them.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 37 February 2021

Figure 4-6 Perched culvert (credit: Raleigh News and Observer)
Utility crossings and rights -of -way (ROW) maintenance are additional aspects of development
that impact stream habitats. For example, the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline planned to
deliver natural gas from supply areas in West Virginia to markets in Virginia and North Carolina,
will include the construction, operation, and maintenance of approximately 595 miles of
transmission pipeline, crossing hundreds of streams in WV, VA, and NC, including four
significant Neuse River Waterdog habitats in the Tar and Neuse River basins. Direct impacts
from utility crossings include direct exposure or crushing of individuals, sedimentation, and flow
disturbance; the most significant cumulative impact involves the cleared ROW that allows for
direct runoff and increased temperature at the crossing location, and potentially allows access of
all -terrain vehicles from the ROW (which destroy instream habitat).
4.2 Agricultural Practices
Nutrient and Chemical Pollution
Farming operations can contribute to nutrient pollution when not properly managed (USEPA
2016, entire). Fertilizers and animal manure, which are both rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, are
the primary sources of nutrient pollution from agricultural sources. If fertilizers are not applied
in the proper amount, at the right time of the year and with the right application method, water
quality in the stream systems can be affected. Excess nutrients impact water quality when it
rains or when water and soil containing nitrogen and phosphorus wash into nearby waters or
leach into the water table/ground waters. Fertilized soils and livestock can be significant sources
of nitrogen -based compounds like ammonia and nitrogen oxides. Ammonia can be harmful to
aquatic life if large amounts are deposited to surface waters. Agricultural pesticide use can also
have detrimental effects, and studies have shown the species to have low to moderate levels of
pesticide contamination from a variety of sources, including insect control (Aktar et al. 2009,
p.5).
The lack of stable stream bank slopes from agricultural clearing and/or the lack of stable cover
crops between rotations on farmed lands can increase the amount of nutrients that make their
way into the nearby streams by way of increased soil erosion (cover crops and other vegetation
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 38 February 2021

will use excess nutrients and increase soil stability). Livestock often use streams or created in -
line ponds as a water source; this degrades water quality and stream bank stability and reduces
water quantity available for downstream needs.
Pumping for Irrigation
Irrigation is the controlled application of water for agricultural purposes through manmade
systems to supply water requirements not satisfied by rainfall. It is common practice to pump
water for irrigation from adjacent streams or rivers into a reservoir pond, or sprayed directly onto
crops. If the water withdrawal is excessive (usually over 10,000 gal/day) or done illegally
(without permit if needed, or during dry time of year, or in areas where sensitive aquatic species
occur without consultation), this may cause impacts to the amount of water available to
downstream sensitive areas during low flow months, thus potentially resulting in dewatering of
channels and displacement of aquatic salamanders.
Agriculture Exemptions from Permit Requirements
Normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities are exempt from the 404 permitting
process. This includes activities such as construction and maintenance of farm ponds, irrigation
ditches, and farm roads. If the activity might impact rare aquatic species, the US ACE does
require farmers to ensure that any "discharge shall not take, or jeopardize the continued existence
of, a threatened or endangered species, or adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat of such
species", and to ensure that "adverse impacts to the aquatic environment are minimized",
however the USACE does not require the farmer to consult with appropriate State or Federal
Agencies regarding these sensitive species.
While there is an expectation for farmers to follow best management practices (BMPs), there are
often cases where 13MPs are not followed and go un-noticed as many farming activities are in
rural locations and regulators are spread thin (E.Wells (USFWS) email to S.McRae (USFWS) on
5/13/2016).
Confined Animal Feeding Operations
Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and feedlots can cause degradation
of aquatic ecosystems, primarily because of manure management issues
(Burkholder et al. 2007, p.308). CAFOs hold tens of thousands of animals and
produce a large amount of waste which enters the environment either by being
discharged directly into streams or constructed ditches, stored in open
lagoons, or applied to fields in wet or dry form (as referenced by Buckner et
al. 2002, Ma I I i n and Cahoon 2003, and Orlando 2004 in CBD 2010, p. 18) . CAFO
wastes contain nutrients, pharmaceuticals, and hormones, and cause
eutrophication of waterways, toxic blooms of algae and dinoflagellates, and
endocrine disruption in downstream wildlife (Mallin and Cahoon 2003, p.369;
Orlando et al. 2004, p. 353 ; Burkholder et al. 2007, pp. 308-309 ; Harden 2015,
p. 2) .
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 39 February 2021

lift Sal
Salem
• H
#/• P
le • / • r
•
�� •ylisbu� •
svAle • •
DW R Animal Operation Permits
B Swine gate COC
• Swine NPDES COC
• Caale Stare COC
• Caine NPDES COC
• Wet %.hry Stele COC
• Wet Pauhry NPDES COC
• Animal Indivldual 11,
o Animal Individual NPDES
• Orher
Figure 4-7 CAFO locations in eastern North Carolina from the NC Division of
Water Resources website (accessed: 11/22/2016)
Table 4-2 Annual CAFO wet and dry waste production in Tar and Neuse watersheds (CBD 2017)
# of waste
gallons/year
# of poultry
tons/year of
Watershed
lagoons
of wet waste
barns
dry waste
Upper Tar
75
10,354,302
270
39,657
Lowe r Ta r
63
2161533, 254
89
7,698
Upper Neuse
276
504,942,335
424
67,410
Middle Neuse
245
585,350,859
347
39,048
The number of CAFOs in the southeast has increased drastically since 1990 as
livestock production has undergone extensive industrialization (Mallin and
Cahoon 2003, p.371). North Carolina is now the nation' s second largest pork
producer (as referenced in CBD 2010, p. 18; Harden 2015, p. 4) . As shown in
Figure 4-7, poultry CAFOs are also abundant in North Carolina, and there are
many swine CAFOs in the North Carolina Coastal Plain, including streams where
Neuse River Waterdogs are known to occur. More than 1 million gallons of wet
waste and more than 150,000 tons of dry waste are created each year (Table 4-
2) in watersheds where Neuse River Waterdog is known to occur.
4.3 Forest Management
A forested landscape provides many ideal conditions for aquatic ecosystems. Depending on the
structure and function of the forest, and particularly if native, natural mixed hardwood forests
comprise the active river area (ARA), rain is allowed to slowly infiltrate and percolate (as
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 40 February 2021

opposed to rapid surface runoff), a variety of food resources enter the stream via leaf litter and
woody debris, banks are stabilized by tree roots, habitat is created by occasional windthrow, and
riparian trees shade the
stream and maintain an
ideal thermal climate.
Forested ARAs, or
riparian areas, perform
many functions that are
Riparian Buffer Function
Range of
reported
effective widths
(meters)
Average of
reported
effective
widths (meters)
Number of
studies
included in
analysis
Sediment retention
7-300
44
33
Table 4-3 Range of buffer widths for specific riparian functional
values (from USFWS 2006, p.22)
rues ❑urus q--Iu iv tc
Bacteriological retention
9-58
31
6
Miscellaneous pollutant removal
461
27
8
Sustain aquatic biota
Detritus input/structural complexity
Temperature moderation
23-]00
35
13
7-80
37
18
8-173
34
17
essential to maintaining
water quality, aquatic
species survival, and
biological productivity
(NCWRC 2002, p.6), and are thus a critical component to characterizing overall instream habitat
(see Section 3.3.1). Specifically, forested riparian areas serve a role as (USFWS 2006, p.6):
• mechanical barriers to runoff, increasing surface roughness to reduce flow velocity and
promoting mechanical trapping of suspended solids;
• sediment traps and bank stabilizers, where the tree root structures retain erodible soils and
stabilize streambanks;
• cover refugia and nest sites, where woody debris from adjacent forested areas provides
structural complexity of instream habitats;
• temperature regulation, as trees in the riparian area provide shading for temperature
regulation/microclimate maintenance; and
• food resources, as adequate food input (detritus, allochthonous material) comes from the
surrounding riparian zone (Stewart et al. 2000, p.210).
Wide, contiguous forested riparian buffers have greater and more flexible potential than other
options to maintain biological integrity (Table 4-3; May et al. 1999, p.485) and could ameliorate
many ecological issues related to land use and environmental quality (Naiman et al. 1993,
p.209).
Silvicultural activities when performed according to strict Forest Practices Guidelines (FPGs) or
Best Management Practices (BMPs) can retain adequate conditions for aquatic ecosystems
(NCFS 2016, p.1), however, when FPGsBMPs are not followed, these activities can also "cause
measurable impacts" (NCASI 2015, p.1) and contribute to the myriad of stressors facing aquatic
systems in the Southeast, including North Carolina. Both small and large scale forestry activities
have been shown to have a significant impact upon the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of adjacent small streams (Allan 1995, p.107). Today, forests are harvested and
converted for many reasons including, but not limited to: financial gain to the property owner by
timber harvest, residential and commercial development, conversion for various agricultural
practices, for the manufacturing of wood and paper products, and for fuel for electricity
generation (Alig et al. 2010, pp.2-3; Maestas 2013, p.l; National Geographic 2016, entire). In
many cases, natural mixed hardwood -conifer forests are clear-cut, then either left to naturally
regenerate or replanted in rows of monoculture species such as pine, used for the growing need
for timber building supplies and pulp products (Figure 4-8; Allen et al. 1996, p.4; Wear and
Greis 2012, p.13; NCFA 2017, entire).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 41 February 2021

90
80
70
a 60
Z
w 50
c
0 40
30
20
10
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
tPlanted pine tNatural pine —soak--pine—�*—Upland hardwood-iFLowland hardwood
Figure 4-8 Historical trends in forest area by broad management type, showing an increase
in planted pine over the past half -century (from Wear and Greis 2012, p.13)
These monoculture stands can impact overall water cycle dynamics (e.g., increased
evapotranspiration and overall reduced stream flows) (Swank and Miner, 1968, entire; Swank
and Douglass 1974, entire; Riggs et al. 2000, pp.118-119; Sun et al. 2011, p.253), as well as
result in a reduction of biodiversity in the canopy, mid and understory vegetation as well as the
fauna that uses this now monoculture area. Furthermore, the aquatic habitats of streams in these
monoculture forested areas lose heterogeneity in food resources due to reduced variety in
allochthonous (i.e., energy inputs derived from outside the stream system, or leaf matter that falls
into stream) inputs, and this effect is mirrored among invertebrate and fish populations, including
filter -feeding mussels and benthic insectivorous fish and amphibians (Webster et al. 1992, p.235;
Allan 1995, p.129; Jones et al. 1999, p.1454).
The clearing of large areas of forested wetlands and riparian systems eliminates shade once
provided by the canopies, exposing streams to more sunlight and increasing the in -stream water
temperature (Wenger 1999, p.35). The increase in stream temperature and light after
deforestation has been found to alter the macroinvertebrate and other aquatic species richness
and abundance composition in streams to various degrees depending on each species tolerance to
temperature change and increased light in the aquatic system (Kishi et al. 2004, p.283; Couceiro
et al. 2007, p.272; Caldwell et al. 2014, p.3).
Sediment runoff from cleared forested areas is a known stressor to aquatic systems (Webster et
al. 1992, p.232; Jones et al. 1999, p.1455; Broadmeadow and Nisbet 2004, p.286; Aust et al.
2011, p.123). The physical characteristics of stream channels are affected when large quantities
of sediment are added or removed (Watters 2000, p.263). Aquatic species are potentially
impacted by changes in suspended and bed material load, bed sediment composition associated
with increased sediment production and runoff in the watershed, channel changes in form,
position, and degree of stability; actively filling or scouring channels; and changes in channel
position that may leave aquatic species exposed (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p.100; USFWS
2003, p.53). Interstitial spaces in mixed substrates may become clogged with sediment
subsequently reducing habitat for the life history needs of aquatic species.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 42 February 2021

Stream crossings and inadequately buffered clearcut areas can be important sources of sediment
entering streams (Taylor et al. 1999, p.13). Many forestry activities are not required to obtain a
CWA 404 permit, as silviculture activities (such as harvesting for the production of fiber and
forest products) are exempted (NCFS 2016, p.1; USACE 2016, entire: USEPA 2017, p.1).
Because forestry activities often include the construction of logging roads through the riparian
zone, this can directly degrade nearby stream environments (Aust et al. 2011, p.123). Logging
roads constructed in wetlands adjacent to headwater drains and streams fall into this exemption
category, but may impact the aquatic system for years as these roads do not always have to be
removed immediately. Roads remain as long as the silviculture operation is ongoing, thus
wetlands/streams/ditches draining into the more sensitive areas may be heavily impacted by
adjacent fill and runoff if BMP's fail or are not maintained, causing sedimentation to travel
downstream into more sensitive in -stream habitats. Requirements maintain that flows are not to
be restricted by logging roads, but culverts are only required per BMP's and are not always
adequately sized or spaced. Furthermore, stream crossings tend to have among the lowest
implementation (Table 4-3), and this is particularly true in North Carolina (NCFS 2011, p.v;
NCASI 2015, p.4).
Forestry practices that do not follow BMPs can impact natural flow regime, resulting in altered
habitat connectivity. Logging staging areas, logging ruts, and not re -planting are all associated
impacts that are a threat to downstream aquatic species. BMP's require foresters to ensure that
"the discharge shall not take, or jeopardize the continued existence of, a threatened or
endangered species, or adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat of such species," and to
ensure that "adverse impacts to the aquatic environment are minimized," however, foresters are
not required to consult with appropriate state or federal agencies regarding these sensitive
species and ways to best reduce potential impacts prior to moving forward with management.
Around the turn of the 21" century, biologists, foresters, and managers alike recognized the need
for wholesale implementation of BMPs to address many of the aforementioned issues related to
forest conversion and silvicultural practices. Now, forestry BMP manuals suggest planning road
systems and harvest operations to minimize the number of crossings. Proper construction and
maintenance of crossings reduces soil erosion and sedimentation with the added benefit of
increasing harvest operation efficiency (NCASI 2015, p.2). The non -point source programs for
forestry in North Carolina is described as "quasi -regulatory" because it has defined the legal
implications of non-compliance in a specific way (NCASI 2015, p. 1). FPGs (specific to North
Carolina) are codified performance standards that govern forestry -related land -disturbing
activities and BMPs are recommended actions/measures to minimize and control nonpoint
pollution runoff from forestry operations. The NC Forest Service has noted that "improving
BMP implementation of stream crossing BMPs will have the most positive influence on reducing
the risk to water quality on active harvest sites, followed by BMPs for rehabilitation, debris
entering streams, skid trails, and SMZs [streamside management zones]" (NCFS 2011, p.vi). In
the South, the region -wide average for overall BMP implementation in 2011 was 92% (Table 4-
4; NCASI 2015, pp.3-4).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 43 February 2021

Table 4-4. Forestry Best Management Practices Implementation Rates from the
Most Recent Surveys for States in the Southeastern US (Sources: SGSF 2012; NASF
2015 (excerpted from NCASI 2015, p.4)
Range of Implementation Rates Average
in SE States Implementation Rate
BMP Category SGSF (2012)1 NASF (2015)2 (from SGSF 2012)
Overall BMP Implementation 85% to 99% 85% to 99% 92%
Harvesting 85% to 99% 88% to 99% 95%
Forest Roads
78% to 99%
84% to 99%
90%
Stream Crossings
72% to 98%
72% to 98%
89%
SMZs
85% to 99%
86% to 98%
93%
Site Preparation
74% to 99%
74% to 99%
92%
Firebreaks
33% to 100%
64% to 100%
82%
Chemical Application
94% to 100%
93% to 100%
98.5%
'SGSF (2012) includes implementation rates for Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
2NASF (2015) includes implementation rates for Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and
Virginia.
Overall BMP implementation rates for the Neuse River Basin since 2000 are 90-95%, and for the
Tar River Basin since 2000 are 90-91 % (NCFS 2016, pp.6-7). FPG compliance rates for both
the Neuse and Tar River basins are 97% for Harvest Operations and 99% for other forest
management (NCFS 2016, pp.6-7). While FPGs and BMPs are widely adhered to (Table 4-4),
there are instances of non-compliance (19 times in the Neuse and 32 times in the Tar in the past
10 years (NCFS 2016, pp.6-7)) as well as some practices that may not rise to a level of threat
minimization that is adequate for the sensitive species (e.g., freshwater mussels, fish,
amphibians) in the area. As an example, while NC's FPG .0201 indicates that "a SMZ shall be
established and maintained along the margins of intermittent and perennial streams... [and] shall
be of sufficient width to confine... visible sediment resulting from accelerated erosion", there is
no information on the required width. Even if mandated 50 or 100 foot buffer zones (e.g., in the
Neuse and Tar River basins) were enforced (see "Regulatory Reform" section above), data
indicate that minimum native, forested buffer widths of 200-feet on perennial streams and 100-
feet on intermittent streams, or the full extent of the 100-year floodplain, should be maintained in
watersheds supporting federally endangered and threatened aquatic species (NCWRC 2002,
pp.10-11; Broadmeadow and Nisbet 2004, p.286; NCNHP 2004, p. 4; USFWS 2006, p.17).
4.4 Invasive Species
The South Atlantic seaboard has many native species that are declining and nonnative nuisance
species are one of the major causes. It is estimated that 42% of Federally Threatened or
Endangered species are significantly impacted by nonnative nuisance species across the nation
and nuisance species are significantly impeding recovery efforts for them in some way
(NCANSMP 2015, pp.8-9). There are many areas across North Carolina where aquatic invasive
species have invaded aquatic communities; are competing with native species for food, light, or
breeding and nesting areas; and are impacting biodiversity.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 44 February 2021

When an invasive species is introduced it may have many advantages over native species, such
as easy adaptation to varying environments and a high tolerance of living conditions that allows
it to thrive in its nonnative range. There may not be natural predators to keep the invasive species
in check; therefore, it can potentially live longer and reproduce more often, further reducing the
biodiversity in the system. The native species may become an easy food source for invasive
species, or the invasive species may carry diseases that wipe out populations of native species.
The flathead catfish is an invasive species that may have an impact on Neuse River Waterdog
distribution. The Flathead Catfish is an apex predator, known to influence native fish
populations, including predation on benthic fishes (NC ANSMPC 2015, p.75), and it occurs in
both the Neuse and Tar River basins. It is not known whether or not these fish prey on
waterdogs, but it is speculated that Neuse River Waterdog inactivity during warmer months is in
part due to the avoidance of large, predatory fishes (Braswell 2005, p.870).
Excessive aquatic plant growth, particularly from Hydrilla, can cause many types of impacts to
aquatic systems and have become an issue in the Neuse River Basin. The dense mats of hydrilla
in the upper Neuse River Basin likely impact waterdog movement and foraging during the
summer months. It has also been noted that privet, a terrestrial invasive plant species, can create
dense stands that may be problematic to the stream food webs, ultimately affecting waterdog
resource needs (J.Hall, NCWRC, email to S.McRae, USFWS, March 20, 2017).
Red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) is an invasive crayfish species native to the southern
Mississippi River drainage in the Gulf Coastal Plain and Florida panhandle to Mexico.
Establishment of non-native populations in eastern North Carolina are likely from release from
aquaculture or from the aquarium trade (Nagy et al. 2020, unpaginated). Red swamp crayfish are
physical ecosystem engineers, constructing extensive burrows that can collapse stream banks and
cause erosion. They are prolific opportunistic omnivores, and they not only outcompete native
crayfish, but also other native animals including amphibians like Neuse River waterdog, by
reducing their densities in their habitat. Recent surveys have found that when red swamp
crayfish are present, Neuse River waterdogs are not (Braswell, Hall, and Humphries 2020, pers.
comm.).
4.5 Dams and Barriers (Natural System Modifications)
Extinction/extirpation of North American freshwater biota can be traced to impoundment and
inundation of riffle habitats in all major river basins of the central and eastern United States
(NCWRC 2015, p.109). Humans have constructed dams for a variety of reasons: flood
prevention, water storage, electricity generation, irrigation, recreation, and navigation (Eissa and
Zaki 2011, p.253). Manmade dams and natural dams (either created by beavers or by
aggregations of woody debris) have a many impacts on stream ecosystems. Reductions in the
diversity and abundance of aquatic species are primarily attributed to habitat shifts causes by
impoundment (Neves et al. 1997, p.63):
• Upstream of dams — the change from flowing to impounded waters, increased depths,
increased buildup of sediments, decreased dissolved oxygen (DO), and the drastic
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 45 February 2021

alteration in resident
amphibian populations
inevitably can threaten the
survival and reproductive
success of many aquatic
species, including
waterdogs.
• Downstream of dams —
fluctuations in flow regimes,
minimal releases and
scouring flows, seasonal
dissolved oxygen depletion,
reduced water temperatures,
and changes in aquatic
species assemblages can
also threaten the survival
and reproduction of many
aquatic species.
Neuse River Waterdogs have
specific preferences for size, depth,
flow, and temperature of the
streams they inhabit (Table 2-1),
and a dam's impact on the flow
regime and alteration of the
physical and chemical water quality
(including DO and temperature) can
lead to negative impacts on the
species 12017, p.3).
Dams have also been identified as
causing genetic
1 30 60
Miles N
Kilometers
25 5 too 1(
Dams River Basin, North Carolina
Tar -Pamlico
NRWD Current Occupied Site B Physiographic Provinces:
Neuse COASTAL PLAIN
Major Hydrology Trent PIEDMONT
Fall Line
segregation/isolation in river
oam :ors usrws
systems — aquatic amphibians can
no longer move freely through different habitats and may become genetically isolated from other
salamander populations throughout the river.
As mentioned above, improperly constructed culverts at stream crossings act as significant
barriers, and have some similar effects as dams on stream systems. Fluctuating flows through
the culvert can vary significantly from the rest of the stream, preventing passage and scouring
downstream habitats. If a culvert ends up being perched above the stream bed, aquatic
organisms cannot pass through them. These barriers not only fragment habitats along a stream
course, they also contribute to genetic segregation of the aquatic species inhabiting the streams.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 46 February 2021

4.6 Energy Production and Mining
As indicated in the NCSWAP (NCWRC 2015, pp.687-698), the Energy Production and Mining
Threat Category addresses threats from production of nonbiological resources related to
exploring for, developing, and producing energy and mining resources (e.g., oil and gas, coal and
gold mining, and rock, sand, and phosphate mining) as well as renewable energy resources (e.g.,
hydropower, solar power, wind power, geothermal power, and biofuels). Of these energy
resources, the Neuse River Waterdog faces impacts from oil and gas production, coal power,
hydropower, and the use of biofuels.
Potential impacts to Neuse River Waterdog from oil and gas extraction are numerous; they
include water quality and water quantity impacts, riparian habitat fragmentation and conversion,
increased sand mining, and increased road and utility corridors (NCWRC 2015, p.691). While
oil and gas extraction does not currently and will not likely occur in the Tar River Basin (due to
lack of subsurface shale deposits), impacts from shale gas extraction could occur in the Neuse
River Basin, and impacts from establishing travel and utility corridors, as well as the potential
use of natural resources (primarily water and sand) for hydraulic fracturing, and handling and
disposing of waste and byproducts, including possible spills and unintentional discharges could
occur throughout the range of the Neuse River Waterdog (NCWRC 2015, p.691). Future
impacts from oil and gas exploration and production are certain, as North Carolina has recently
become the 34th state in the country to allow fracking operations to drill for natural gas (Patsy
2015, p.1).
Coal mined from other states is used for energy production in North Carolina. As referenced in
the NC SWAP, fish and wildlife damage from exposure to coal ash slurry ranges from
physiological, developmental, and behavioral toxicity to major population and community -level
changes (NCWRC 2015, p.690). Coal -combustion residue contamination of aquatic habitats can
result in the accumulation of metals and trace elements in larval amphibians, including arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, selenium, and vanadium, potentially leading to
developmental, behavioral, and physiological effects (Rowe et al. 2002, entire).
As recently as October 2016, Neuse River Waterdogs in the Neuse River were exposed to coal
ash slurry when Hurricane Matthew caused inundation of coal ash storage ponds (Figure 4-10).
Furthermore, coal-fired power plants pump large volumes of water to produce electricity and
aquatic organisms such as larval waterdogs can be entrained or impinged unless measures are
sufficient to keep organisms from being impacted. After water is used for electricity production,
it is returned to surface waters but the temperature can be considerably higher than the
temperature of the receiving waterbody, thus altering the natural thermal regime and potentially
altering the aquatic community composition (NCWRC 2015, p.690).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 47 February 2021

Figure 4-10 Hurricane Matthew: rising waters from Neuse River inundate coal ash storage
pond near Goldsboro, NC (credit: Travis Graves, lower Neuse Riverkeeper)
Hydropower as a domestic energy source is becoming more prevalent in North Carolina,
including areas where the Neuse River Waterdog occurs. In 2015, the US Army Corps of
Engineers applied to create a hydropower operation on the Falls Lake dam in Wake County
(USACE 2015, p.1). A recent study by Standt and Doyle (2013, entire), looked at the potential
of micro -hydropower development at numerous low -head dams in the Cape Fear and Neuse
River basins (Figure 4-11).
Hydropower dams have similar impacts as other impoundments: streams and rivers impounded
by dams are changed from lotic systems to lentic systems, fragmenting habitats and disrupting
movements and migrations of fish and other aquatic organisms like the Neuse River Waterdog
(NCWRC 2015, p.693). Downstream water quality can also suffer from low dissolved oxygen
(DO) levels and altered temperatures (lower water temperatures if water is released from near the
bottom of the reservoir). In addition, hydropower generation can significantly change flow
regimes downstream of hydropower dams, and can affect other riverine processes, such as
bedload and sediment transport, nutrient cycling, and woody debris transport (NCWRC 2015,
p.693).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 48 February 2021

Study Area: 1,049 Low -Head Darns
Leg*nd
o
HCDSG Gbnt 415'-35'}
#WCorns OS-4S
'
• WACC Orno Dxmv 41613$1
0 MCPWR Hydro Gams
9
* .MCREiS Mya* Game
Hd Hydra bits
a
'
4
rERC Hy*p U�s
'AI
Stud Area
n r.:
The darns included in the study were located within the Haw River, deep River,
Upper Cape Fear and Upper Neuse river basins.
Figure 4-11 Mico-hydropower production possible locations; Neuse River Basin circled to
show area of overlap with Neuse River Waterdog range (from Sandt and Doyle 2013)
Finally, biofuel production involves biomass resources, including organic matter from a variety
of wood materials and energy crops that can be gasified (NCWRC 2015, p.688). Biomass
production often involves intensive management that uses fertilizers and pesticides that can
runoff into nearby waterways, as well as monocultures of high -yield nonnative cultivars that
replace native forests (NCWRC 2015, p.688). Similar to agriculture and forest management (see
Sections 4.2 and 4.3), these impacts can change the dynamics in the aquatic system, impacting
foraging and sheltering functions for species such as the Neuse River Waterdog.
4.7 Regulatory Mechanisms
State Endangered Species Law
North Carolina has state -level legislation modeled after the federal Endangered Species Act: the
North Carolina Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1987. Animal species that are protected
by the state laws are regulated by the state wildlife agency, the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. The state endangered species protection law allow the state wildlife
agency to identify, document, and protect any animal species that is considered rare or in danger
of extinction. Illegal activities include take, transport, export, process, sell, offer for sale, or ship
species, and the penalty for doing so is a misdemeanor crime, usually inciting a fine of no more
than $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed a year (Pellerito 2002, entire), however it has been
identified in the NC Administrative code that the replacement cost of any endangered species is
$4,960 (15A NCAC IOB .0117). There are no mechanisms for recovery, consultation, or critical
habitat designation other than where recommendations, not requirements, can be made for lands
to be protected or acquired (Pellerito 2002, entire; George and Snape 2010, p.346).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 49 February 2021

State and Federal Stream Protections (Buffers & Permits)
A buffer is a strip of trees, plants, or grass along a stream or wetland that naturally filters out dirt
and pollution from rain water runoff before it enters rivers, streams, wetlands, and marshes.
North Carolina had buffer requirements in specific watersheds, including the Tar -Pamlico and
Neuse, however, as described below, the NC Legislature enacted a Regulatory Reform effort,
including "Riparian Buffer Reform" that allowed for the amendment of the buffer rules to
allow/exempt development (see Session Law 2012-200, Section 8 and Session Law 2015-246,
Section 13.1, G.S. 143-214.23A (NCDEQ 2016a, entire)).
Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that an applicant for a federal
license or permit provide a certification that any discharges from the facility will not degrade
water quality or violate water -quality standards, including state -established water quality
standard requirements. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge
of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States.
Permits to fill wetlands and fill, culvert, bridge or re -align streams/water features are issued by
the U.S. Corps of Engineers under Nationwide, Regional General Permits or Individual Permits.
• Nationwide Permits are for "minor" impacts to streams and wetlands, and do not require
an intense review process. These impacts usually include stream impacts under 150 feet,
and wetland fill projects up to 0.50 acres. Mitigation is usually provided for the same
type of wetland or stream as what is impacted, and is usually at a 2:1 ratio to offset losses
and make the "no net loss" closer to reality.
• Regional General Permits are for various specific types of impacts that are common to a
particular region; these permits will vary based on location in a certain region/state.
• Individual permits are for the larger, higher impact and more complex projects. These
require a complex permit process with multi -agency input and involvement. Impacts in
these types of permits are reviewed individually and the compensatory mitigation chosen
may vary depending on project and types of impacts.
State Water Quality Program
Current State regulations regarding pollutants are designed to be protective of aquatic organisms;
however, Neuse River Waterdogs may be more susceptible to some pollutants than the test
organisms commonly used in bioassays. Despite existing authorities such as the Clean Water
Act, pollutants continue to impair the water quality throughout the current range of the Neuse
River Waterdog. State and Federal regulatory mechanisms have helped reduce the negative
effects of point source discharges since the 1970s, yet these regulations are difficult to
implement and regulate. While new water quality criteria are being developed that take into
account more sensitive aquatic species, most criteria currently do not. It is expected that several
years will be needed to implement new water quality criteria throughout the range.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 50 February 2021

Regulatory Reform in North Carolina
North Carolina has undergone regulatory review and reform that is worthy of mention because of
implications to stream habitat protections for aquatic species in the state, particularly areas that
are the strongholds for species like the Neuse River Waterdog. In the past six years (since 2010),
there have been several changes to state regulations, known as "Regulatory Reform" and in
2016, the changes are described in legislation titled: "Regulatory Reduction Act." These
changes in Session Laws, House and Senate Bills, and enacted Legislation have far reach and the
most recent reforms have affected significant environmental programs and protections,
including:
• disinvestment in data collection on rare and endangered species by significant funding
reductions to the state's Natural Heritage Program (SL2015-241, Sections 14.4,14.30(a)
and (rl) and (ggg) and (nnnl));
• revision of the State Environmental Policy Act review process (from NCDEQ's website):
"Session Law 2015-90 ... overhauled the criteria under which a SEPA review of a
proposed project is evaluated. Prior to the passage of SL 2015-90, if a proposed
project involved any amount of public funds, involved the use of public lands, or had
significant environmental impacts as determined by the minimum criteria, then a
SEPA review was necessary. With the passage of SL 2015-90, two key criteria must
now be considered to determine if a proposed action may require a SEPA
review. The first is the funding source. If a proposed action involves more than
$10,000,000 of funds provided by the State of North Carolina for a single project or
action or related group of projects or actions a SEPA review may be necessary. This
is a change over the previous requirement which included any public funds (i.e. city,
county, bonds, etc.). The second involves direct impacts resulting from the proposed
project. If the proposed action will result in substantial, permanent changes to the
natural cover or topography greater than or equal to ten acres of public lands a SEPA
review may be required. This is a change over previous requirements that required a
SEPA review for impacts to any type or amount of public lands" (NCDEQ 2016b,
entire);
• eliminating or limiting stormwater and stream buffer rules (and allowing unlimited
development in a riparian buffer as long as the project complies with state stormwater
requirements) in the Neuse River and Tar -Pamlico river basins (SL2015-246, Section
13.1);
• change of state water quality rules to include a new stormwater standard which eliminates
on -site stormwater controls, unless they are needed to meet specific state or federal laws
(SL2014-90, Part II);
• reduction of CWA 401 certification/404 permitting requirements by eliminating
mitigation for projects impacting less than 300 feet of stream and reduced mitigation
rations from 2:1 to 1:1 (SL2014-120, Section 54(b));
• limitation of state environmental agency authorities (G.S. 15013-19.3) and local
government authorities.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 51 February 2021

As the title of the legislation states, these regulatory changes are intended to "improve and
streamline the regulatory process in order to stimulate job creation, to eliminate unnecessary
regulation, to make various other statutory changes, and to amend certain environmental and
natural resource laws" (exact title of SL2013-413). The result of these regulatory changes could
impact aquatic species such as the Neuse River Waterdog, as well as the habitats that the species
require for survival. For example, reduced resources to inventory, compile, and review data as
well as changed criteria for project review, changed rules and standards, and reduced mitigation
requirements could all result in project implementation without consideration of impacts to
species, thus potentially directly or indirectly impacting the habitats the species depend on,
resulting in degradation of stream quality and ultimately in species decline.
4.8 Climate Change
As mentioned in the Poff et al. 2002 (pp.ii-v) report on Aquatic Ecosystems and Global Climate
Change, likely impacts of climate change on aquatic systems include:
• Increases in water temperatures that may alter fundamental ecological processes, thermal
suitability of aquatic habitats for resident species, as well as the geographic distribution
of species. Adaptation by migration to suitable habitat might be possible, however human
alteration of dispersal corridors may limit the ability of species to relocate, thus
increasing the likelihood of species extinction and loss of biodiversity.
• Changes and shifts in seasonal patterns of precipitation and runoff will alter the
hydrology of stream systems, affecting species composition and ecosystem productivity.
Aquatic organisms are sensitive to changes in frequency, duration, and timing of extreme
precipitation events such as floods or droughts, potentially resulting in interference of
reproduction. Further, increased water temperatures and seasonally reduced streamflows
will alter many ecosystem processes, including increases in nuisance algal blooms.
• Streamflow is becoming more variable in many parts of the Southeast and dry years are
becoming drier ... As climate change influences temperature and precipitation, drought
conditions are likely to become more prevalent (SECSC 2017, p.2).
• Climate change is an additional
stressor to sensitive freshwater
systems, which are already
adversely affected by a variety of
other human impacts, such as
altered flow regimes and
deterioration of water quality.
• As mentioned by Poff et al. (2002,
pp.ii-v), aquatic ecosystems have a
limited ability to adapt to climate
change. Reducing the likelihood
of significant impacts will largely
depend on human activities that
reduce other sources of ecosystem
stress to ultimately enhance
adaptive capacity; these include
maintaining riparian forests,
Figure 4-12 Drought conditions resulting in dry channels are
becoming more prevalent in the Upper Tar River Basin (credit:
S.McRae)
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 52 February 2021

reducing nutrient loading, restoring damaged ecosystems, minimizing groundwater (and
stream) withdrawal, and strategically placing any new reservoirs to minimize adverse
effects.
• Specific ecological responses to climate change cannot be easily predicted because new
combinations of native and non-native species will interact in novel situations.
Effects of drought have been seen in the upper Tar River Basin (Figures 3-11 and 4-12), once
occupied by Neuse River Waterdog (Figure 3-4).
4.9 Conservation Management
Conservation management actions include in situ actions such as habitat protection and stream
restoration as well as ex situ actions such as captive propagation, ultimately leading to species
population restoration.
"It is ... widely recognized that the future of rare aquatic species is best secured by protecting and
restoring biological integrity of entire watersheds" (Shute et al. 1997, p.448 and references
therein). While land acquisition is the most obvious means of affecting watershed protection, it
is not feasible to acquire entire watersheds. Shute et al. (1997, p.448) offer up "Ecosystem
Management" as the most effective method of protecting the greatest number of species,
however, they warn that "the complex nature of aquatic ecosystems and the watershed scale
necessary for aquatic ecosystem protection is problematic... [It] is expensive, time consuming,
and requires considerable coordination with and commitment from various agencies,
organizations, and private individuals."
The Service and State Wildlife Agencies are working with numerous partners to make
"Ecosystem Management" a reality, primarily by providing technical guidance and offering
development of conservation tools to meet both species and habitat needs in aquatic systems in
North Carolina. Land Trusts are targeting key parcels for acquisition, federal, state, and
University biologists are surveying and monitoring species occurrences, and recently there has
been increased interest in efforts to ramp up captive propagation and species population
restoration via augmentation, expansion, and reintroduction efforts.
4.10 Summary
Of the past, current, and future influences on what the Neuse River Waterdog needs for long
term viability, the largest factors affecting the future viability of the species relate to habitat
degradation from stressors influencing water quality, water quantity, instream habitat, and habitat
connectivity (Table 4-5). All of these factors are influenced by climate change. We did not
assess overutilization for scientific and commercial purposes or disease, because these risks do
not appear to be occurring at a level that affects Neuse River Waterdog populations. Impairment
of water quality, declines in flows, riparian and instream habitat fragmentation and degradation,
as well as management efforts, are carried forward in our assessment of the future conditions of
Neuse River Waterdog MUs and populations, and the viability of the species overall.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 53 February 2021

Table 4-5 Summary of Factors affecting Neuse River Waterdog viability and whether they
influence Habitat Elements
Habitat Element
Substrate &
Water Quality
Water Quantity
Connectivity
Cover
Development
x
x
x
x
Agricultural Practices
x
x
x
x
Forest Management
x
x
x
x
L Invasive Species
x
x
x
0
Dams and Barriers
x
x
x
x
Energy Production
x
x
x
x
Regulatory Mechanisms
x
x
x
x
Climate Change
x
x
x
Conservation Measures
x
x
x
x
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 54 February 2021

CHAPTER 5 — FUTURE CONDITIONS
Thus far, we have considered Neuse River Waterdog life history characteristics and we have
identified the habitat and demographic requisites needed for viability and we estimated the
current condition of those needs through the lens of the 3Rs (Chapters 2 and 3). Next, we
reviewed the factors that may be driving the historical, current, and future conditions of the
species (Chapter 4). In this chapter, we predict the species' future conditions given a range of
plausible future scenarios. As with estimates of current condition, future forecasts were made
using the concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and representation to describe the future viability
of the Neuse River Waterdog.
5.1 Future Scenario Considerations
We identified the main drivers of change for the future scenario analyses to be human population
growth and subsequent urbanization rates, both of which are predicted to result in patterns of
increased urban sprawl across the landscape (Terando et al. 2014, p.1). According to the United
States Census, the human population in the southeastern US has grown at an average annual rate
of 36.7% since 2000 (US Census 2016, pp. 1-4), by far the most rapidly growing region in the
country. This rapid growth has resulted in expanding urbanization, sometimes referred to as
"urban sprawl." Urban sprawl increases the connectivity of urban habitats while simultaneously
fragmenting non -urban habitats such as forests and grasslands (Terando et al. 2014, p.1). In turn,
species and ecosystems are impacted by the increased sprawl, including impacts to water
pollution, local climate conditions, and disturbance dynamics (Terando et al. 2014, p.1). One
way to forecast how these changes will affect the Neuse River Waterdog is to look at the spatial
pattern and extent of urban sprawl across historically and currently occupied watersheds, and
build a model predicting the effects of that sprawl to the habitat elements that influence Neuse
River Waterdog populations.
To forecast future urbanization, we developed future scenarios that incorporate the SLEUTH
(Slope, Land use, Excluded area, Urban area, Transportation, Hillside area) model, which
simulates patterns of urban expansion that are consistent with spatial observations of past urban
growth and transportation networks, including the sprawling, fragmented, "leapfrog"
development that has been the dominant form of development in the Southeast (Terando et al.
2014, p.2). Terando et al. (2014) projected urban sprawl changes for the next 50 years for the
fast-growing Southeastern United States, using simulations that point to a future in which the
extent of urbanization in the Southeast is projected to increase by 101 % to 192%. This
projection is based on the "business -as -usual" (BAU) scenario in which the net effect of growth
is in line with that which has occurred in the past (Terando et al. 2014, p.1), and as mentioned
above, is in line with the Southeast being the fastest growing region in the country.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 55 February 2021

Figure 5-1 "Business -as -usual" urbanization scenario for the Southeast US from Terando et al. 2014, p.3. Red areas are
the urban extent as classified by their methodology. (b) is the initial urban land cover in 2009; (c) is the projected urban
land cover in 2060; and (d) is the projected urban land cover in the Piedmont ecoregion showing a connected urban
landscape.
As discussed in section 4.1, the development promulgated from urban sprawl is expected to
impact the habitat elements that were identified as essential for the survival of the Neuse River
Waterdog. Consequently, water quality and quantity will likely decline, habitat connectivity will
become more fragmented, and instream substrate habitat may become less suitable for the
species to survive. As such, urban sprawl will, almost certainly, influence the ability of the
species to respond to climate change (Hannah 2011, p. 1141). Given all scenarios developed by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), greenhouse gas emissions are expected
to continue at or above current rates which will lead to continued warming (Figure 5-2; IPCC
2013, p.7). Warming in the Southeast is expected to be greatest in the summer (NCCV 2016)
which is predicted to increase drought frequency, while annual mean precipitation is expected to
increase slightly, leading to increased flooding events (Figure 5-3; IPCC 2013, p.7; NCCV
2016).
In order to predict future changes in climate, scientists rely on climate model simulations that are
driven by assumptions about future human population growth, changes in energy generation and
land use, socio-economic development, and technology change. The IPCC's Fifth Assessment
Report (AR5), published in 2014, presents findings based on a set of scenarios that use
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The RCPs are representative of several
different scenarios that have similar greenhouse gas emissions characteristics on a time -
dependent trajectory to reach a certain projected outcome (Wayne 2013, p.l). There are four
RCPs, identified by the amount of radiative forcing (i.e., the change in energy in the atmosphere
due to greenhouse gases) reached by 2100: one high pathway (RCP8.5); two intermediate
stabilization pathways (RCP6.0 and RCP4.5); and one low trajectory pathway (RCP2.6 or
RCP3PD)(Wayne 2013, p.11).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 56 February 2021

a 10
N
E
01
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rp ro rol rp r,
Year
MESSAGE 8.5
AIM 6.0
GCAM 4.5
IMAGE 2.6
Figure 5-2 Changes in radiative forcing relative to pre -industrial conditions. Bold colored lines show the four RCPs; thin
lines show individual scenarios from approximately 30 candidate RCP scenarios that provide information on all key
factors affecting radiative forcing (from Moss et al., 2010).
RCP2.6 assumes that through drastic policy intervention, greenhouse gas emissions would be
reduced almost immediately, leading to a slight reduction in today's levels by 2100; RCP8.5
assumes that emissions would be more or less unabated due to a lack of climate -change reversal
policies (Wayne 2013, p.15). For RCP4.5 and RCP6.0, emissions are assumed to be relatively
stable throughout the century, however RCP6.0 does not incorporate climate -reversal policies
into forecasts, while RCP4.5 incorporates a number of climate policies into forecasts (Wayne
2013, p.15). As cited from DeWan et al. (2010, p.4), "it is difficult to predict the human choices
that will shape our future emissions, and thus what the world might look like in 2100."
Changes in climate may affect ecosystem processes and communities by altering the abiotic
conditions experienced by biotic assemblages resulting in potential effects on community
composition and individual species interactions (DeWan et al. 2010, p.7). This is especially true
for aquatic systems where climate change can trigger a cascade of ecological effects. For
example, increases in air temperatures can lead to subsequent increases in water temperatures
which, in turn, may lower water quality parameters (like dissolved oxygen), ultimately
influencing overall habitat suitability for species like the Neuse River Waterdog.
Despite the recognition of potential climate effects on ecosystem processes, there is uncertainty
about what the exact climate future for the Southeastern US will be and how the ecosystems and
species in this region will respond. In the "Threats" section of the North Carolina Wildlife
Action Plan (NCWRC 2015, p.5-48; Table 4-1), climate change is seen as a "low" threat to the
Neuse River Waterdog, with Unknown to Large Scope (affecting up to 70% of the total
population or occurrences) and Unknown to Moderate Severity (likely to only slightly
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 57 February 2021

degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce the population by up to 30%).
Furthermore, in an assessment of ecosystem response to climate change, factors associated with
climate change ranked well below other factors that were deemed more imminent risks to Neuse
River Waterdog populations (e.g., development, pollution, water withdrawals, flood regime
alteration, etc.; NCNHP 2010, entire). However, it should be recognized that the greatest threat
from climate change may come from synergistic effects. That is, factors associated with a
changing climate may act as risk multipliers by increasing the risk and severity of more
imminent threats (Arabshahi and Raines 2012, p.8). As a result, impacts from rapid urbanization
in the region might be exacerbated under even a mild to moderate climate future.
For future scenario predictions, we considered the "extreme" climate futures under RCPs 8.5 and
2.6 for the Pessimistic and Optimistic Scenarios respectively. Alternate climate scenarios were
used to evaluate more moderate and/or stabilizing climate futures for the Status Quo and
Opportunistic Scenarios (see Table 5-1 for details). Both of the "stabilizing" RCPs have a
similar trajectory given our 50-year time frame (Figure 5-2); therefore, both RCP4.5 or RCP6.0
were used to help inform predictions related to a more moderate climate future. Regardless of a
pessimistic, optimistic, opportunistic, or status quo climate future, the following systematic
changes are expected to be realized to varying degrees in the Southeastern US (NCILT 2012,
p.27; IPCC 2013, p.7):
➢ More frequent drought
➢ More extreme heat (resulting in increases in air and water temperatures, Figure 5-3)
➢ Increased heavy precipitation events (e.g., flooding)
➢ More intense storms (e.g., frequency of major hurricanes increases)
➢ Rising sea level and accompanying storm surge
WM Wmpwakru h, Yart ke llian W dcl
1W
V
87
W
JF rib kV d4r ,4n dJ •W Sip CO G14
iFS4241F! , LleRilUf+Ia F)
1Vrwawd 08W-1
gpparChOAKp ke
ij
Pob---
4.7
4c WChnrapwkl
a.3
Cho«w+aee
1.1
t rPRJffd a
4A
Cage Fee+
2L
Va MW
4A
J*Rg- ,nrpp
2A
OZedOeL- mMnnM
4k
Altarruha-51. Mary1
4A
Prwige M 44 1N*� MW 74mpmtum CK W10- AW 4950-d045 ftW}I
.4 - 7 4 4 a 10 12 12 It 1# 2P 22 2■
Figure 5-3 Predicted change in annual mean maximum air temperature under RCP4.5 (NCCV 2016)
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 58 February 2021

5.1.1 The Scenarios
The Neuse River Waterdog has declined in overall distribution and abundance. The species
currently occupies approximately 73% of its historical range with many remaining populations
being small and fragmented, occupying sporadic reaches compared to previous historical
occurrences, and several are isolated from one another. The prevailing hypothesis for this
decline is habitat degradation, resulting from the cumulative impacts of land use change and
subsequent watershed -level landscape changes that presumably impacted water quality, water
quantity, habitat connectivity, and instream habitat suitability (see Chapter 4).
Populations in both large and small MUs face risks from both natural and anthropogenic sources.
Climate change has already begun to affect the watersheds where Neuse River Waterdog occurs,
resulting in higher air temperatures and increased evaporation, and changing precipitation
patterns such that water levels rangewide have already reached historic lows (SECSC 2017, p.2;
NCILT 2012, p.6). These low water levels put the populations at elevated risk for habitat loss,
especially in the headwater areas.
These risks, alone or in combination, could potentially result in the extirpation of additional
populations, increasing population fragmentation, and, in turn, negative effects on species
redundancy and representation. Given small and fragmented contemporary populations of Neuse
River Waterdog, maintaining future viability is largely reliant on preventing further declines in
current populations and restoring/recovering population numbers and connectivity (where
feasible). Because we have significant uncertainty regarding if and when flow loss, water quality
impairment, or connectivity issues may occur, and how the species might respond, we have
forecasted what the Neuse River Waterdog may have in terms of the 3Rs under four plausible
future scenarios.
Four scenarios, including a Status Quo scenario, were used to characterize the uncertainty
regarding plausible futures for the Neuse River Waterdog. Resiliency, representation, and
redundancy were forecasted for each scenario using each of four possible climate futures coupled
with variable levels of urbanization predicted by the SLEUTH BAU. Current levels of
conservation management were assumed to be constant across all scenarios unless commitment
of specific actions are currently, or will be imminently, in place. The expected future resiliency
of each MU was forecasted based on events that were predicted to occur under each scenario. As
with current condition estimates, estimates were made at the lowest hierarchical level (MUs) and
were then scaled up to the population (i.e., river basin) level.
Predictions of Neuse River Waterdog resiliency, redundancy, and representation were forecasted
using a 50-year time horizon. This time horizon was chosen to correspond to the range of
available urbanization and climate change model forecasts. Furthermore, 50-years represents a
time frame during which the effects of management actions can be implemented and realized on
the landscape, and it is a reasonable time frame for the species to respond to potential changes on
the landscape.
For these projections, high condition MUs were defined as those with high resiliency at the end
of the predicted time horizon (50 years). MUs in high condition are expected to persist into the
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 59 February 2021

future, beyond 50 years, and have the ability to withstand stochastic events that may occur. MUs
in moderate condition were defined as having lower resiliency than those in high condition but
are still expected to persist beyond 50 years. Populations in moderate condition have lower
abundances and reduced reproductive potential than those in high condition. Finally, those MUs
in low condition were defined as having low resiliency and may not be able to withstand
stochastic events. As a result, low condition MUs were predicted to be much less likely to
persist 50 years into the future.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 60 February 2021

Table 5-1 Future Scenario Summary Table
Scenario Name
1) Status Quo Scenario
2) Pessimistic Scenario
3) Optimistic Scenario
4) Opportunistic Scenario
Climate Future
Current Climate effects
continue on trend into
the future, resulting in
increased heat, drought,
storms and flooding
Moderate to Worse
Climate Future (RCP8.51)-
exacerbated effects of
climate change
experienced related to
heat, drought, storms and
flooding
Moderate to Improved
Climate Future (trending
towards RCP 2.62)
resulting in minimal
effects of heat, drought,
storms and flooding
Moderate Climate Future
(RCP4.5/63) - some
climate change effects
experienced; some areas
impacted more than
others by heat, drought,
storms and flooding
'Representative concentration pathway 8.5
2 Representative concentration pathway 2.6
3 Representative concentration pathway 4.5/6
4Business as usual
5Water quality
6Interbasin transfer
Urbanization
Urbanization
continues on trend
with current levels
Urbanization rates at
high end of BAU4
model (^200%)
Urbanization rates
realized at lower
levels than BAU
model predicts
(<100%)
Moderate BAU
urbanization rates
(-100%) realized
Species Condition
Current level of species response
to impacts on landscape; current
levels of propagation &
augmentation and/or
translocation capacity
Species response to synergistic
impacts on landscape result in
significant declines coupled with
limited propagation capacity
and/or limited ability to
augment/reintroduce propagules
Optimistic species response to
impacts; targeted propagation
and/or restoration efforts
utilizing existing resources and
capacity
Selective improved species
response to impacts as a result of
targeted propagation and/or
restoration efforts utilizing
current resources and capacity
Future Condition
Water Quality Condition
Current level of regulation anc
oversight, including limited
protective WQs standards
requirements and utilization o
basic technologies for efflueni
treatment
Declining water quality
resultingfrom increased
impacts, limited regulation an
restrictions, and overall
reduced protections
Slightly increased impacts
tempered by utilizing improve
technologies and implementir
protection strategies
Moderate increase in WQ
impacts resulting from
continued levels of regulation
protection, and technology
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 61 February 2021
:ategory Descriptions
Water Quantity Condition
Current level of regulation and
oversight, including sustained
IBTs6 and irrigation withdrawals;
current flow conditions
Degraded flow conditions
resulting from climate change
effects, increased withdrawals
and IBTs, limited regulation, and
overall reduced protections
Improved flow conditions
through increased oversight and
implementation of flow
improvement strategies
Targeted strategies to improve
flow conditions in priority areas
Habitat Condition
Current level of regulation,
barrier improvement/removal
projects, and riparian buffer
protections
Degraded instream and ripariar
habitat conditions from
increased impacts, limited
regulation, fewer barrier
improvement/removal projects
and overall reduced riparian
buffer protections
Existing resources targeted to
highest priority barrier
removals; riparian buffer
protections remain intact;
targeted riparian connectivity
projects; regulatory mechanism
remain the same
Targeted increase in riparian
connectivity and protection of
instream habitat in priority area
through targeted conservation
efforts

5.2 Scenario 1 — Status Quo
Under the Status Quo scenario, factors that influence current populations of Neuse River
Waterdog were assumed to remain on trend over the 50 year time horizon. Climate models
predict that, if emissions continue at current rates, the Southeast Region will experience a rise in
low flow (drought) events (IPCC 2013, p.7). Likewise, this scenario assumed the Business as
Usual pattern of urban growth which predicted that urbanization would continue to increase
rapidly (Terando et al. 2014, p.1). The Status Quo Scenario also assumed that current
conservation efforts would remain in place but that no new actions would be taken. Described
below are how factors affecting populations, such as water quality, flow, and riparian cover are
expected to change under the Status Quo Scenario. Given predicted habitat conditions and
current population factors (i.e., initial conditions), we then forecast Neuse River Waterdog
viability using the 3R framework.
• Tar — Continued climate induced changes that reduce flows (NCILT 2012, p.27) are
predicted to affect habitat in the Upper Tar MU, causing likely extirpation of the species
in the MU; continuation of reduced water quality through utilization of basic effluent
treatment technologies and reduced riparian habitat protections (see Section 4.2; Table 5-
2) are predicted to result in degraded habitat conditions throughout the Middle Tar MU,
thus reducing the viability of the species in this MU. Both the Fishing Creek Subbasin
and Sandy/Swift Creek MUs will likely maintain moderate habitat conditions in the
Status Quo Scenario, but lower occupancy currently seen in the Fishing Creek watershed
is predicted to continue while moderate population conditions in Sandy/Swift are
projected to continue into the future. The Lower Tar MU is predicted to have slightly
lower habitat conditions, thus decreasing the species resiliency in this MU under the
Status Quo Scenario.
• Neuse — Urbanization in the Upper and Middle portions of the basin is predicted to result
in continued declines in water quality from runoff (see Section 4-1) and wastewater
effluent issues. Additionally, this scenario predicts declines in water quantity as the area
continues to withdraw water to support continued population growth and declines in
habitat connectivity by maintaining existing dam infrastructure and population -growth
resulting in more road crossings. All of these factors contribute to declining instream
habitat for the species, contributing to likely extirpation in the Upper Neuse MU and low
resiliency in the Middle Neuse MU. Habitat conditions in the Lower Neuse are also
predicted to decline, thus reducing the condition of the species in this MU (Table 5-2).
• Trent — Habitat conditions in the Trent are predicted to decline, this leading to likely
extirpation under the Status Quo Scenario.
5.2.1 Resiliency
Given the Status Quo Scenario, extant populations were predicted to persist in MUs where
habitat conditions (described above and in Table 5-2) are expected to remain sufficient for Neuse
River Waterdog reproduction and survival. Two of the Tar MUs (Lower Tar MU and
Sandy/Swift MU) are predicted to remain moderately resilient, while the Middle Tar MU,
Fishing Creek Subbasin MU, Middle Neuse MU, and Lower Neuse MU were predicted to have
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 62 February 2021

low resiliency at the end of the predictive time horizon. All other MUs were predicted to
become extirpated.
Scaling up to the population level, both the Tar and Neuse populations are expected to have low
resiliency under the Status Quo Scenario. The Trent Population is predicted to become
extirpated.
Table 5-2 Neuse River Waterdog Resiliencv under Scenario 1 - Status Ouo
Population Factors
Habitat Elements
Combined
Instream
Combined
Population/
Site
Population
Water
Water
Habitat
Habitat
Management Unit
MU Occupancy
Occupancy
Factors
Quality
Quantity
Connectivity
(Substrate)
Elements
Overall
Tar
Low
Upper Tar
0
0
Q
Moderate
VLow
Moderate
Low
Moderate
0
Middle Tar
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Lower Tar
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Sandy -Swift
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Fishing Ck Subbasin
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Neuse
Low
Upper Neuse
0
0
0
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
0
Middle Neuse
Moderate
Low
Low
VLow
VLow
Low
Low
Low
Low
Lower Neuse
Moderate
Low
Low
VLow
Moderate
VLow
Low
Low
Low
Trent
0
Trent
0
0
0
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low i
0
5.2.2 Representation
Given our measures of representation,
including Physiographic and River Basin
Variability, we predicted that the Neuse
River Waterdog will have reduced
representation at the end of the predictive
time horizon (Figure 5-4). Under the Status
Quo Scenario, while the species maintains
most of its known River Basin Variability
the Physiographic Variability is expected to
decline in both the Piedmont (63%) and in
the Coastal Plain (17%).
5.2.3 Redundancy
Under the Status Quo Scenario, we predicted
that the number of resilient Neuse River
Waterdog populations will decline
considerably with likely extirpation in three
of nine MUs and low resiliency in four of
nine MUs. This expected reduction in both
the number and distribution of resilient
populations is likely to make the species
vulnerable to catastrophic disturbance
events.
Fiquire 5-4 Neirse River Waterdog Status Quo Condition
is ao ao
Miles
Kibmetars
0 2N 40 8o
MU Resiliency_ Po up II t Resiliency: North caroli-
Moderate Low(TaANeuse) Physiogrephic Provinces.
- Low Likely Extirpated (Trent) COASTAL PLAIN
— Likely Extirpated PIEDMONT
Fall Line
Major Hydrology
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 63 February 2021

5.3 Scenario 2 — Pessimistic
Factors that negatively influence Neuse River Waterdog populations (see Chapter 4) get worse
under the Pessimistic Scenario (Table 5-1). Reflecting Climate Model RCP8.5 (Wayne 2013,
p.11), effects of climate change are expected to be magnified beyond what is experienced in the
Status Quo Scenario. Effects are predicted to result in extreme heat (Figure 5-5), more storms
and flooding, and exacerbated drought conditions (IPCC 2013, p.7). Based on the results of the
Annual Mean Max Temperature for South Atlantic -Gulf Region (Mean Model)
7
E
e
2 {
o ■
1950 19M 1970 1920 199C 2000 2010 2020 21130 211 0 21150 2118 2070 20E0 2090 2100
Historical , RCP4.5 . RCPS.5 Q Value (�) Relative change
Figure 5-5 Time Series of Annual Mean Maximum Temperature under RCP8.5 (shown in red) (NCCV 2016)
SLEUTH BAU model (Terando et al. 2014, entire), urbanization in Neuse River Waterdog
watersheds could expand to triple the amount of developed area resulting in large increases of
impervious surface cover and, potentially, consumptive water use. Increased urbanization and
climate change impacts are likely to result in increased impacts to water quality, flow, and
habitat connectivity, and we predict that there is limited capacity for species restoration under
this scenario.
• Tar — Climate change is predicted to result in an increase in the number and duration of
droughts in the Tar Basin (see Section 4-7; Table 5-1). Low flows in the Upper Tar
Basin will create uninhabitable conditions for the waterdogs, therefore they are predicted
to be likely extirpated in the Upper Tar MU. Increased urbanization and basic effluent
treatment in the Middle Tar basin are predicted to reduce habitat quality, with predicted
low resiliency of waterdogs in this MU. Similarly, the habitat conditions in the Fishing
Creek Subbasin, Sandy/Swift, and Lower Tar MUs are predicted to decline under more
extreme climate and urbanization futures, and the species is expected to persist, but
reduced to low resiliency.
• Neuse - High urbanization rates (up to 200% in 50-years, or double current rate) is
predicted to further degrade habitat conditions, especially through water quality stressors
and instream habitat unsuitability (see Section 4-1), thus the species is not expected to
persist in this river basin under the Pessimistic Scenario.
• Trent — Habitat conditions in the Trent are predicted to decline, this leading to likely
extirpation under the Pessimistic Scenario.
5.3.1 Resiliency
The Pessimistic Scenario projects the condition of the Neuse River Waterdog populations under
a more extreme climate and urbanization future, with increased impacts to habitat conditions
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 64 February 2021

resulting in a reduced species response. Habitat conditions are only expected to be able to
support the continued survival of one currently extant population, the Tar (Table 5-3). We
predict that no highly or moderately resilient populations will remain at the end of the predictive
time horizon, thus the remaining four MUs (Middle Tar, Lower Tar, Sandy/Swift and Fishing
Creek Subbasin) are predicted to have low resiliency. All other MUs are predicted to either
become or remain extirpated from their current/historic range. Two of three populations of
Neuse River Waterdog are predicted to become extirpated in 50 years (Table 5-3).
Table 5-3 Neuse River Waterdoa Resiliencv under Scenario 2 - Pessimistic
Population Factors
Habitat Elements
Combined
Instream
Combined
Population/
Site
Population
Water
Water
Habitat
Habitat
Management Unit
MU Occupari
Occupancy
Factors
Quality
Quantity
Connectivity
(Substrate)
Elements
Overall
Tar
i
Low
Upper Tar
0
0
0
VLow
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
0
Middle Tar
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Lower Tar
Moderate
Low
Low
VLow
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Sandy -Swift
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Fishing CkSubbasin
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Neuse
0
Upper Neuse
0
0
0
Low
Low
VLow
Low
Low
0
Middle Neuse
0
0
0
VLow
VLow
VLow
Vlow
VLow
0
Lower Neuse
0
0
0
VLow
Low
Low
Low
VLow
0
Trent
0
Trent
0
0
0
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
0
5.3.2 Representation
We predicted that the Neuse River Waterdog
will have limited representation in the form
Physiographic and River Basin variability
under the Pessimistic Scenario. The species
is expected to lose 67% of its known River
Basin Variability, retaining representation in
only in the Tar River Basin. The species is
also expected to lose Physiographic
Variability in the Piedmont (75%) and the
Coastal Plain (58%). At the population level,
only one population (Tar) is expected to be
extant, albeit in low condition, at the end of
the predictive time horizon (Figure 5-6).
5.3.3 Redundancy
Under the Pessimistic Scenario, it is
predicted that the Neuse River Waterdog will
lose significant redundancy, with likely
extirpation in five of the nine MUs, and only
one population (Tar) is predicted to be
extant, though in relatively poor condition, at
the end of the 50 year time horizon.
Figure 5-6 Neuse River Waterdog Pessimistic Condition
16 30 60
Muss N
Kilometers
0 2N 40 00
MU Resiliency: Population Resiliency: ONorth Carolina
- La =Law (Tar) Phyaiographic Provinces:
Likely Extirpated =Likely Extirpated COASTALPLAIN
tNeuse&Trent) PIEDMONT
Fall Line
- Major Hydna.gy
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 65 February 2021

5.4 Scenario 3 - Optimistic
Factors that influence population and habitat conditions of Neuse River Waterdog are expected
to be somewhat improved given the Optimistic Scenario. Reflecting Climate Model RCP2.6
(Wayne 2013, p.11), climate change effects are predicted to be minimal under this scenario, so
effects of increased temperatures, storms, and droughts are not reflected in Optimistic predictions
as they were in Status Quo and Pessimistic scenario predictions. Urbanization is also predicted
to have less of impact in this scenario as reflected by effects that are slightly lower than BAU
model predictions (Table 5-1). Because water quality, flow, and habitat impacts are predicted to
be less severe in this scenario as compared to others, it is expected that the species will maintain
or have a slightly positive response. Targeted permanent protection of riparian areas is a
potential conservation activity that could benefit the Neuse River Waterdog across its range, and
current efforts are considered successful as part of the Optimistic Scenario.
• Tar — Given the Optimistic Scenario, both urbanization and climate -induced impacts are
expected to be minimal (Table 5-1). As such, habitat conditions, including water quality,
flows, and instream and riparian habitat, are predicted to enable persistence at high levels
in the Middle Tar, Lower Tar, and Sandy/Swift Creek MUs and at moderate levels in the
Fishing Creek Subbasin MU. It is also predicted that the waterdogs will maintain current
(low) levels of resiliency in the Upper Tar MU. Conservation efforts in the Fishing
Creek Subbasin and Sandy -Swift Creek benefit the species.
• Neuse — Despite an ameliorated climate future and lower levels of urbanization, the
habitat conditions in the Neuse River Basin are predicted to decline slightly, thus
resulting in low resiliency condition of the Neuse River Waterdog throughout the basin.
• Trent — Under the Optimistic Scenario, habitat conditions are predicted to remain similar
to current conditions, thus likely maintaining the waterdog population in low condition in
this basin.
5.4.1 Resiliency
The Optimistic Scenario projects the condition of the Neuse River Waterdog populations if the
current risks will be slightly improved by the end of the predictive time horizon. Because of the
more optimistic lens, more MUs are predicted to remain extant than the Status Quo or
Pessimistic Scenarios (Table 5-4). Specifically, the Tar River population is predicted to be
highly resilient under the Optimistic Scenario with the Middle Tar, Lower Tar, and Sandy/Swift
MUs in high condition and the Fishing Creek Subbasin MU in moderate condition (Figure 5-7;
Note that all HUCs that are currently likely extirpated are also predicted to be likely extirpated in
the future). Despite a more optimistic future, we predict that both the Neuse River and Trent
populations will be in low condition (Figure 5-7).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 66 February 2021

Table 5-4 Neuse River Waterdog Resiliency under Scenario 3 - Optimistic
Population Factors Habitat Elements i
Population/
Management Unit
MU Occupancy
Site
Occupancy
Combined
Population
Factors
Water
Quality
Water
Quantity
Connectivity
Instream
Habitat
(Substrate)
Combined
Habitat
Elements
Overall
Tar
Moderate
Upper Tar
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Middle Tar
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
Lower Tar
High
High
High
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
High
Sandy -Swift
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Fishing Ck Subbasin
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Neuse
Low
UpperNeuse
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Middle Neuse
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
VLow
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Lower NeuseM
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Trent
0
Low
Trento
Moderate
Low
Low
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
5.4.2 Representation
Under the Optimistic Scenario, it is
predicted that the Neuse River
Waterdog will retain current levels of
representation. As such, the species
will continue to retain all of its known
River Basin Variability. The species
is predicted to retain Physiographic
Variability in the Coastal Plain (87%)
and the Piedmont (57%).
5.4.3 Redundancy
Under the Optimistic Scenario, it is
predicted that the Neuse River
Waterdog will maintain existing
levels of redundancy however
resiliency of the Neuse and Trent
populations is predicted to be low.
The species will have moderate and
high resiliency in four of nine MUs.
5 3D
D 2 40
60
Miles
Kilometers
so
N
MU Resiliency Population Resiliency:
Q North car 1-
- High
_J Moderate (Tar)
Physiographic Provinces:
- Moderate
Low (NeuseUrent)
COASTAL PLAIN
- Low
PIEDMONT
- Likely Extirpated!
Fall Line
- Major Hydrology
�o�.nrum, r�xer.raa�w..a
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 67 February 2021

5.5 Scenario 4 — Opportunistic
Under the Opportunistic Scenario, those landscape -level factors (e.g., development and climate
change) that are having an influence on populations of Neuse River Waterdog get moderately
worse, reflecting Climate Change Model RCP4.5 (Wayne 2013, p.11) and SLEUTH BAU
(Terando et al. 2014; Table 5-1). Effects of climate change are expected to be moderate,
resulting in some increased impacts from heat, storms, and droughts (IPCC 2013, p.7).
Urbanization in this scenario reflects the moderate BAU SLEUTH levels, indicating
approximately double the amount of developed area compared to current levels. Overall, it is
expected that the synergistic impacts of changes in water quality, flow, and habitat connectivity
will negatively affect the Neuse River Waterdog, although current land conservation efforts will
benefit the species in some watersheds.
• Tar — Under the Opportunistic Scenario, there will be moderate climate -induced impacts
creating continued drought issues in the Upper Tar, resulting in predicted extirpation of
the species in this MU. Habitat conditions in the Middle and Lower Tar are predicted to
decline, thus reducing resiliency of the waterdogs in both MUs over the predictive time
horizon. Targeted conservation efforts in the Fishing Creek Subbasin and Sandy -Swift
Creek are predicted to enable the species to continue to persist in moderate and high
condition, respectively.
• Neuse — Impacts from urbanization, including declining water quality from stormwater
runoff and decreased flows from consumptive use, along with minimal development
restrictions will continue to degrade habitat condition under the Opportunistic Scenario.
Additionally, this scenario predicts declines in habitat connectivity by maintaining
existing dam infrastructure and population -growth resulting in more road crossings. All
of these factors contribute to declining instream habitat for the species, thus the Neuse
River Waterdog is predicted to persist in low condition under the Opportunistic Scenario.
• Trent - Habitat conditions in the Trent are predicted to decline, this leading to likely
extirpation under the Opportunistic Scenario.
5.5.1 Resiliency
The Opportunistic Scenario projects the condition of the Neuse River Waterdog populations if
the risks continue at moderately increased levels compared to what they are now. Under this
scenario, the remaining extant populations occur in areas where habitat conditions support
continued reproduction and survival of the species, at varying levels. Only the Sandy -Swift
Creek MU is expected to have high resiliency under this scenario. The Middle Tar, Lower Tar,
and Fishing Creek Subbasin MUs retain moderate resiliency, whereas all three Neuse MUs are
predicted to have low resiliency. The Upper Tar MU and Trent MU/Population are expected to
be extirpated. At the population level, only one population (Tar) retains moderate resiliency and
one population (Neuse) retains low resiliency at the end of the predictive time horizon.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 68 February 2021

Table 5-5 Neuse River Waterdog Resiliency under Scenario 4 - Opportunistic
Population Factors Habitat Elements
Combined Instream Combined
Population/ Site Population Water Water Habitat Habitat
management unit
iviu occupancy
occupancy
raccors
ttuanty
t;uancoy
uonnearvicy
i.-juosiracei
uemencs
j uverau
Tar
Moderate
Upper Tar
¢
0
0
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
0
Middle Tar
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
VLow
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Lower Tar
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Sandy -Swift
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Fishing Ck Subbasin
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Neuse
Low
Upper Neuse
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Middle Neuse
Low
Low
Low
VLow
VLow
Low
Low
Low
Low
LowerNeuseE
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Trent
0
Trent
0
0
0
Moderate
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
0
5.5.2 Representation
Under the Opportunistic Scenario, it
is predicted that the Neuse River
Waterdog will have reduced
representation. The species will
retain 67% of its known River Basin
variability, remaining moderately
resilient in the Tar River Basin. The
species also retains limited resiliency
Physiographic variability in the
Coastal Plain (83%) and moderate
variability in the Piedmont (56%).
At the population level, one
population (Tar) retains moderate
condition representation (Figure 5-
8).
5.5.3 Redundancy
Under the Opportunistic scenario, it
is predicted that the Neuse River
Waterdog will have reduced levels of
redundancy, with likely extirpation
in two of the nine MUs, persisting in
low condition in all three MUs of the
Neuse River Basin. Redundancy is
reduced to 3 MUs within one
population (Tar), thus making the
species susceptible to catastrophic
events.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 69 February 2021

CHAPTER 6 — STATUS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Current Viability SummarX
The historical range of the Neuse River Waterdog included Yd and 4th order streams and rivers in
the Tar, Neuse, and Trent drainages, with documented historical distribution in 9 MUs within
three populations. The Neuse River Waterdog is currently extant in all identified MUs, however
within those MUs it is presumed extirpated from 35% (14) of the historically occupied HUCs.
Of the nine occupied MUs, two (22%) are estimated to have high resiliency, two (22%) moderate
resiliency, and five (56%) low resiliency. Scaling up from the MU to the population level, one
of three populations (the Tar Population) is estimated to have moderate resiliency, and two (the
Neuse and Trent population) are characterized by low resiliency. 60% of streams that were once
part of the species' range are estimated to be in low condition or likely extirpated. The species is
known to occupy streams in two physiographic regions, however it has lost physiographic
representation with an estimated 43% loss in Piedmont watersheds and an estimated 13% loss in
Coastal Plain watersheds.
Future Viability SummarX
The goal of this assessment was to describe the viability of the Neuse River Waterdog in terms
of resiliency, representation, and redundancy by using the best science available at the time of
the analysis (the 3Rs). To capture the uncertainty associated with the degree and extent of
potential future risks and their impacts on species' needs, each of the 3Rs were assessed using
four plausible future scenarios (Status Quo, Pessimistic, Optimistic, and Opportunistic). These
scenarios were based, in part, on the results of urbanization (Terando et. al. 2014) and climate
models (IPCC 2013) that predict changes in habitat used by the Neuse River Waterdog. The
results of the predictive analysis describe a range of possible conditions in terms of the number
and distribution of Neuse River Waterdog populations (Table 6-1). While the future projections
were made using a 50-year predictive time horizon, after the analysis the experts noted that that
not all scenario outcomes have the same likelihood of occurrence at any one time step. To
account for this, a discretized range of probabilities (Table 6-2) was used to describe the
likelihood of scenario outcome at 10, 25, and 50 year time -steps (Table 6-3). (Note: the range of
likelihoods in Table 6-2 was based on IPCC guidance (Mastrandea et al. 2011) and has been
accepted and is understood relatively well by and in the scientific community).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 70 February 2021

Table 6-1 Summary of Current and Future Scenario Outcomes
Future Scenarios of Population Conditions
Populations: Management Units
Very Low
Likely Extirpated
Likely Extirpated
Likely Extirpated
Tar: Upper Tar
Tar: Middle Tar
Moderate
Low
Low
High
Moderate
Tar: Lower Tar
High
[Moderate
Moderate
Low
High
Moderate
Tar: Sandy -Swift
High
Moderate
Low
High
High
Tar: Fishing Ck
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Neuse: Upper Neuse
Low
Likely Extirpated
Likely Extirpated
Low
Low
Neuse: Middle Neuse
Low
Low
Likely Extirpated
Low
Low
Neuse: Lower Neuse
Low
Likely Extirpated
Low
Low
Trent
Very Low
Likely Extirpated
Likely Extirpate
Likely Extirpated
Table 6-2 Explanation of confidence terminologies used to estimate the likelihood
of scenario (after IPCC guidance, Mastrandrea et at. 2011).
Confidence
Terminology
Explanation
We are greater than 90% sure that
Very likely
the outcome of this scenario will
occur.
Likely
We are 70-90% sure that the
outcome of this scenario will occur.
As Likely As Not
We are 40-70% sure that the
outcome of this scenario will occur.
Unlikely
We are 10-40% sure that the
outcome of this scenario will occur.
Very unlikely
We are less than 10% sure that the
outcome of this scenario will occur.
Table 6-3 Likelihood of Scenario Outcome at 10, 25, and 50 years
Likelihood of Scenario
Outcome Occurring at:
10 Years As Likely As Not
25 Years Likely
50 Years Likely
#2
Pessimistic
Unlikely
As Likely As Not
Likely
As Likely As Not
Unlikely
As Likely As Not
Likely
Unlikely
Unlikely
An important assumption of the predictive analysis was that future population resiliency is
largely dependent on water quality, water flow, riparian, and instream habitat conditions. Our
assessment predicted that all currently extant Neuse River Waterdog populations would
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 71 February 2021

experience negative changes to these important habitat requisites. Predicted viability varied
among scenarios and is summarized below and in Table 6-1.
Given Scenario 1, the "Status Quo' option, a loss of resiliency, representation, and redundancy is
expected. Under this scenario, we predicted that no Management Units (MU) would remain in
high condition, two in moderate condition, four in low condition, and three MUs would be likely
extirpated. Redundancy would be reduced to four MUs in the Tar Population and two in the
Neuse Population. Representation would also be reduced, primarily with reduced variability in
the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. The scenario outcome is as likely as not at the 10 year time -
step, and likely at both the 25 and 50 year time -steps (Tables 6-2 and 6-3).
Given Scenario 2, the "Pessimistic" option, we predicted substantial losses of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy. Redundancy would be reduced to four MUs in one population,
and the resiliency of that population is expected to be low. Several (5) MUs were predicted to be
extirpated, and, of the remaining four MUs, all would be in low condition. All measures of
representation are predicted to decline under this scenario, leaving remaining Neuse River
Waterdog populations underrepresented in River Basin and Physiographic variability. The
scenario outcome is unlikely at the 10 year time -step, as likely as not at the 25 year time -step,
and likely at the 50 year time -step (Tables 6-2 and 6-3).
Given Scenario 3, the "Optimistic" option, we predicted slightly higher levels of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy than was estimated under the Status Quo or Pessimistic options.
Three MUs would be in high condition, one in moderate condition, and the remaining five would
be in low condition. Despite predictions of population persistence in the Neuse and Trent River
Basins, these populations are expected to retain low levels of resiliency. Existing levels of
representation are predicted to decline under this scenario. This scenario is as likely as not at the
10 year time -step (Tables 6-2, 6-3), primarily because we will hopefully be able to hold the line
in the Tar and Trent basins but expect continued decline in the Neuse. Over time it will be
difficult to maintain the conditions predicted by the Optimistic Scenario, therefore the likelihood
of scenario outcome is as unlikely at both the 25 and 50 year time -steps (Table 5-8, 5-9).
Given Scenario 4, the "Opportunistic" option, we predicted reduced levels of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy. One MU would be in high condition, three would be in
moderate condition, three in low condition, and two would be likely extirpated. Redundancy
would be reduced with the loss of the Trent Population. Under the Opportunistic Scenario,
representation is predicted to be reduced with 67% of formerly occupied river basins remaining
occupied and with reduced variability in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Physiographic Regions.
The scenario outcome is likely at the 10 year time -step, as likely as not at the 25 year time -step,
and unlikely at the 50 year time -step (Tables 6-2, 6-3).
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 72 February 2021

Overall Summary
Estimates of current and future resiliency for Neuse River Waterdog are moderate to low, as are
estimates for representation and redundancy. The Neuse River Waterdog faces a variety of risks
from declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and
deterioration of instream habitats. These risks, which are expected to be exacerbated by
urbanization and climate change, were important factors in our assessment of the future viability
of the Neuse River Waterdog. Given losses of resiliency, populations become more vulnerable
to extirpation, in turn, resulting in concurrent losses in representation and redundancy.
Predictions of Neuse River Waterdog habitat conditions and population factors suggest possible
extirpation in two of three currently extant populations. The one population predicted to remain
extant (Tar) is expected to be characterized by low occupancy and abundance in the future.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 73 February 2021

References
Aktar, M.W., Dwalpayan, S., and A. Chowdhury. 2009. Impact of pesticide use in agriculture:
their benefits and hazards. Interdisciplinary Toxicology,Vol 2(1):1-12.
Alig, R. S.Stewart, D.Wear, S.Stein, and D.Nowak. 2010. Conversions of Forest Land: Trends,
Determinants, Projections, and Policy Considerations. Chapter in Advances in Threat
Assessment and Their Application to Forest and Rangeland Management. U.S. Forest Service
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-802.
https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr802/Noll/pnw_9tr8O2voll_alig.pdf (accessed: 2/15/2017)
Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman &
Hall. New York.
Allan, J.D., D.L. Erickson, and J.Fay. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream
integrity across multiple scales. Freshwater Biology 37:149-161.
Allen, A.W., Y.K. Bernal, and R.J. Moulton. 1996. Pine Plantations and Wildlife in the
Southeastern United States: An Assessment of Impacts and Opportunities. Information and
Technology Report 3, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 40pp.
http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/others/1996_03.pdf (Accessed: 2/9/2017)
Arabshahi, I. and C. Raines. 2012. Defense, National Security & Climate Change: Building
Resilience and Identifying Opportunities Related to Water, Energy and Extreme Events.
Workshop Synthesis Report. Association of Climate Change Officers. 33pp.
Ashton, Jr. R.E. 1985. Field and Laboratory Observations on Microhabitat Selection,
Movements, and Home Range of Necturus lewisi (Brimley). Brimleyana 15:83-106.
Ashton Jr., R.E. and A.L. Braswell. 1979. Nest and Larvae of the Neuse River Waterdog,
Necturus lewisi (Brimley) (Amphibia: Proteidae). Brimleyana 1979(1):15-22.
Ashton Jr., R.E., A.L. Braswell, and S.I. Guttman. 1981 "1980". Electrophoretic analysis of three
species of Necturus (Amphibia: Proteidae), and the taxonomic status of Necturus lewisi
(Brimley). Brimleyana. North Carolina State Museum, Raleigh 4: 43-46.
Aust, W.M., Carroll, M.B., Bolding, M.C., and C.A. Dollof£ 2011. Operational forest stream
crossings effects on water quality in the Virginia Piedmont. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry
35:123-130.
Bishop, S.C. 1943. Handbook of Salamanders. Comstock, Ithaca. 555pp.
Brabec, E., S. Schulte, and P.L. Richards. 2002. Impervious surfaces and water quality: a
review of current literature and its implications for watershed planning. Journal of Planning
Literature 16(4): 499-514.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 74 February 2021

Braswell, A. 2005. Necturus lewisi in Lanoo, M., ed., Amphibian Declines - The
Conservation Status of United States Species, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley and Los
Angeles, CA. 1094 pp. <http://amphibiaweb.org> Accessed 22 Mar 2017.
Braswell, A.L. and R.E. Ashton Jr. 1985. Distribution, Ecology, and Feeding Habits of
Necturus lewisi (Brimley). Brimleyana 15:13-36.
Brim Box, J. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: Prospects and
problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18: 99-117.
Brimley, C.S. 1924. The Water Dogs (Necturus) of North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha
Mitchell Scientific Society 40:166-168.
Bringolf, R.B., R.M. Heltsley, T.J. Newton, C.B. Eads, S.J. Fraley, D. Shea, and W.G. Cope.
2010. Environmental occurrence and reproductive effect of the pharmaceutical fluoxetine in
native freshwater mussels. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29(6):1311-1318.
Broadmeadow, S. and T.R. Nisbet. 2004. The effects of riparian forest management on the
freshwater environment: a literature review of best management practices. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences: 8(3) 286-305.
Brode, W. E. 1970. A systematic study of salamanders of the genus Necturus Rafinesque.
Dissertation Abstracts International. B, The Sciences and Engineering 30: 5288-5289.
Burkholder, J., B.Libra, P.Weyer, S.Heathcote, D.Kolpin, P.S.Thorne, and M.Wichman. 2007.
Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality.
Environmental Health Perspectives 115(2):308-312.
Bury, R.B. 1980. Conservation of the Amphibia of the United States: a review. US Fish and
Wildlife Service Resource Publication 134: 1-34.
Cahn, A.R., and W. Shumway. 1926. Color variation in larvae of Necturus maculosus. Copeia
1926(130):4-8.
Caldwell, P. C.Segura, S.G.Laird, G.Sun, S.G.McNulty, M.Sandercock, J.Boggs, and J.M.Vose.
2014. Short-term stream water temperature observations permit rapid assessment of potential
climate change impacts. Hydrological Processes:
https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2014/ja_2014_caldwell_OOI.pdf (accessed: 2/9/2017).
Carroll, C., J.A. Vucetich, M.P. Nelson, D.J. Rohlf, and M.K. Phillips. 2010. Geography and
recovery under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 24:395-403.
Cartwright, J.M. and W.J. Wolfe. 2016. Insular ecosystems of the southeastern United States
-
A regional synthesis to support biodiversity conservation in a changing climate. USGS
Professional Paper 1828, 162 pp., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ppl828.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 75 February 2021

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010. Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and
Wetland Species from the Southeastern United States as Threatened or Endangered under the
Endangered Species Act. April 20, 2010. 1145pp.
CBD. 2017. Updated Best Available Science for Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi).
Letter from Elise Pautler Bennett to Sarah McRae, dated March 22, 2017.
Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic
Systems. Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1. Ellicott City, MD. 158pp.
Cooper, J.E. and R.E. Ashton Jr. 1985. The Necturus lewisi Study: Introduction, Selected
Literature Review, and Comments on the Hydrologic Units and Their Faunas. Brimleyana 15:1-
12.
Couceiro, S., Hamada, N., Luz, S., Forsberg, B., and Pimentel, T. 2007. Deforestation and
sewage effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates in urban streams in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.
Hydrobiologia. 575: 271-284. (http://www.ephemeroptera-
galactica.com/pubs/pub_c/pubcouceiros2007p271.pdf) (accessed: 4/27/2016)
DeWan, A., N. Dubois, K. Theoharides, and J.Boshoven. 2010. Understanding the impacts of
climate change on fish and wildlife in North Carolina. Prepared by Defenders of Wildlife.
Washington, DC, 218pp.
Eissa, A.E. and M.M. Zaki. 2011. The impact of global climatic changes on the aquatic
environment. Procedia Environmental Sciences, Volume 4:251-259.
doi: 10. 1016/j.proenv.2011.03.030
Fedak, M.A. 1971. A comparative study of the life histories of Necturus lewisi Brimley and
Necturus punctatus Gibbes (Caudata: Proteidae) in North Carolina. Master's thesis, Duke
University, Durham. 103pp.
Folkerts, G.W. 1997. State and fate of the world's aquatic fauna. p. 1-16 In: Benz, G.W. and
D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Southeast
Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur,
GA. 553 pp.
Gangloff, M.M. 2013. Taxonomic and ecological tradeoffs associated with small dam removals.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 23:475-480. DOI: 10.1002/agc.2383
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR). 2016. Conservation Status Assessment
Maps. http://www.georgiawildlife.com/conservation_status_assessment_maps (Accessed:
9/ 1 /2016).
Giddings, E.M.P., Bell, A.H., Beaulieu, K.M., Cuffney, T.F., Coles, J.F., Brown, L.R.,
Fitzpatrick, F.A., Falcone, James, Sprague, L.A., Bryant, W.L., Peppler, M.C., Stephens, Cory,
and McMahon, Gerard, 2009, Selected physical, chemical, and biological data used to study
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 76 February 2021

urbanizing streams in nine metropolitan areas of the United States, 1999-2004: U.S. Geological
Survey Data Series 423, 11 p. + data tables.
Hannah, L. 2011. Climate Change, Connectivity, and Conservation Success. Conservation
Biology, Vol 25(6): 1139-1142.
Harden, S.L., 2015, Surface -water quality in agricultural watersheds of the North Carolina
Coastal Plain associated with concentrated animal feeding operations: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5080, 55 p., 7 appendices.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir2Ol55080.
Hecht, M.K. 1958. A synopsis of the mud puppies of eastern North America. Proceedings of the
Staten Island Institute for Arts and Science 21(1):1-38.
Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 2016. ITIS Standard Report Page: Noturus furiosus.
http://www.itis.gov (Accessed 8/29/2016).
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate
Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin,
G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Jones III, E.B.D., G.S. Helfman, J.O. Harper, and P.V. Bolstad. 1999. Effects of Riparian
Forest Removal on Fish Assemblages in Southern Appalachian Streams. Conservation Biology
13(6):1454-1465.
Kishi, D., Murakami, M., Nakano, S., &amp; Taniguchi, Y. (2004). Effects of forestry on the
thermal habitat of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Ecological Research. 19: 283-290.
Lai, C. 2011. "Necturus lewisi" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web.
http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Necturus_lewisi/ (accessed: 11/20/2015)
Maestas, A. 2013. Study: Rising Demand of Southeast Trees Puts Wildlife, Biodiversity at Risk;
Landmark study examines rapidly expanding forest biomass energy development in Southeastern
U.S.. National Wildlife Federation. http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-
Center/News-by-Topic/Wildlife/2013/12-05-13-Rising-Demand-for-Southeast-Trees-Could-
Impact-Wildlife-Habitat. aspx
Mallin, M.A. and L.B. Cahoon. 2003. Industrialized animal production —a major
source of nutrient and microbial pollution to aquatic ecosystems. Population and Environment
24(5):369-385.
Martin, E. and C. Apse. 2014. Northeast Aquatic Connectivity: An Assessment of Dams on
Northeastern Rivers. The Nature Conservancy & Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. Brunswick, ME. 102 pp.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 77 February 2021

Mastrandrea, M.D., C.B. Field, T.F. Stocker, O. Edenhofer, K.L. Ebi, D.J. Frame, H. Held, E.
Kriegler, K.J. Mach, P.R. Matschoss, G.-K. Plattner, G.W. Yohe, and F.W. Zwiers, 2010.
Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment
of Uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Available at
<http://www.ipcc.ch> (accessed: 10/24/2016)
May, C.W., R.R. Horner, J.R. Karr, B.W. Mar, and E.B. Welch. 1999. Effects of Urbanization
on Small Streams in the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(4):483-
494.
McDaniel, T., P. Martin, G. Barrett, K. Hughes, A. Gendron, L. Shirose, C. Bishop. 2009.
Relative Abundance, Age Structure, and Body Size in Mudpuppy Populations in Southwestern
Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 35 (2): 182-189.
Midway, S.R., T.J. Kwak, and D.D. Aday. 2010. Habitat Suitability of the Carolina Madtom, an
Imperiled Endemic Stream Fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:325-338.
Moss, R.H., J.A. Edmonds, K.A. Hibbard, M.R. Manning, S.K. Rose, D.P. vanVuuren, T.R.
Carter, S. Emori, M. Kainuma, T. Kram, G.A. Meehl, J.F.B. Mitchell, N. Nakicenovic, K. Riahi,
S.J. Smith, R.J. Stouffer, A.M. Thompson, J.P. Weyant, and T.J. Wilbanks. 2010. The next
generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature, Vol 463:747-756.
doi:10.103 8/nature08823
Nagy, R., A. Fusaro, W. Conard, and C. Morningstar, 2020, Procambarus clarkii (Girard, 1852):
U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL,
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=217, Revision Date: 7/17/2020, Access
Date: 10/ 16/2020
Naiman, R.J., J. Decamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining
regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 3(2): 209-212.
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2012. Forestry best
management practices and conservation of aquatic species. White paper. Research Triangle Park,
NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 23 pp.
National Climate Change Viewer (NCCV). 2016. Provided by United States Geological Survey.
https://www2.usgs.gov/climate—landuse/clu—rd/nccv.asp (accessed: 9/2/2016)
National Geographic. 2016. Deforestation: Here's what you need to know about the warming
plante, how it's affecting us, and what's at stake.
http://environment.nationalgeographic. com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-over
(accessed: 5/9/2016).
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of
Aquatic Mollusks in the Southeastern United States: A Downward Spiral of Diversity; Chapter 3
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 78 February 2021

(pp.44-86) in Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspecitve, edited by G.W. Benz and
D.E. Collins (1997), Special Publication 1. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute. Lenz Design
and Communicaitons, Decatur, GA. 554pp.
New Hampshire Estuaries Project (NHEP). 2007. The Impacts of Impervious Surfaces on
Water Resources. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. 2pp.
North Carolina Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Committee. 2015. North Carolina
Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan. Raleigh, NC. 96pp.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2016a. 401 & Buffer
Permitting Statutes & Rules. https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-
resources-rules/401-certification-express-review-statutes-rules-guides (accessed: 9/1/2016).
NCDEQ. 2016b. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). http://deq.nc.gov/pennits-
regulations/sepa (accessed: 9/2/2016).
NCDEQ. 2016c. Neuse River Basin. http://www.ncwater.org/basins/neuse/indexO1072015.php
(accessed: 9/ 1 /2016),
NCDEQ. 2016d. Tar -Pamlico River Basin. http://www.ncwater.org/basins/Tar-
Pamlico/index.php (accessed: 9/l/2016).
North Carolina Forestry Association (NCFA). 2017. Forest Management Basics.
https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/ (accessed: 2/7/2017)
North Carolina Forest Service (NCFS). 2011. North Carolina Forestry BMP Implementation
Survey Report 2006-2008.
http://www.ncforestservice. gov/water_quality/pdf/nc_bmp_imp_survey_2011 _report_es.pdf
(accessed: 9/2/2016)
NCFS. 2016. Forestry Information for the Neuse River Basin and Tar -Pamlico River Basin.
Letter from Tom Gerow (NCFS) to Sarah McRae (USFWS) dated 26 July 2016, 12pp.
North Carolina Interagency Leadership Team (NCILT). 2012. Climate Ready North Carolina:
Building a Resilient Future. Raleigh, NC. 152pp.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2010. North Carolina Ecosystem
Response to Climate Change: DENR Assessment of Effects and Adaptation Measures. Raleigh,
NC.
NCNHP. 2004. Final Draft: Riparian Ecosystem Protection Standards for the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program. NCDENR, Raleigh, NC. 7pp.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 79 February 2021

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 2002. Guidance Memorandum to
Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife
Resources and Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. 25pp.
NCWRC. 2009. Neuse River Waterdog: North Carolina Wildlife Profiles. Written by B.Watson
and updated by C.Wood for the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC. 3 pp.
NCWRC. 2015. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC.
http://www.newildlife.org/plan (accessed: 9/2/2016)
NCWRC. 2019. Comment letter on proposed listing rule, dated July 22, 2019.
www.regulations.gov; Docket No. FWS—R4—ES-2018-0092
Oram, B. 2014. Ammonia in Groundwater, Runoff, and Streams. Water Research Center,
Dallas, PA. 4pp. http://www.water-research.net/index.php/ammonia-in-groundwater-runoff-
and-streams (accessed: 12/1/2016)
Orlando, E.F., A.S. Kolok, G.A. Binzcik, J.L. Gates, M.K. Horton, C.S. Lambright, L.E. Gray,
A.M.Soto, and L.J. Guillette. 2004. Endocrine -Disrupting Effects of Cattle Feedlot Effluent on
an Aquatic Sentinel Species, the Fathead Minnow. Environmental Health Perspectives 112(3):
353-358.
Pellerito, R. (updated by R. Wisch). 2002. State Endangered Species Chart. Animal Legal and
Historical Center, Michigan State University College of Law.
https://www.animallaw.info/article/state-endangered-species-chart (accessed: 9/l/2016).
Poff, N.L., M.M. Brinson, and J.W. Day, Jr. 2002. Aquatic ecosystems & Global climate
change: Potential Impacts on Inland Freshwater and Coastal Wetlands Ecosystems in the United
States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 56pp.
Pudney, J., J.A.Canick, and G.V. Callard. 1985. The Testis and Reproduction in Male Necturus,
with an Emphasis on N. lewisi (Brimley). Brimleyana 15:53-74.
Redford, K.H., G. Amoto, J. Baillie, P. Beldomenico, E.L. Bennett, N. Clum, R. Cook, G.
Fonseca, S. Hedges, F. Launay, S. Lieberman, G. M. Mace, A. Murayama, A. Putnam, J.G.
Robinson, H. Rosenbaum, E.W. Sanderson, S.N. Stuart, P. Thomas, and J. Thorbjamarson. 2011.
What does it mean to successfully conserve a (vertebrate) species? Bioscience 61:39-48.
Ren, W., Y. Zhong, J. Meligrana, B. Anderson, W.E. Watt, J. Chen, H. Leung. 2003.
Urbanization, land use, and water quality in Shanghai: 1947-1996. Environment International
29(5):649-659.
Riggs, S.R., D.V. Ames, D.R. Brant, and E.D. Sager. 2000. The Waccamaw Drainage System:
Geoloogy and Dynamics of a Coastal Wetland, Southeastern North Carolina. Report submitted
to the NC DENR Division of Water Resources, Raleigh, NC. 165pp.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 80 February 2021

Rowe, C.L., W.A. Hopkins, and J.D. Congdon. 2002. Ecotoxicological implications of aquatic
disposal of coal combustion residues in the United States: a review. Environ Monit Assess
80:207-276
Shaffer, Mark L., and Bruce A. Stein. 2000. Safeguarding our precious heritage. Precious
heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York, pp.
301-321.
Shute, P.W., R.G. Biggins, and R.S. Butler. 1997. Management and Conservation of Rare
Aquatic Resources: A Historical Perspective and Recommendations for Incorporating Ecosystem
Management, Chapter 17 (pp. 445-466) in Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspecitve,
edited by G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (1997), Special Publication 1. Southeast Aquatic
Research Institute. Lenz Design and Communicaitons, Decatur, GA. 554pp.
Smith, M.P., R. Schiff, A. Olivero, and J. MacBroom. 2008. The Active River Area: A
Conservation Framework for Protecting Rivers and Streams. The Nature Conservancy, Boston,
MA. 64 pp.
Snape, William J. and Susan George. 2010. "State Endangered Species Acts." In Endangered
Species Act: Law, Policy, and Perspectives, edited by Donald C. Bauer and William Robert
Irvin, 344-359. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources,
c2010.
Southeast Climate Science Center (SECSC). 2017. Ecological Drought in the Southeast United
States: Balancing competing demands for water supplies. Workshop Summary, November 6-17,
2016, Raleigh, NC. 4pp. https:Hglobalchange.ncsu.edu/secsc/wp-content/uploads/Southeast-
CSC-newsletter Final_RS.pdf (accessed: 2/27/2017)
Sandt, C.J. and M. Doyle. 2013. Studying the Potential to Add Micro Hydropower in North
Carolina. Hydro Review 32(8):1-7.
Southeastern Climate Science Center (SECSC). 2017. Ecological Drought in the Southeast
United States: Balancing competing demands for water supplies. SECSC Workshop, November
16-17, 2016. Raleigh, NC. 4pp.
Stewart, J.S., D.M. Downes, L. Wang, J.A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences of
riparian corridors on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209-214 in P. J. Wigington,
Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association
International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi -land use watersheds,
Portland, Oregon.
Sun, G. K.Alstad, J.Chen, S.Chen, C.R.Ford, G.Lin, C.Liu, N.Lu, S.G.McNulty, H.Miao,
A.Noormets, J.M. Vose, B.Wilske, M.Zeppel, Y.Zhang, and Z.Zhang. 2011. A general
predictive model for estimating monthly ecosystem evapotranspiration. Ecohydrology Vol 4(2):
245-255.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 81 February 2021

Swank, W. T., and N. H. Miner. 1968. Conversion of Hardwood -Covered Watersheds to White
Pine Reduces Water Yield, Water Resour. Res., 4(5), 947-954, doi:10.1029/WR004i005p00947.
Swank, W.T. and J.E. Douglass. 1974. Streamflow Greatly Reduced by Converting Deciduous
Hardwood Stands to Pine. Science Vol. 185, Issue 4154:857-859.
DOI: 10. 1 126/science. 185.4154.857
Taylor, S.E., R. Rummer, K.H. Yoo, R.A. Welch, and J.D. Thompson. 1999. What we know and
don't know about water quality at stream crossings. Journal of Forestry 97(8):12-17.
Terando, A.J., J. Costanza, C. Belyea, R.R. Dunn, A. McKerrow, and J.A. Collazo. 2014. The
Southern Megalopolis: Using the Past to Predict the Future of Urban Sprawl in the Southeast
U.S. PLoS ONE 9(7): e102261. doi:10.1371/joumal.pone.0102261
Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial
and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology, Vol 14, No.1: 18-33.
Tuner, M.A. 2004. Some water quality threats to the Barton Springs Salamander at low flows.
Watershed Protection Development Review; City of Austin Water Resource Evaluation Section,
Environmental Resource Management Division. Austin, TX. 1 1pp.
https://www. fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/LitCited/4TX_S al/Tumer_2004—Threats—o
f low—flows.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2016. Information Regarding Compliance with the Federal
Clean Water Act Sction 404(F)(1) Provisions for the Construction of Forest Roads within
Wetlands, in North Carolina. Wilmington District, Regulatory Division. Wilmington, NC. 5pp.
U.S. Census. 2016. United States Population Growth by Region.
https://www.census.gov/popclock/data tables.php?component=growth (accessed: 7/27/2016).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Nutrient Pollution — The Sources and Solutions:
Agriculture. https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-agriculture (accessed:
5/25/2016).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Draft recovery plan for Cumberland elktoe,
oyster mussel, Cumberlandian combshell, purple bean, and rough rabbitsfoot. Atlanta, GA.
USFWS. 2006. Final Draft: Riparian Buffers — Management Recommendations for Sites -
Specific Water Quality Protection and Restoration Planning in Waters Supporting Federally -
Listed Aquatic Species. Raleigh, NC. 75pp.
USFWS. 2016. USFWS Species Status Assessment Framework: An integrated analytical
framework for conservation. Version 3.4 dated August 2016.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems.
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/urban/ (accessed: 10/5/2016)
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 82 February 2021

Viosca Jr., P. 1937. A tentative revision of the genus Necturus, with descriptions of three new
species from the southern Gulf drainage area. Copeia 1937(2):120-138.
Watters, G.T. 2000. Freshwater mussels and water quality: A review of the effects of
hydrologic and instream habitat alterations. Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk
Conservation Society Symposium, 1999. pp. 261-274. Ohio Biological Survey.
Wayne, G. 2013. The Beginner's Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways. Version
1.0. Skeptical Science. 25pp.
Wear, D.N. and J.G. Greis. 2012. The Southern Forest Futures Project: summary report. Gen.
Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-168. Asheville, NC: USDA -Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
54pp.
Webster, J.R., S.W. Golladay, E.F. Benfield, J.L. Meyer, W.T. Swank, and J.B. Wallace. 1992.
Catchment disturbance and stream response: An overview of stream research at Coweeta
Hydrologic Laboratory. In River conservation and management, ed. P.J. Boon, P. Calow and
G.E. Petts, 231-253. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Wenger, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent, and
Vegetation. University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology, Athens, GA. 59pp.
Wilson, C.O. 2015. Land use/land cover water quality nexus: quantifying anthropogenic
influences on surface water quality. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 187(7):424.
Wolf, S, B. Hard, C. Carroll, M.C. Neel, and D.N. Greenwald. 2015. Beyond PVA: Why
recovery under the Endangered Species Act is more than population viability. Bioscience doi:
10.1093/biosci/biu218 200-207.
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 83 February 2021

Appendix A — Data for Population Factors and Habitat Elements
%
#of #of #
#
# #
#
Historically
%Current
Current
Historically Currently Historically Currently
MU
Historically Currently
Historically
#Current Positive
Positive
Changein
Site
Condition -
Population/
Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied % Occupancy
Occupied Occupied
%
Surveyed
Surveyed Site
Site
% Occupancy
Population
Management Unit
MUs MUs HUC10s
HUC10s Decline Condition
Sites Sites
Decline
Locations
Locations Occupancy
Occupancy
occupancy Condition
Factors
Tar
5 5
17
14
18
M
54
37 31 192
77
28 48
20
M
M
Upper Tar
3
1
67
VL
10
1
90 30
11
33 9
-24
VL
VL
Middle Tar
3
4'
+33
H
12
10
17 45
16
27 63
36
M
M
Lower Tar
4
3
25
M
8
8
0 46
15
17 53
36
H
H
Sandy -Swift
2
5
2
4
0
20
H
M
6
18
8
10
+33 20
44 51
11
24
30 73
35 42
43
6
H
L
H
L
�FishingCkSubbasin
20
14
149
87
Lpper
Neuse
4
2
50
L
7
3
57 25
9
28 33
5
L
L
Middle Neuse
10
7
30
L
24
15
38 63
37
38 41
2
L
L
Lower Neuse
6
5
17
M
14
9
36 61
41
23 22
-1
M
M
Overall Instream
Habitat
(Substrate)
Condition
-
#of Barriers
combine ARA
Overall
#of
in Top 20%
Forest+
Size of
Impaired
Water
Overall Water
Dams
#of
NACP/CFPP Actual#of
Average#
Overall
Avg
Watershed
Current
Population/ Management MU Size of
Stream Major
Minor
Quality
Known Flow
Consecutive Quantity
(NC
Dams
/SEACAP Road of Road Connectivity
Avg ARA % Watershed %
Impervious
Habitat
Unit (km2) MU(mi2)
Miles NPDES
NPDES
Condition
Issues?
Drought Years Condition
layer)
(NID)
Ranking Crossings Crossings Condition
Forest
Imp Surface
Surface
Condition
Tar
M
M
M
M
M
2007, 2008,
Upper Tar
1228 474
8
2 51
M
Y- dry channels
2009,2010
L
67
20 51
879 293
M
64 1.3
H
M
2007, 2008,
Middle Tar
1447 559
36
2 90
M
none
20D9,2010
M
81
36 53
144 286
M
39 2.7
M
M
2007, 2008,
Lower Tar
2487 960
29
3 99
M
none
2009,2010
M
27
20 14
2028 338
M
20 2.2
L
M
Y- windthrow 2007,2008,
Sandy Swift Ck
705 272
5
0 21
H
blockages
2009,2010
L
31
25 22
431 216
M
44 1.3
M
M
2007, 2008,
Fishing Ck Subbasin
1855 716
14
1 33
M
Y- beavers
2009,2010
M
25
16 20
801 160
M
51 0.5
M
M
L
InkL
L
L
2007, 2008,
Upper Neuse
1998 771
55
3 640
L
none
2009,2010
M
143
99 99
2150 430
L
59 4.2
M
M
2007, 2008,
Middle Neuse
4714 1820
273
12 443
L
y
2009,2010
L
418
285 302
6594 550
L
31 5.6
L
L
2007, 2008,
Lower Neuse
4835 18671
55
9 195
L
none
2009,2010
M
47
33 41
3895 325
L
19 1.8
L
L
2007, 2008,
Trent
1402 541
18
0 12
H
none
2009,2010
M
8
6 5
690 230
H
19 1
L
M
Neuse River Waterdog SSA Report Page 84 February 2021