20230803 Ver 1_Jacobs Creek_Self Certification Package_20230605

QPQ��eNT OF T,yF2
O F
fN O
7 �
9
N 3, 5aA
United States Department of the
Project Name
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Date: 5/28/2023
Self -Certification Letter
Jacob's Creek Residential Development
Dear Applicant:
fug a wn�
S�NV ICIi
Interior
q} F
Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.
The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:
❑"no effect" determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
❑✓ "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
❑ "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;
❑✓ "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.

Applicant Page 2
We certify that use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the
instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package results in
reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore, we concur with the "no effect" or
"not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed and listed species and
proposed and designated critical habitat; the "may affect" determination for Northern
long-eared bat; and/or the "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.
Additional coordination with this office is not needed. Candidate species are not
legally protected pursuant to the ESA. However, the Service encourages consideration
of these species by avoiding adverse impacts to them. Please contact this office for
additional coordination if your project action area contains candidate species.
Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of
proposed or listed species, proposed or designated critical habitat, or bald eagles
becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. This certification letter is
valid for 1 year. Information about the online project review process including
instructions, species information, and other information regarding project reviews
within North Carolina is available at our website http://www.fws.gov. If you have any
questions, you can write to us at [e-mail] or please contact Leigh Mann of
this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 10.
Sincerely,
/s/Pete Benjamin
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services
Enclosures - project review package

4.: United States Department of the Interior
p
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2023-0086905
Project Name: Jacob's Creek Residential Development
ear' ln AMMU
WX
o-<
May 27, 2023
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If your project area
contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species on this species list, the proposed
action has the potential to adversely affect those species. If suitable habitat is present, surveys
should be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence within the project area. The
use of this species list and/or North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be
substituted for actual field surveys.
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered

05/27/2023
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project -related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project -related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project -related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-
birds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/
executive-orders/e0-13186. php.

05/27/2023
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of
this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit
to our office.
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List
• Migratory Birds

05/27/2023
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

05/27/2023
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2023-0086905
Project Name: Jacob's Creek Residential Development
Project Type: New Constr - Above Ground
Project Description: 5-phase residential subdivision in Rockingham County, NC.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.google.com/maps/(a)36.2886695,-79.94888052392571,14z
Counties: Rockingham County, North Carolina

05/27/2023
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
MAMMALS
NAME STATUS
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis sub flavus Proposed
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Endangered
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
FISHES
NAME STATUS
Roanoke Logperch Percina rex Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1134
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
FLOWERING PLANTS
NAME STATUS
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849

05/27/2023
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL
ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.

05/27/2023
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Actz.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treat. Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your
project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this
list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location,
nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact
locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project
area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species
on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing
the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to
additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your
migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be
found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
BREEDING SEASON
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug
25
Breeds May 1 to Jul 31
Breeds May 10 to Aug
31

05/27/2023
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence (■)
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe

05/27/2023
3
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Chimney Swift
BCC Rangewide —�
(CON)
Prairie Warbler
BCC Rangewide —+
(CON)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide ---- — I -- ---- — — — I — . — -- — -- --- . -- — ---
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library
collections/avoidinc-and-minimizinv--incidental-take-mip-ratorv-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
MIGRATORY BIRDS FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits
may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my
specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCQ and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

05/27/2023 4
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information
Locator (RAIL,) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look
at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each
bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated
with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point
within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not
breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

05/27/2023
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Lorin.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

05/27/2023
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:
Private Entity
Name:
James Mason
Address:
324 Blackwell St, Suite 1200
City:
Durham
State:
NC
Zip:
27701
Email
[e-mail]
Phone:
7046048358

Roy Cooper, Governor
on
■o INC DEPARTMENT OF
N )
■■minim NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■®■
May 18, 2023
Three Oaks
Three Oaks Engineering
324 Blackwell Street
Durham, NC 27701
RE: Jacobs Creek Subdivision
Dear Three Oaks:
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy Director, Natural Heritage Program
04 ►011M1UKMANI IE
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httr)s://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federally -
listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rod ney.butler�ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
09 121 L4 JC)NES STF EET, RALEK_,H. NC 27603 - 1651 r�IAUL 6EPVICE CENTER, PALEIGH. NC
OFC 919 7U7.9120 • FAX [phone]

\
\
CO
/ / 3
7a v
\
\
\ /
$
\
/
a)/
\
COj
2 CO « m
g/ y2
\
\2
/
\/
\
\ƒ
®/
2
/s
i/
E
\/
\
D \4
\\
( \ \
CO/
^
=7
�\
\
(
0
\ =
E \
4/
/ / ®
» /
s s g
\5ne
g
©
%/
e a a a_
ƒ 2
/ / \
\
2
/
»1)
CO w\e&
CO
)\
\ a)> 2
y CO2 % %
CO
4
mgeZ
<a}oo
\%
x e
a \
/
u
J/
\ 2 Z
t O
u
m
°
ƒ
U_
\ o
\
ƒ
®
_
c
\\
CO
Z
° \O
3§ xo
0
-}
/
\
—0
O
/ )
CO2
\E
D-
E z
»
E
(j
\
\ u `u
\
(
\ \
\
z
G
=
O
O
CO
\
E
`
CO
k
�
e
k
=
?
g
LE (
co
2
/
0\
\
\ (
\
s
\ \
co
Du ( UE
0 g
m
z
co
e
\
E
\ }
\
D� :o�
us ,as
u
°
\\
:2
CO
0\
/
\
/ \
J
m
) \
/H \
Ln
/
\.2
�\
CO
\gj �\
\
/
�\
O \ ° � \
g
_
/
% g
z
t o _ —
=
%
e= z. o z
» } / E
CO
Z
e
x
2 :
z^ \
/ CO
/
/
/
\ \
o
§
/

r—
O
U)
CO
se
Q)
L
U
U)
O
U
(a
LO
O)
r
N
I
W
r)
U
Z
Rd
oc
m
Th U on
cool We'd
A \
d y�J
ea �47
Angell Ra
Angell Rd
d
FJQ �
S
3
�tS
2
U
Z
n
Hayn
N
2
v
ti
JI
ax
u7
M
O
PH aaa�Aaddad o
�a
LI.j �eo. ac
�buiaej a��ad :....g
S
Pa auoo
a
c"
�o
0
--' Lauren Rd
NG
O� \
d�
O �
v
z
C
� oy
M
O
M
N
CD
Q)
a

Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
[phone]
January 23, 2023
Donald Sever
Senior Project Manager
Summit Design and Engineering Services
320 Executive Court
Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-322-0115 x 3239
don. [e-mail]
Bennett Farm Schweinitz's Sunflower Survey Memo
Project Description and Survey Methodology
LGI Homes, Inc. proposes to develop a portion (160.7 acres) of Parcel No. 121531Z1, hereafter referred to
as the Project Study Area (PSA). The PSA is centered between Stokesdale, Ellisboro, and Witty's
Crossroads in the Huntsville and New Bethel Townships of Rockingham County, North Carolina. Three
Oaks Engineering, Inc. (Three Oaks) was contracted as a subconsultant to Summit Design and Engineering
Services (Summit), who is under contract with LGI Homes, Inc. to complete surveys for the federally
endangered Schweinitz's sunflower within the PSA. The PSA includes a proposed right-of-way extending
east from Bennett Farm Road to Jacob's Creek as well as the remaining portion of Parcel No. 121531Z1
from Jacob's Creek to Griffin Road (Figure 1). The portion of Parcel No. 121531Z1 east of Griffin Road
was also surveyed.
Habitats within the PSA consist of fallow agricultural fields, farm roads, planted pine stands, and mature
bottomland and upland hardwood stands. Opportunistic surveys focused in areas of suitable Schweinitz's
sunflower habitat were conducted by Three Oaks staff within the PSA.
Species Morphology and Habitat Description
Schweinitz's sunflower is a tall (3.25 — 6.5' [9.8']), rhizomatous, perennial plant in the Asteraceae family.
Stems are often reddish in color and strigose. Leaves may be arranged in either opposite (proximally) or
alternate (distally) orientations along the stem. Leaf petioles are short (0-1 cm), and margins are entire or
subentire (revolute). Abaxial leaf surfaces are hirsute to tomentose and gland -dotted, while adaxial surfaces
are scabrous. Ray floret corolla lobes are also yellow, while anthers are dark brown to black. Schweinitz's
sunflower flowers from late August until first frost.
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

0
Schweinitz's sunflower can be found growing in clayey soils of woodlands, roadsides, rights -of -way, and
in areas formerly supporting xeric piedmont oak -pine prairies and savannas. This species is endemic to the
Piedmont region of North and South Carolina.
Survey Results and Qualifications
Schweinitz's sunflower
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Optimal Survey Window: late August — October (or first ground -
level frost)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
On October 28, 2022, Three Oaks staff members Mary Frazer (M.E.M.), Nathan Howell, (M.S., PWS),
Byron Levan (M.FW.), and Mark Guerard conducted a plant -by -plant survey for Schweinitz's sunflower
within the PSA. Marginally suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower was present in areas with moderate
disturbance regimes and little -to -no canopy cover. However, Schweinitz's sunflower was not identified
during this survey effort. Additionally, no associate species typically co-occurring with Schweinitz's
sunflower were identified. A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) fall 2022
dataset revealed no known Schweinitz's sunflower Element Occurrences (EO) within the PSA, or within
one mile, of the PSA. Due to the negative survey results of this survey and the lack of known EO's within
one mile of the PSA, the Biological Conclusion rendered for the species is "No Effect".
Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
James Mason
Senior Environmental Scientist
Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
james.masongthreeoaksengineering com
Office: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

Appendix
Figures
Three Oaks Engineering threeoaksengineering.com

o,�sdf
E
0
o
m
��,
mu a)_
Q T
N
M
N
o
MLL
Cn
WNO
%C
N Oa
a
U
2
N
�y'�h'0331J�ti�
N 7
ammo
d C a>
C r
C
N
0
LL
uz°
0
m
o
z
m
a`
o
10
o` ill
Z
� RO
RD
FJaJP
A BEY FPRM
Ro
r.
r
:rj
a
c
c
�
N
�
o
SSOaO
1 r: 1
wi
a'
•
a
yryy
,
�9
I
x
r
_
S
af
y.
yy
3
Y
N
,.
o
�
Z
m NNETT FARM RD R�nP
i
`•,
o
US 220
+a
2
-a
)
ra -r
PRICE FARM RD .•
�U`
8g
..
Z
.
O N
�
Myb�1
coe�'
,rs sl
I
I
a
d
. psi
0
Fn
chi .
yk,
3
w
BROOK
OO�a
� o r
VALLEY DR

Freshwater Fish Survey Report
Proposed Bennett Farms Residential Development in Proximity to
Jacobs Creek
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Jacobs Creek during the survey efforts
Prepared For:
ESUMMIT
0*VUw++t�t ttb "A&ads
Summit Design and Engineering Services
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Contact Person:
Don Sever
Summit Design and Engineering Services
320 Executive Court
Hillsborough, NC 27278
March 30, 2023

Prepared by:
�IMEEf1jH6:
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Waters Impacted.................................................................................................................. 2
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Descriptions................................................................ 2
3.1 Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex)...................................................................................... 2
3.1.1 Species Characteristics............................................................................................. 2
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements.................................................................... 2
3.1.3 Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 4
4.0 Survey Efforts...................................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Jacobs Creek ....................................................... 6
4.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................... 6
4.2.1 Fish Surveys.............................................................................................................. 6
4.3 Fish Survey Results.......................................................................................................... 7
5.0 Discussion/Conclusions....................................................................................................... 8
6.0 Literature Cited.................................................................................................................... 9
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences: Roanoke Logperch
Appendix B. Select Photographs

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Summit Design and Engineering Services has contracted Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks)
on behalf of Bennett Farms, who is proposing the development of a portion of the Bennett Farm
property near the southwestern edge of Rockingham County, NC (Appendix A, Figure 1). The
project will impact Jacobs Creek of the Roanoke River Basin. The Federally Endangered
Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex, RLP), James Spinymussel (Parvaspina collina, [formerly
Pleurobema collina (Perkins et al. 2017)]) and the Federally Threatened Atlantic Pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni) are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) for Rockingham County. The Green Floater (Lasmigona
subviridis) is being considered for listing by USFWS and is known to occur in Rockingham
County. The USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation (IPaC) system indicates the
Roanoke Logperch as the only species that could potentially be affected by activities in this
location (USFWS IPaC 2023). Therefore, the Roanoke Logperch will be addressed in this
report.
Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) for the Roanoke Logperch in approximate river
miles (RM) from the subject bridge. Data are from the NC Natural Heritage Program database
(NCNHP 2022) most recently updated in October 2022. There has been a more recent
observation of Roanoke Logperch as part of EO ID 26357 by Three Oaks staff. This record has
not been reported in the most resent NCNHP dataset, and this observation was made near the
western terminus of the EO near Madison, NC in October 2021 (Appendix A, Figure 2).
Table 1. NCNHP Element Occurrences
Distance
from
EO
EO
crossing
First
Last
EO
Species Name
ID
Waterbody
(RNI)
Observed
Observed
Status
Figure
Dan River,
Mayo
Roanoke
River Big
October
26357
14.5
July 2008
C
2
Logperch
Beaver
2019**
Island
Creek
* : C — NCNHP Current
**: More recent observation by Three Oaks staff individuals in October 2021
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project -related
effects to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) was contracted to
conduct fish surveys targeting the Roanoke Logperch.
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 1

2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
Jacobs Creek is in the Upper Dan River subbasin (HUC9 03010103) of the Roanoke River Basin
and flows approximately 11.3 RM from the downstream edge of the study area boundary before
reaching its confluence with the Dan River.
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex)
3.1.1 Species Characteristics
The Roanoke Logperch is a large darter with an
elongate body up to 165 mm in total length. The
snout is conical or pig -like. The caudal fin is slightly
emarginated, truncate, or slightly rounded. The body
is straw-colored to pale olive dorsally, pale to
yellow -olive on the lower side with a white belly; the
lateral line is complete. Markings are dark olive to
black with green, gold, or blue iridescence on the
side of the head and the prepectoral area. There are
8-11 lateral blotches. The first dorsal fin has
submarginal yellow or orange bands, while the
second dorsal, caudal, and pectoral fins are distinctly tessellated (Terwilliger 1991).
The Roanoke Logperch is a benthic feeder; feeding on a variety of immature insects by
overturning gravel and small rocks with its snout (Terwilliger 1991). The average life
expectancy is five to six years. Spawning occurs in April or May in deep runs over gravel and
small cobble. Logperch typically bury their eggs and provide no subsequent parental care
(USFWS 2015).
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Roanoke Logperch can be found in larger streams in the upper Roanoke, Smith, Pigg, Otter,
and Nottoway River systems and Goose Creek in Virginia; and in the Dan, Mayo, and Smith
River systems and Big Beaver Island Creek in North Carolina. Its upstream range in the Dan and
Mayo Rivers is presumably impeded by dams (USFWS 2015).
Due to barriers such as dams, there are currently eight discrete populations of Roanoke
Logperch. The population in the upper Roanoke River is probably the largest and most
important in the species' range (USFWS 2022a).
The Roanoke Logperch occupies medium to large warm water streams and rivers of moderate
gradient with substrates that have little silt accumulation. In inhabited waterways, fish usually
inhabit riffles and runs with silt -free sandy to boulder -strewn bottoms. During different phases
of life history and season, every major riverine habitat is exploited by the Logperch. Young are
usually found in slow runs and pools with clean sandy bottoms. In winter, Logperch may be
more tolerant of silty substrates and may also inhabit pools. Males are associated with shallow
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 2

riffles during the reproductive period; females are common in deep runs over gravel and small
cobble where they spawn (NatureServe 2015, USFWS 1992).
The species is usually in low abundance, and populations are small and separated by long
segments of river or large impoundments. (Terwilliger 1991). In addition, because the Roanoke
Logperch is difficult to catch and has a patchy distribution and low abundance, they are difficult
to detect. Extensive and intensive sampling by the Virginia Transportation Research Council
confirmed that Roanoke Logperch are difficult to detect even with more sampling effort than
typically is applied in general fish surveys (Lahey and Angermeier 2007). It was not until 2007,
that individuals of this species were found in the Roanoke River drainage (Smith and Dan
Rivers) in Rockingham County, North Carolina (NCWRC 2015).
Existing information on the distribution of Roanoke Logperch and habitat suitable for Logperch
is scarce and varies in quality. Most previous surveys for Logperch focused on areas near known
occurrences and information on habitat suitability has been scarce and inconsistently gathered
(Lahey and Angermeier 2007).
The present understanding of the Roanoke Logperch range and densities indicates that all
populations extend further and are denser than previously assumed when the species was
federally listed. Populations in the upper Roanoke and Nottoway Rivers show comparably high
densities (Rosenberger and Angermeier 2002 in USFWS 2022a) and high genetic diversity
(George and Mayden 2003 in USFWS 2022a). The species appears to be reproducing
throughout its range, however, a poor understanding of abundance at the time of listing makes it
difficult to determine whether populations are increasing, stable, or declining over the long term
(USFWS 2022a).
Attempts to use eDNA to gain a better understanding of the distribution of a species have been
performed with related Percina species to compare the use of eDNA to traditional survey
methods. The Snail Darter (Percina tanasi) is one such species, where biologists collected 83
water samples in the Tennessee River watershed. The study was able to confirm presence in the
known localities with 100 percent detection rate and was able to locate the species in several new
localities that were not previously detected (Shollenberger, Janosik, and Johnston 2022).
The 2022 Roanoke Logperch Species Status Assessment (SSA) reports four metapopulations of
the species. Each of these metapopulations are further broken down in Management Units
(MUs) that are evaluated by the following factors including: population density, effective
population size, habitat quality, and stream segments. Population density is calculated by
dividing the total estimated population by the area represented by the MU. Habitat quality is
generalized from high to low based on the overall presence of preferred habitat for RLP. Stream
segments refers to the number of streams occupied within an MU. These factors are combined to
produce an overall resiliency score for each MU, where the higher the value, the more robust the
population of a particular MU. Subsequently, this score is considered across all MUs within a
metapopulation to evaluate an overall redundancy score for the metapopulation. Each
metapopulation is listed below with its constituent management units, and each management unit
lists the occupied streams that Roanoke Logperch have been observed in, as well as a habitat
score and overall resiliency score. The overall redundancy score is also listed for each
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 3

metapopulation below (USFWS, 2022b). Note that management units without a confirmed
Roanoke Logperch observation are italicized.
Roanoke Mountain Metapopulation: (Overall redundancy rating: 49)
Upper Roanoke — Roanoke River, South Fork Roanoke River, North Fork Roanoke
River, Elliott Creek, Mason Creek, Tinker Creek, Glade Creek, Smith Mountain Lake
(High, 7)
Roanoke Piedmont Metapopulation: Primary ecoregion: Piedmont (Overall redundancy
rating: 24)
2. Blackwater — None (N/A, N/A)
3. Pigg — Pigg River, Big Chestnut Creek, Snow Creek, Leesville Lake (Average, 6)
4. Goose — Goose Creek (Average, 1)
5. Otter — Big Otter River, Little Otter River (Average, 2)
6. Middle Roanoke — Roanoke (Staunton) River (Low, 1)
7. Falling — None (N/A, N/A)
Dan Metapopulation: (Overall redundancy rating: 60)
8.
Upper Smith
— Smith River, Rock Castle Creek, Otter Creek, Runnett Bag Creek
(Average, 6)
9.
Middle Smith — Smith River, Town Creek (Average, 4)
10.
Lower Smith
— Smith River (Average, 4)
11.
Upper Mayo
— None (N/A, N/A)
12.
Lower Mayo
— Mayo River (Average, 4)
13.
Upper Dan —
None (N/A, N/A)
14.
Middle Dan —
Dan River, Cascade Creek, Wolf Island Creek, Big Beaver Island
Creek (Average,
5)
15.
Lower Dan —
None (N/A, N/A)
16.
Banister — None (N/A, N/A)
Dan Metapopulation: (Overall redundancy rating: 30)
17. Meherrin — None (N/A, N/A)
18. Nottoway — Nottoway River, Stony Creek, Sappony Creek, Waqua Creek,
Butterwood Creek (Average, 6)
3.1.3 Threats to Species
Roanoke Logperch populations are threatened by dams/barriers and reservoirs, watershed
urbanization, agricultural and silvicultural activities contributing to non -point source pollution,
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 4

stream channelization, roads, toxic spills, woody debris loss, and water withdrawals (USFWS
2015).
It appears that massive habitat loss associated with the construction of the large impoundments
of the Roanoke River Basin in the 1950s and 1960s (Roanoke Rapids, Gaston, Kerr, Leesville,
Smith Mountain, and Philpott Reservoirs) was the original cause of significant population
declines of this species. These reservoir systems resulted in major disruptions in the ability of
this species to move throughout its historic range. The populations in the Roanoke and
Nottoway basins probably represent remnants of much larger populations that once occupied
much of the Roanoke and Chowan River drainages upstream of the fall line. All the current
populations are small and no genetic exchange occurs among them because they are separated by
large impoundments and wide river gaps. Each population is vulnerable due to its relatively low
density and limited range.
Small Logperch populations could go extinct with minor habitat degradation. Catastrophic
events may consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human influenced
events such as toxic spills associated with highways, railroads, or industrial -municipal
complexes (USFWS 2015).
The best known and largest population, which inhabits the upper Roanoke from the City of
Roanoke upstream into the North and South Forks, has been subjected to considerable stress
from human impacts in the basin that gets progressively worse moving downstream. Although
there are no trend data available, the continued urbanization of the upper Roanoke threatens the
existing population density and abundance in this portion of the range of this species (USFWS
2022a). Water withdrawals may pose a serious threat to the species in the future as the human
population of the Roanoke River basin increases (USFWS 2015).
Non -point sources of pollution negatively impact this species. Large quantities of stormwater
drain from streets and lawns, carrying nutrients, oil, metals, and other pollutants into the upper
Roanoke (USFWS 1992). Spills of toxic chemicals have occurred in the Roanoke River in
Salem and Roanoke, including 11 spills documented in the Roanoke and its tributaries from 1970
through 1991 (USFWS 1992). One of the most destructive spills resulted from the accidental
discharge of more than 100,000 gallons of liquid manure into a tributary of the South Fork of the
Roanoke River. It is estimated that this spill killed 190,000 fish, including 300 Roanoke
Logperch (USFWS 1992). Events such as this could be catastrophic to small, isolated
populations.
Siltation is a widespread threat to the Roanoke Logperch. Excessive silt deposition reduces
habitat heterogeneity and primary productivity; increases egg and larval mortality; abrades
organisms; and alters, degrades, and entombs macrobenthic communities (Burkhead and Jenkins
1991, in USFWS 1992). The water quality of the North Fork of the Roanoke River is
significantly degraded by silt washed from agricultural lands in the watershed. It is probable that
the absence of the species from the upper and middle portions of the North Fork Roanoke is the
result of historical habitat degradation. Excessive siltation generated by poor agricultural and
logging practices is also a problem in the Nottoway River watershed (USFWS 1992).
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 5

The impacts from in -stream sand and gravel -mining operations on aquatic environments and
riparian habitats are well -documented (Meador and Layher 1998, Kondolf 1997, Starnes and
Gasper 1996). These physical and biotic effects can extend far upstream and downstream from
the site of extraction (Brown et al. 1998). The recovery time of the stream ecosystem from
mining operations can be extensive (>20 years) and total restoration in some cases has been
considered improbable (Kanehl and Lyons 1992, Brown et al. 1998). There are a number of
active and inactive mining operations in the Dan River subbasin in Stokes and Rockingham
counties.
Wide forested buffers have been identified as critical in maintaining stream type (Llhardt et al.
2000), water temperature control (Lynch and Corbett 1990), food resources (Palik et al. 2000),
and instream habitat (Semlitsch 1998) for aquatic resources. Widespread deforestation in the
Dan and Mayo River watersheds may have significant effects on aquatic habitat.
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Surveys were conducted by Three Oaks personnel Tim Savidge (Permit 9 21-ES0034), Trevor
Hall, and Nathan Howell on November 1, 2022.
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Jacobs Creek
The survey reach consisted of a series of primarily riffle, run, and pool habitat. The stream was
running clear with moderate flow during the survey. The channel varied throughout the reach,
from 15 to 40 feet wide with moderately stable to moderately unstable banks six to eight feet
high. The channel substrate was dominated by semi -stable coarse sand, gravel, pebbles, with
occasional cobble and boulders in riffle areas. In depositional areas, silt and fine sand was
present. Although the majority of the reach had a forested buffer, the condition and width varied
highly. On the right descending bank, most of the buffer consisted of mature forest with the
exception of a maintained grass field near the downstream extent of the survey area. On the left
descending bank, a recent clear cut was present with a thin (15-25 feet) strip of trees. In the
downstream half of the survey reach, the left descending bank had a much wider and mature
forested buffer, averaging more than 300 ft.
4.2 Methodology
4.2.1 Fish Surveys
Electrofishing surveys targeting Roanoke Logperch were conducted from approximately 1,312
feet (400 meters) downstream of the project area to approximately 328 feet (100 meters)
upstream for a total distance of approximately 5,900 feet (1800 meters) (Appendix A, Figure 1).
Fish surveys were conducted using two Smith Root LR-24 backpack electrofishing units and dip
nets in the stream. All habitat types in the survey reach (riffle, run, pool, slack -water, etc.) were
sampled, with special attention given to transition areas between habitat types where fish
congregate in response to the instream sampling efforts.
Relative abundance reported was estimated using the following criteria:
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 6

➢ (VA) Very abundant > 30 collected at survey station
➢ (A) Abundant: 16-30 collected at survey station
➢ (C) Common: 6-15 collected at survey station
➢ (U) Uncommon: 3-5 collected at survey station
➢ (R) Rare: 1-2 collected at survey station
It should be noted that relative abundances of particular species can be affected by survey
methodologies and site conditions. Thus, some species, particularly those that are found in
deeper pools and runs and those that can seek cover quickly, may be under -represented at a
sample site.
4.3 Fish Survey Results
A total of 15 species were located during the survey efforts (Table 2). Total electrofishing time
was 2,769 seconds. No Roanoke Logperch individuals were found during the survey.
Table 2. Fish survey results in Jacobs Creek survey reach-11/01/2022
Scientific Name
Common Name
Relative Abundance
Catostomus commersonii
White Sucker
C
Chtosomus oreas
Mountain Redbelly Dace
A
Clinostomus unduloides
Ros side Dace
C
Etheostoma abellare
Fantail Darter
A
Etheostoma ni rum
Johnny Darter
A
H entelium ni ricans
Northern Ho sucker
U
H entelium roanokense
Roanoke Ho sucker
C
Le omis macrochirus
Blue ill Sunfish
U
Luxilus cerasinus
Crescent Shiner
A
L thrurus ardens
Rosefin Shiner
U
Nocomis le toce halus
Bluehead Chub
A
Notro is chiliticus
Redlip Shiner
A
Noturus insi nis
Margined Madtom
C
Scartom zon cervinus
Black Jum rock
C
Semotilus atromaculatus
Creek Chub
A
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 7

5.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The targeted Roanoke Logperch was not captured or observed during the surveys. The results
indicate that the study area supports a relatively diverse fish fauna typical of this portion of the
Roanoke River Basin. A review of the PAWS dataset shows that there have been several
surveys further downstream on Jacobs Creek, none of which located Roanoke Logperch (PAWS,
2021).
Based on these and previous survey results, impacts to Roanoke Logperch are not likely to occur
as a result of project construction. The magnitude and severity of these potential effects will need
to be quantified and disclosed during the Section 7 Consultation process.
Recommended Biological Conclusions on potential impacts from the project on Roanoke
Logperch are provided below. The USFWS is the regulating authority for Section 7 Biological
Conclusions and as such, it is recommended that they be consulted regarding their concurrence
with the finding of this document.
Recommended Biological Conclusion Roanoke Logperch: May Affect, Not Likely To
Adversely Affect
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 8

6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Brown, A.V., M.M. Lyttle, and K.B. Brown. 1998. Impacts of gravel mining on gravel bed
streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:979-994.
Burkhead, N.M. and R.E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. In: Virginia's Endangered Species, proceedings
of a symposium. Karen Terwilliger (ed.). McDonal and Woodward Publishing Company,
Blacksburg, VA. 672 pp.
George, A.L. and R.L. Mayden. 2003. Conservation genetics of four imperiled fishes of the
southeast. Final Report to the U.S. Forest Service.
Kanehl, P., and J. Lyons. 1992. Impacts of in -stream sand and gravel mining on stream habitat
and fish communities, including a survey on the Big Rib River, Marathon County,
Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Research Report 155, Madison.
Kondolf, G.M. 1997. Hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels.
Environmental Management 21:533-551.
Lahey, A.M. and P.L. Angermeier. 2007. Range -wide Assessment of Habitat Suitability for
Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex). Virginia Transportation Research Council.
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online reports/pdf/07-cr8.pdf
Llhardt, B.L., E.S. Verry, and BJ. Palik. 2000. Defining riparian areas. Pages 23-42 in E.S.
Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Doloff, eds. Riparian management of forests of the
continental eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Lynch, J.A., and E.S. Corbett. 1990. Evaluation of best management practices for controlling
nonpoint pollution from silvicultural operations. Water Resources Bulletin, 26(1):41-52.
Meador, M.R., and A.O. Layher. 1998. Instream sand and gravel mining: environmental issues
and regulatory process in the United States. Fisheries 23(11):6-13.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2022. Biotics Database. Division of Land
and Water Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina. October 2022 version.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) 2015. Roanoke Logperch.
https://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species/Fish/Roanoke-Logperch#2521717-detailed-
information
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 2021. Portal Access to Wildlife
Systems (PAWS) database (Unpublished Aquatics Database).
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 9

Palik, B.J., J.C. Zasada, and C.W. Hedman. 2000. Ecological principles for riparian silviculture.
Pages 233-254 in E.S. Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Doloff, eds. Riparian
Management of Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, Florida.
Perkins, M.A., N.A. Johnson, and M.M. Gangloff. 2017. Molecular systematics of the
critically -endangered North American spinymussels (Unionidae: Elliptio and
Pleurobema) and description of Parvaspina gen. nov. Conservation Genetics (2017).
doi :10.1007/s 10592-017-0924-z
Rosenberger, AE., Angermeier. PL. 2002 Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) Population Structure
and Habitat Use Final Report.
Shollenberger, Janosik, and Johnston. 2022. Detection of the threatened snail darter (Percina
tanasi) in the Tennessee River system using environmental DNA. Journal of Fish
Biology 102:2, pp. 373-379.
Semlitsch, R. D. 1998. Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond -breeding
salamanders. Conservation Biology 12:1113— 1119.
Starnes, L.B., and D.C. Gasper. 1996. Effects of surface mining on aquatic resources in North
America. Fisheries 21(5):24-26.
Terwilliger, Karen. 1991. Virginia's Endangered Species, pp. 395-397, 785-788.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) Recovery Plan. Newton
Corner, MA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Roanoke Logperch.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_roanoke_Logperch.html. Accessed June 23, 2016.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022a. Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex). 5-Year Review:
Summary & Evaluation. Prepared by Virginia Field Office, Gloucester, Virginia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022b. Species Status Assessment Report for
the Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex) Version 1.1
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC).
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/LZPSU3333ZHA5LNZS3NLFIGCCE/resources
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 10

APPENDIX A
Figures
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 11

Prqmred rcr
ESUMMIT
Aquatic Species Surveys
Proposed Bennett Farms
Residential Development
Project 1 icinity & BLirvey Reach
Rockingham County. NC
Jaiuiarsfr2023
Sc�c: 4 1S0 3d0 CM Fed
Jab No.:
21-633
ar� �-DH
'h TLD
Figure

�
psilRnry `
EO ID # 2635T
x
� f
11kEf�p�,y�,� plqurUa ram.
Usut-IN
e
U
Freshwater 'Fish Survev
Proposed Bennett Farms
Re sid enta it Development
NCNHP Element Occurrences:
Roanoke Logperch
Rockingham County North Carolina
EO ID ## 38089 ,
k . I
SUr,r ey Location
NCNHP EO: Roanoke Logperch
Roanoke River Basin Streams
January 2023
xac..D 0.5 Pies
i
Job No.. 21-633
Dr. B� D H
%D
Figure
2

APPENDIX B
Select Photographs
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 14

Photo 1. Margined Madtom Collected in Survey Area
Photo 2. Mountain Red Belly Dace Collected in Survey Area
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 15

0
'i
'" � ;'•'`��� '�' � ~ � � � � i Fes, �
.. y
,t

Photo 5. White Sucker Collected in Survey Area
Bennett Farm Fish Survey Report March 2023
Job# 21-633 Page 17

2
cc
2
0
�
0
U
�
U)
(D
E
aL
0
(D
>
_
0
�
$
�
(D
�
%
E
U
�
�
0
0
_
3
/
2
�
�
q
q
D
C\l
00
C\l
m
k
0
D
�
S
p
E
_
in
\
D
�
�
\
0
g
;
7
2
o
(D
0"
/
y
�
70
$
o
0 0
_
±
L)
_
o
2
E
E E
)
\k)
_
(D
(D
o
0
�
__
o
2
(D�
(Dc
/ \
U)
2
2
f
F
=
g
=CU
\
\
.\
/
E
G
±
(_
k70
3
\
)
3
(D
}\
\
(
g
�
w
\
(D
o
)
\
2
)
/
/
\
)
)
\
»
k )
3
cf)_
4_
�_
o
0
Lu
/
k
2
2
\ �
\U)
2
°»
°»
9
§o
§0
7 a)$
E
$
E
=o
)k
=o
)k
70
$
2
7\
)\
�
R
R
f\
f\
(D C
0
k
k
.5
.5
2 @
2
2
/j
/j
E
\
/
2
I_-
(D
/
(D
§
R
7
D
@
2
70
m
N
_
,
/
®
'_
2
0
\
0
(D
�
/
0
c
=
2
m
k
�
U)
co
%
_
cu
�
$
\
0
§
2
7
0 ce)
C14
_ 0
a C14
00
0
%
m
2
§
a
2
Al
a)
0
� /
k a)
I
0 E
\f
E /
0 c -
12 )\
Z E\
7
0 %
2 E -
.� Eo
> ' / }
0 a JA
= E
_ /
§
10-
£ E
§0
/2
� Q E
o 0
2 % ca
n
2 2 @
o )
2 n
¢ .C: --j
0
�
\
�
CO