20191579 Ver 1_17BP.4.R.101 Aquatic Species Survey Report_20191118

Aquatic Species Survey Report
Improvements to Leggett Rd (SR 1243) over Tar River
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
WBS Element # 17BP.4.R.101
Tar River during the survey efforts
Prepared For:
F uoerH �
A
3
6 4 `
OF
NC Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Contact Person:
Jared Gray
Biological Surveys Group
North Carolina Department of Transportation
jgray(�ic ncdot. gov
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
March 14, 2018

Prepared by:
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
Contact Person:
Tom Dickinson
[e-mail]
919-732-1300

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Waters Impacted..................................................................................................................
1
2.1 303(d) Classification........................................................................................................
2
2.2 NPDES discharges...........................................................................................................
2
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Descriptions................................................................
2
3.1 Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel)...............................................................
2
3.1.1. Species Characteristics..............................................................................................
2
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements....................................................................
3
3.1.3. Threats to Species.....................................................................................................
3
3.2 Parvaspina steinstansana (Tar River Spinymussel)........................................................
4
3.2.1. Species Characteristics..............................................................................................
4
3.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements....................................................................
5
3.2.3. Threats to Species.....................................................................................................
6
3.3 Elliptio lanceolata (Yellow Lance)..................................................................................
6
3.3.1. Species Characteristics..............................................................................................
6
3.3.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements....................................................................
6
3.3.3. Threats to Species.....................................................................................................
7
3.3.4. Species Listing..........................................................................................................
7
4.0 Other Target Species Descriptions.......................................................................................
7
4.1 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe).................................................................................
7
4.1.1. Species Characteristics..............................................................................................
7
4.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements....................................................................
8
4.1.3. Threats to Species.....................................................................................................
8
4.1.4. Species Listing..........................................................................................................
8
4.2 Necturus lewisi (Neuse River Waterdog).........................................................................
9
4.2.1. Species Characteristics..............................................................................................
9
4.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements....................................................................
9
4.2.3. Threats to Species...................................................................................................
10
4.2.4. Species Listing........................................................................................................
10
4.3 Noturus furiosus (Carolina Madtom).............................................................................
10
4.3.1. Species Characteristics............................................................................................
10
4.3.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements..................................................................
10
4.3.3. Threats to Species...................................................................................................
11
4.3.4. Species Listing........................................................................................................
11
5.0 Survey Efforts....................................................................................................................
11
5.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Tar River..........................................................
11
5.2 Methodology..................................................................................................................
12
5.2.1. Mussel Surveys.......................................................................................................
12
5.2.2. Neuse River Waterdog Surveys..............................................................................
12
6.0 Results................................................................................................................................13
6.1 Mussel Survey Results...................................................................................................
13
6.2 Neuse River Waterdog Survey Results..........................................................................
13
7.0 Discussion/Conclusions.....................................................................................................
14
8.0 Literature Cited..................................................................................................................
15

Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Figures 2-1 through 2-6: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: 303(d) Listed Streams and NPDES Discharges

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes improvements to Leggett
Road (SR 1243) over Tar River in Edgecombe County (Appendix A, Figure 1). The Federally
Endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon, DWM) is listed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Edgecombe County, though there are no records in the county.
The Tar River Spinymussel (Parvaspina steinstansana, TSM [formerly Elliptio steinstansana
(Perkins et al. 2017)]) is listed by USFWS for Edgecombe County and has current records.
Additionally, the Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata) was proposed for listing by the USFWS on
April 5, 2017, and is known to occur in Edgecombe County. The Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia
masoni), Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi), and Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus) are
also being considered for listing by the USFWS and are known to occur in Edgecombe County.
Tables 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) in approximate river miles (RM) for targeted
species for the project crossing. Data is according to the NC Natural Heritage Program database
(NCNHP 2018) most recently updated in January 2018.
Table 1—Element Occurrences
Distance
from
EO
crossing
First
Last
EO
Species Name
EO ID
Waterbod
RM
Observed
Observed
Status*
Figure
Dwarf
20981
Stony Creek
26.0
May 1991
July 1992
C
2-1
Wed emussel
Tar River
October
21438
Tar River
20.8
May 1977
C
2 2
S in ussel
2001
21947
Stony Creek
8.5
May 1991
May 1991
H
Yellow Lance
November
November
2-3
34945
Swift Creek
35.3
C
2004
2004
September
Atlantic Pigtoe
19338
Tar River
18.0
July 2004
C
2-4
1982
Neuse River
3793
Tar River
At crossing
January
January
C
2-5
Waterdog
1980
2015
19769
Tar River
1.6
1888
May 1985
H
Carolina Madtom
September
2-6
14421
Swift Creek
18.0
August 2007
C
1959
*: C — NCNHP Current; H —NCNHP Historic
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project -related
impacts to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) was contracted by
NCDOT to conduct surveys targeting the DWM, TSM, Yellow Lance, Atlantic Pigtoe, Neuse
River Waterdog, and Carolina Madtom.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
The Tar River is in the Upper Tar subbasin of the Tar River basin (HUC# 03020101). The Tar
River flows approximately 80 RM to its confluence with the Pamilco River.
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-014 Page 1

2.1 303(d) Classification
Tar River is not on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ, formerly
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, NCDENR) - Division of Water
Resources 2014 Final 303(d) list of impaired streams. The 2016 Draft 303(d) list of impaired
streams does not propose changes to the 2014 list in the vicinity of this project. The closest
303(d) listed stream is Stony Creek, which flows into the Tar River approximately 7.6 RM
upstream of the project crossing; Stony Creek is listed as impaired due to exceeding criteria for
both Benthos (Fair) and Dissolved Oxygen (Figure 3).
2.2 NPDES discharges
The closest NPDES discharge is on the Tar River within 1.0 miles upstream of the SR 1243
crossing of the Tar River: Tar River Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant (NPDES Permit #
NC0030317) (Figure 3, USEPA 2017).
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel)
3.1.1. Species Characteristics
The DWM was originally described as Unio heterodon (Lea 1829). Simpson (1914)
subsequently placed it in the genus Alasmidonta. Ortmann (1919) placed it in a monotypic
subgenus Prolasmidonta, based on the unique soft -tissue anatomy and conchology. Fuller
(1977) believed the characteristics of Prolasmidonta warranted elevation to full generic rank and
renamed the species Prolasmidonta heterodon. Clarke (1981) retained the genus name
Alasmidonta and considered Prolasmidonta to be a subjective synonym of the subgenus
Pressodonta (Simpson 1900).
The specific epithet heterodon refers to the chief distinguishing characteristic of this species,
which is the only North American freshwater mussel that consistently has two lateral teeth on the
right valve and only one on the left (Fuller 1977). All other laterally dentate freshwater mussels
in North America normally have two lateral teeth on the left valve and one on the right. The
DWM is generally small, with a shell length ranging between 25 millimeters (mm) (1.0 inch) and
38 mm (1.5 inches). The largest specimen reported by Clarke (1981) was 56.5 mm (2.2 inches)
long, taken from the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire. The periostracum is generally olive
green to dark brown; nacre bluish to silvery white, turning to cream or salmon colored towards
the umbonal cavities. Sexual dimorphism occurs in DWM, with the females having a swollen
region on the posterior slope, and the males are generally flattened. Clarke (1981) provides a
detailed description of the species.
Nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies; a larval stage
(glochidium) becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel species have
specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. Based upon laboratory
infestation experiments, Michaelson and Neves (1995) determined that potential fish hosts for
the DWM in North Carolina include the Tessellated Darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) and the
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 2

Johnny Darter (E. nigrum). McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be consulted
for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The historic range of the DWM is confined to Atlantic slope drainages from the Peticodiac River
in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the Neuse River, North Carolina. Occurrence records exist
from at least 70 locations, encompassing 15 major drainages, in 11 states and one Canadian
Province (USFWS 1993). When the recovery plan for this species was written, the DWM was
believed to have been extirpated from all but 36 localities, 14 of them in North Carolina
(USFWS 1993). The most recent assessment (2013 5-Year Review) indicates that the DWM is
currently found in 16 major drainages, comprising approximately 75 "sites" (one site may have
multiple occurrences). At least 45 of these sites are based on less than five individuals or solely
on relict shells. It appears that the populations in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland are
declining as evidenced by low densities, lack of reproduction, or inability to relocate any
individuals in follow-up surveys. Populations in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and
Connecticut appear to be stable, while the status of populations in the Delaware River watershed
affected by the multiple flood events between 2004 and 2006 are still being studied (USFWS
2013).
Strayer et al. (1996) conducted range -wide assessments of remaining DWM populations, and
assigned a population status to each of the populations. The status rating is based on range size,
number of individuals and evidence of reproduction. Seven of the 20 populations assessed were
considered "poor," and two others are considered "poor to fair" and "fair to poor," respectively.
In North Carolina, populations are found in portions of the Neuse and Tar River basins; however,
they are believed to have been extirpated from the main -stem of the Neuse River.
The DWM inhabits creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down to approximately two meters wide),
with slow to moderate flow. A variety of preferred substrates have been described that range
from coarse sand, to firm muddy sand, to gravel (USFWS 1993). In North Carolina, DWM often
occurs within submerged root mats along stable streambanks. The wide range of substrate types
used by this species suggests that the stability of the substrate is likely as important as the
composition.
3.1.3. Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non -point
discharge, stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.) have contributed to the
decline of this species throughout its range. Except for the Neversink River population in New
York, which has an estimated population of over 80,000 DWM individuals, all the other
populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short reaches of isolated streams.
The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of the surviving populations
make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity
(Strayer et al. 1996). 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.
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 3

Siltation resulting from substandard land -use practices associated with activities such as
agriculture, forestry, and land development has been recognized as a major contributing factor to
degradation of mussel populations. Siltation has been documented to be extremely detrimental
to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to
other pollutants, and direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979).
Sediment accumulations of less than one inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most
mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a
population of the DWM because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that recovery
of mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage
effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well documented (USFWS 1992a,
Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats, which results in
changes in aquatic community composition. The changes associated with inundation adversely
affect both adult and juvenile mussels, as well as fish community structure, which could
eliminate possible fish hosts for upstream transport of glochidia. Muscle Shoals on the
Tennessee River in northern Alabama, once the richest site for naiads (mussels) in the world, is
now at the bottom of Wilson Reservoir and covered with 19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b).
Large portions of all the river basins within the DWM's range have been impounded; this is
believed to be a major factor contributing to the decline of the species (Master 1986).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra
Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats to native
freshwater mussels. The Asian Clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the
United States (Fuller and Powell 1973), including those streams still supporting surviving
populations of the DWM. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for space, food
and oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and
Widlak 1987, Alderman 1995). The Zebra Mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black,
Caspian, and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes
in the 1980s and has rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those
of the South Atlantic slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food
resources and space with native mussels, and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least
20 freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United
States (USFWS 1992b). The Zebra Mussel is not currently known to be present in any river
supporting DWM population, nor the Tar -Pamlico River basin.
3.2 Parvaspina steinstansana (Tar River Spinymussel)
3.2.1. Species Characteristics
The TSM grows to a maximum length of 60 mm. Short spines are arranged in a radial row
anterior to the posterior ridge on one valve and symmetrical to the other valve. The shell is
generally smooth in texture with as many as 12 spines that project perpendicularly from the
surface and curve slightly ventrally. However, adult specimens tend to lose their spines as they
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 4

mature (USFWS 1992a). The smooth, orange -brown to dark brown periostracum may be rayed
in younger individuals. The shell is significantly thicker toward the anterior end and the nacre is
usually pink in this area. The posterior end of the shell is thinner with an iridescent bluish white
color. Two or more linear ridges, originating within the beak cavity and extending to the ventral
margin, can be found on the interior surface of the shell. The distance between these ridges
widens toward the ventral margin. Johnson and Clarke (1983) provide additional descriptive
material.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the TSM (USFWS 1992c); however, nearly all
freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which involve a larval stage
(glochidium) that becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel species have
specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. The TSM is probably a
tachytictic (short-term) reproducer with gravid females present at some time from April through
August (Widlak 1987). The glochidia have not been described. Eads and Levine (2008), and
Eads et al. (2008) identified the following fish species as suitable hosts: Bluehead Chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), Pinewoods Shiner (Lythrurus matutinus), Satinfin Shiner (Cyprinella
analostana), and White Shiner (Luxilus albeolus). McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak
(1989) should be consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
3.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Previously, this mussel was believed to be endemic to the Tar -Pamlico River basin and probably
ranged throughout most of the basin before the area was settled during the 1700s (NC Scientific
Council on Mollusks 2011). Historically, the TSM was collected in the Tar River from near
Louisburg in Franklin County to Falkland in Pitt County (approximately 78 RM). By the mid-
1960s, its known range had been reduced to the main channel of the Tar River from Spring Hope
in Nash County to Falkland in Pitt County (Shelley 1972, Clarke 1983). By the early 1980s, its
range in the Tar River was restricted to only 12 miles of the river in Edgecombe County (Clarke
1983). It was last observed (two individuals) in the river in 2001 within an extensive sandbar
habitat in Edgecombe County (unpublished data, NCWRC Aquatics Database). It is currently
found in three streams, Shocco, Sandy/Swift, and Fishing/Little Fishing creeks in the Tar -
Pamlico River basin (unpublished data, NCWRC Aquatics Database). In 1998, the species was
found in Johnston County in the Little River, a tributary to the Neuse River. Only a few
individuals have been found in the Little River in subsequent years (unpublished data, NCWRC
Aquatics Database).
The preferred habitat of the TSM in the Tar -Pamlico River basin was described as relatively fast
flowing, well -oxygenated, circumneutral pH water in sites prone to significant swings in water
velocity, with a substrate comprised of relatively silt -free loose gravel and/or coarse sand
(Adams et al., 1990). Various species associates, which are good indicators for the presence of
the TSM, include (in decreasing order of association) Atlantic Pigtoe, Yellow Lance, Yellow
Lampmussel (Lampsilis carioca), Notched Rainbow (Villosa constricta), Triangle Floater
(Alasmidonta undulata), and Creeper (Strophitus undulatus) (Adams et al., 1990). Johnson
(1970) stated that the Atlantic Pigtoe appeared to be closely associated with the James River
Spinymussel (Parvaspina collina) in the James River basin. This same close association is true
for the TSM and Atlantic Pigtoe. In habitats which have not been significantly degraded in the
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 5

Tar -Pamlico River basin, the presence of Atlantic Pigtoe is the best indicator of the potential
presence of TSM (NC Scientific Council on Mollusks 2011).
3.2.3. Threats to Species
Threats to the TSM are similar to those described for the DWM and have contributed to the
decline of this species throughout its range. All the remaining TSM populations are generally
small in numbers and restricted to short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of
individuals and the restricted range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely
vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event.
3.3 Elliptio lanceolate (Yellow Lance)
3.3.1. Species Characteristics
The Yellow Lance was described from the Tar River at Tarboro, North Carolina in 1828, by I.
Lea (Lea 1828). Johnson (1970) synonymized this species with 25 other named species of lance -
shaped elliptio mussels into Elliptio lanceolata species complex. Genotypic and phenotypic
analysis suggests that some of these formally described species are valid, including Elliptio
lanceolata (Bogan et al. 2009). This species differs from other lanceolate Elliptios by having a
"waxy" bright yellow periostracum that lacks rays. Some older specimens are brown towards
the posterior end of the shell. The periostracum can also have brown growth rests. Yellow
Lance have a distinct pallial line and adductor muscle scars. The posterior ridge is distinctly
rounded and curves dorsally towards the posterior end. The nacre ranges from an iridescent blue
on the posterior end, sometimes becoming white or salmon colored on the anterior end. The
lateral teeth are long, with two on the left and one on the right. Each valve also has two
psuedocardinal teeth; on the left valve one tooth is before the other with the posterior tooth
tending to be vestigial, and on the right valve the two teeth are parallel and the more anterior one
is vestigial (Adams et al 1990).
The Yellow Lance is a tachytictic (short-term) breeder, brooding young in early spring and
releasing glochidia in early summer. White Shiner and Pinewoods Shiner are potential fish hosts
for Yellow Lance (Eads and Levine 2009).
3.3.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
This species taxonomy has changed several times and therefore so has its range. The Yellow
Lance is currently thought to be distributed in the Atlantic Slope river basins from the Neuse
River Basin in North Carolina north to the Rappahannock River Basin in Virginia, except for the
Roanoke River Basin, the Patuxent River Basin in Maryland and possibly the Potomac River
Basin in Virginia and Maryland (USFWS 2017). It is in considerable decline throughout its
range; however, extant populations still occur in all the historic river basins, except possibly the
Potomac (USFWS 2017). This species has been found in multiple physiographic provinces,
from the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, through the Piedmont and into the Coastal
Plain, in small streams to large rivers, in substrates primarily consisting of clean sand, and
occasionally gravel, with a high dissolved oxygen content (USFWS 2017, Adams et al 1990).
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 6

No remaining populations appear below point source pollution or other nutrient -rich areas
(Alderman 2003). Associate mussel species include Atlantic Pigtoe, Tar River Spinymussel,
Yellow Lampmussel, Notched Rainbow, Triangle Floater, Paper Pondshell (Utterbackia
imbecillis), Eastern Lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), Creeper, and other Elliptio species (Adams
et al 1990).
3.3.3. Threats to Species
Threats to the Yellow Lance and many other species are similar to those described above for the
DWM. Factors that influence long term viability of this species are discussed in detail in the
USFWS Yellow Lance Species Status Review (2017).
3.3.4. Species Listing
This species was petitioned for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA) within the 2010 Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Species
from the Southeastern United States by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) (CBD 2010).
It became proposed for listing by USWFS on April 5, 2017. Yellow Lance is listed as
Endangered in North Carolina.
4.0 OTHER TARGET SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
4.1 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe)
4.1.1. Species Characteristics
The Atlantic Pigtoe was described by Conrad (1834) from the Savannah River in Augusta,
Georgia. Although larger specimens exist, the Atlantic Pigtoe seldom exceeds 50 mm (2 inches)
in length. This species is tall relative to its length, except in headwater stream reaches where
specimens may be elongated. The hinge ligament is relatively short and prominent. The
periostracum is normally brownish, has a parchment texture, and young individuals may have
greenish rays across the entire shell surface. The posterior ridge is biangulate. The interdentum
in the left valve is broad and flat. The anterior half of the valve is thickened compared with the
posterior half, and, when fresh, nacre in the anterior half of the shell tends to be salmon colored,
while nacre in the posterior half tends to be more iridescent. The shell has full dentation. In
addition to simple papillae, branched and arborescent papillae are often seen on the incurrent
aperture. In females, salmon colored demibranchs are often seen during the spawning season.
When fully gravid, females use all four demibranchs to brood glochidia (VDGIF 2014).
The Atlantic Pigtoe is a tachytictic (short-term) breeder, brooding young in early spring and
releasing glochidia in early summer. The Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and Shield Darter
(Percina peltata) have been identified as potential fish hosts for this species (O'Dee and Waters
2000). Additional research has found Rosefin Shiner (Lythrurus ardens), Creek Chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and Longnose Dace (Rhynichthys cataractae) are also suitable hosts (Wolf
2012). Eads and Levine (2011) found White Shiner, Satinfin Shiner, Bluehead Chub, Rosyside
Dace (Clinostomus funduloides), Pinewoods Shiner, Creek Chub, Swallowtail Shiner (Notropis
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 7

procne), and Mountain Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus oreas) to also be suitable hosts for Atlantic
Pigtoe.
4.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Johnson (1970) reported the range of the Atlantic Pigtoe extended from the Ogeechee River
Basin in Georgia north to the James River Basin in Virginia; however, recent curation of the H.
D. Athearn collection uncovered valid specimens from the Altamaha River in Georgia (Sarah
McRae, USFWS, personal communication). It is presumed extirpated from the Catawba River
Basin in North and South Carolina south to the Altamaha River Basin. The general pattern of its
current distribution indicates that the species is currently limited to headwater areas of drainages
and most populations are represented by few individuals. In North Carolina, aside from the
Waccamaw River, it was once found in every Atlantic Slope river basin. Except for the Tar
River, it is no longer found in the mainstem of the rivers within its historic range (Savidge et al.
2011). It is listed as Endangered in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and as
Threatened in Virginia. It has a NatureServe rank of G2 (imperiled).
The Atlantic Pigtoe has been found in multiple physiographic provinces, from the foothills of the
Appalachian Mountains, through the Piedmont and into the Coastal Plain, in streams less than
one meter wide to large rivers. The preferred habitat is a substrate composed of gravel and
coarse sand, usually at the base of riffles; however, it can be found in a variety of other substrates
and lotic habitat conditions.
4.1.3. Threats to Species
Threats to the Atlantic Pigtoe are similar to those described for the DWM and have contributed
to the decline of this species throughout its range. Atlantic Pigtoe appears to be particularly
sensitive to pollutants and requires clean, oxygen -rich water for all stages of life. All the
remaining Atlantic Pigtoe populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short
reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of
the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single
catastrophic event.
4.1.4. Species Listing
This species was petitioned for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA) within the 2010 Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Species
from the Southeastern United States by the CBD (CBD 2010), and is listed as Endangered in
North Carolina by NCWRC.
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 8

4.2 Necturus lewisi (Neuse River Waterdog)
4.2.1. Species Characteristics
The Neuse River Waterdog is a fully aquatic salamander and was first described by C.S. Brimley
in 1924 as a subspecies of the Common Mudpuppy (N. maculosus); it was elevated to species
status in 1937 by Percy Viosca, Jr.
The Neuse River Waterdog ranges in size from 6-9 inches (15.24 — 22.86 cm) in length; record
length is 11 inches (27.94 cm). It has a somewhat stocky, cylindrical body with smooth skin, a
rather flattened, elongate head with a squared -off nose, and small limbs. The tail is vertically
flattened with fins on both the top and bottom. Distinct from most salamanders, the Neuse River
Waterdog, and other Necturus species, have four toes on each foot. The Neuse River Waterdog
is a rusty brown color on the dorsal side and dull brown or slate colored on the ventral side.
Both dorsal and ventral sides are strongly spotted but the ventral side tends to have fewer and
smaller markings; spots are dark bluish to black. They also have a dark line running through the
eye. Adults are neotenous and retain three bushy, dark red external gills usually seen in larval
amphibians. Both male and female are similar in appearance and can be distinguished only
through differences in the shape and structure of the cloaca (Beane and Newman 1996; Conant
and Collins 1998; EDGE of Existence 2016).
Individuals become sexually mature at approximately 5-6 years of age. Breeding normally
occurs in the spring. The male deposits a gelatinous spermatophore that is picked up by the
female and used to fertilize between 30-50 eggs. The fertilized eggs are attached to the
underside of flat rocks or other submerged objects and guarded by the female until they hatch in
June or July (Conant and Collins 1998; EDGE of Existence 2016).
4.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Neuse River Waterdog is found only in the Neuse and Tar River basins of North Carolina
(AmphibiaWeb 2006; Beane and Newman 1996; Frost 2016).
Neuse River Waterdogs inhabit rivers and larger streams, where they prefer leaf beds in quiet
waters. They need high levels of dissolved oxygen and good water quality. The Neuse River
Waterdog is generally found in backwaters off the main current, in areas with sandy or muddy
substrate. Adults construct retreats on the downstream side of rocks or in the stream bank where
they remain during the day. They are active during the night, leaving these retreats to feed.
Neuse River Waterdogs are carnivorous, feeding on invertebrates, small vertebrates, and carrion.
Neuse River Waterdogs are most active during winter months even when temperatures are below
freezing. During summer months, they will burrow into deep leaf beds and are rarely found. It
has been suggested that this inactivity in summer may be an adaptation to avoid fish predators,
which are more active at these times. In addition, Neuse River Waterdogs produce a defensive,
toxic skin secretion that is assumed to be distasteful to predators (AmphibiaWeb 2006; Beane
and Newman 1996; Conant and Collins 1998; EDGE of Existence 2016; NatureServe Explorer
2016).
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 9

4.2.3. Threats to Species
Any factors that reduce water quality are threats to the Neuse River Waterdog. These can
include changes that result in siltation and pollution reducing habitat quality (e.g. channelization,
agricultural runoff, and industrial and urban development). Impoundments are also a threat to
the dispersal of the species as it is unable to cross upland habitat; Neuse River Waterdogs do not
climb and are unlikely to use fish passages (NatureServe Explorer 2016).
4.2.4. Species Listing
This species was petitioned for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA) within the 2010 Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Species
from the Southeastern United States by the CBD (CBD 2010) and is listed as a species of Special
Concern (SC) in North Carolina by NCWRC.
4.3 Noturus furiosus (Carolina Madtom)
4.3.1. Species Characteristics
The Carolina Madtom (a small catfish) was described at Milburnie, near Raleigh, NC in the
Neuse River by Jordan and Meek (Jordan 1889). The Carolina Madtom reaches a maximum size
of 132 mm (5.2 inches). Compared to other madtoms within its range, it has a relatively short
stout body and a distinctive color pattern of three to four dark saddles along its back that connect
a long black stripe on the side running from the snout to the tail. The adipose fin is mostly dark,
making it appear that the fish has a fourth saddle. The Madtom is tan on the rest of its body and
yellow to tan between the saddles. The adipose fin and caudal fin are fused together, a
distinguishing characteristic from other members of the catfish family (Ictaluridae). There are no
speckles on the Madtom's belly, and the tail has two brown bands that follow the curve of the
tail. The Carolina Madtom, like other catfishes, has serrae on its pectoral fins and is thought to
have the most potent venom of any of the catfish species (NCWRC 2010).
4.3.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Carolina Madtom is endemic to the Piedmont/Inner Coastal Plain portion of the Tar/Pamlico
and Neuse River basins. It occurs in creeks and small rivers in habitats generally consisting of
very shallow riffles with little current over coarse sand and gravel substrate (Lee et al. 1980).
Burr et al (1989) found most records came from medium to large streams, i.e. mainstem Neuse
and Tar Rivers and their major tributaries. The population in the Trent River system (part of the
Neuse River basin) is isolated from the rest of the Neuse River basin by salinity levels, so it is
therefore considered a separate population, though it has not been detected in Trent River in the
last five years (Sarah McRae, USFWS, personal communication). In the lower portions of these
rivers, Carolina Madtom is usually found over debris piles in sandy areas. During nesting
season, which is from May to July, Madtoms prefer areas with plenty of cover to build their nests
with shells, rocks, sticks, bottles, and cans, being suitable cover types. Males guard the nests, in
which females may lay between 80 and 300 eggs.
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 10

Carolina Madtom is found in water that ranges from clear to tannin -rich, which is usually free -
flowing. It is generally rare throughout its range and is apparently in decline. The Tar River
population has historically been more robust than the Neuse River population (Burr et al. 1989),
which has shown declines in recent years (Midway 2008). The Little River of the Neuse River
Basin has the largest population of Madtom in the Neuse River Basin, with records from 2016
indicating the Madtom is present (Sarah McRae, USFWS, personal communication). A few
specimens have been collected from Swift Creek of the Neuse River Basin. Fishing Creek and
Swift Creek of the Tar River Basin are also productive systems in regard to Carolina Madtom
populations, with around 14 specimens collected in the mid-1980s from Swift Creek (water
levels in Fishing Creek prevented sampling during that study). In 2016, a total of 17 individuals
were recorded in Swift Creek, and a total of four individuals were recorded in Fishing Creek
(Sarah McRae, USFWS, personal communication). The Carolina Madtom has been observed in
at least 36 localities (Burr et al 1989).
Carolina Madtom has a lifespan of about four years, with sexual maturity being reached around
two years in females and three years in males. Sampling for Carolina Madtom is most effective
at dawn and dusk when they are most active and feeding (Mayden and Burr 1981). Their diet
consists mostly of benthic macroinvertebrates, which they collect by scavenging for food on the
bottom of the stream.
4.3.3. Threats to Species
Identified threats to the species include water pollution and construction of impoundments (Burr
et al. 1989). Carolina Madtom is susceptible to threats due to its limited range and low
population densities (Angermeier 1995, Burr and Stoekel 1999). As a bottom -dwelling fish,
Carolina Madtom is susceptible to habitat loss when stream bottoms are impacted by
urbanization, impoundments, deforestation, etc.
4.3.4. Species Listing
Because of its limited distribution, Carolina Madtom is listed as Special Concern and is Proposed
Threatened in North Carolina. It was petitioned for federal listing under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) within the 2010 Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and
Wetland Species from the Southeastern United States by the CBD (CBD 2010).
5.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Neuse River Waterdog surveys were conducted by Tim Savidge (Permit # 18-ES0034), Evan
Morgan, John Roberts, Chris Sheats, and Lizzy Stokes -Cawley from February 26 — 27, 2018.
Freshwater Mussel and Carolina Madtom surveys were conducted on February 27, 2018, by Tim
Savidge, Chris Sheats, John Roberts, and Lizzy Stokes -Cawley.
5.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Tar River
Habitat in the surveyed portion of the Tar River consisted of a deep run, with slack water areas
formed by large accumulations of woody debris scattered throughout. The channel ranged from
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 11

100 to 150 feet wide with banks 16 to 24 feet high that exhibited moderate to severe signs of
erosion and undercutting. Substrate consisted of shifting sand with pockets of gravel and cobble
within the thalweg. Large accumulations of silt and detritus cover the substrate in the slackwater
areas. The surveyed reach was bordered by a narrow -forested buffer surrounded by agricultural
fields. The water was relatively clear with moderate velocity throughout.
5.2 Methodology
5.2.1. Mussel Surveys
Mussel surveys were conducted from approximately 1,312 feet (400 meters) downstream of the
respective bridge crossing to approximately 328 feet (100 meters) upstream of the crossing for a
total distance of approximately 1,640 feet (500 meters) (Figure 1). Areas of appropriate habitat
were searched, concentrating on the habitats preferred by the target species. The survey team
spread out across the creek into survey lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using SCUBA
(three people) and mask/snorkel (one person). Tactile methods were employed, particularly in
streambanks under submerged rootmats. All freshwater bivalves were recorded and returned to
the substrate. Timed survey efforts provided Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data for each
species. Relative abundance for freshwater snails and freshwater clam species were estimated
using the following criteria:
➢ (VA) Very abundant > 30 per square meter
➢ (A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter
➢ (C) Common 6-15 per square meter
➢ (U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter
➢ (R) Rare 1-2 per square meter
➢ (P-) Ancillary adjective "Patchy" indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the
sampled site.
During the mussel survey effort, the presence of preferred habitats for the Carolina Madtom
were assessed and if conditions were appropriate, targeted visual surveys were conducted by
overturning rocks and debris in these areas, as well as searching artificial cover (i.e. bottles, cans,
etc.).
5.2.2. Neuse River Waterdog Surveys
Methods were developed by Three Oaks in consultation with the USFWS and NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) and were designed to replicate winter trapping efforts
conducted as part of the recent species status assessment undertaken by these agencies and
collaborators. A total of ten baited traps were set for four soak nights at the bridge crossing;
three traps were set upstream and seven were set downstream of the bridge. Trap sites were
selected based on habitat conditions and accessibility. Undercut banks, with some accumulation
of leaf pack, as well as back eddy areas within runs were the primary microhabitats selected;
however, all of the microhabitats (pool, riffle, run, etc.) occurring at a site were sampled with at
least one trap. Traps were baited with a combination of chicken livers and hot dogs and allowed
to soak overnight. The traps were checked daily, all species found within the traps were
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 12

recorded, and the traps were rebaited. If the targeted Neuse River Waterdog was found at a site,
trapping efforts were discontinued.
6.0 RESULTS
6.1 Mussel Survey Results
A total of 13.67 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with five species of
freshwater mussel, the Box Spike (Elliptio cistellaeformis), Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio
complanata), Carolina Slabshell (Elliptio congarea), Variable Spike (Elliptio icterina), and
Roanoke Slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) being found (Table 2). Other mollusk species located
included the Asian Clam and two aquatic snails, Pointed Campeloma (Campeloma decisum) and
Piedmont Elimia (Elimia virginica). In addition, one Neuse River Waterdog was observed
during the survey.
Table 2. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Tar River
Scientific Name
Common Name
# live
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
Elliptio cistellae ormis
Box Spike
19
1.39/hr
Elliptio com lanata
Eastern Elliptio
42
3.07/hr
Elliptio con araea
Carolina Slabshel
325
23.77/hr
Elliptio icterina
Variable Spike
28
2.05/hr
Elliptio roanokensis
goanoke Slabshell
2
0.15/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
Cam eloma decisum
Pointed Cam eloma
—
U
Corbicula uminea
Asian Clam
C
Elimia vir inica
Piedmont Elimia
PC
Appropriate habitat for the Carolina Madtom was limited, but present in the reach. The species
was not observed during these efforts. Three fish species, Tessellated Darter (Etheostoma
olmstedi), Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and Shorthead Redhorse (Moxostoma
macrolepidotum) were observed while surveying for the Carolina Madtom.
6.2 Neuse River Waterdog Survey Results
The Neuse River Waterdog was found at the project crossing during survey efforts; therefore,
surveys were concluded after one trap night (Table 3). In addition, one American Eel (Anguilla
rostrata) was captured during the trapping effort.
Table 3. NRWD Survey: Species Found in Tar River
Trap
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
1
2
3
American Eel 1
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 13

Table 3. NRWD Survey: Species Found in Tar River
Neuse River Waterdog (1)
N00010—
------
7.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that the study area supports a freshwater mussel fauna of four common
species and the Roanoke Slabshell, which is currently listed as a species of Special Concern (SC)
in North Carolina. No other mussel species were found. Neither the DWM, TSM, Yellow
Lance, nor Atlantic Pigtoe were found during the surveys. While the target species were located,
appropriate habitat is present; thus, the presence of additional species cannot be altogether ruled
out. Several rare species are known from the Tar River and nearby tributaries (Section 1.0).
Based on these survey results, adverse effects to the four target mussel species and the Carolina
Madtom are unlikely to result from project construction but cannot be entirely discounted. Strict
adherence to erosion control standards should minimize the potential for any adverse impacts to
occur. The surveys confirm the continued presence of the Neuse River Waterdog within the
project area.
Biological conclusions on potential impacts from the project to the target species 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.
Biological Conclusion Dwarf Wedgemussel: May Affect/Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Biological Conclusion Tar River Spinymussel: May Affect/Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Biological Conclusion Yellow Lance: May Affect/Not Likely to Adversely Affect
While the following species are not currently federally protected and biological conclusions are
not necessary at the time of the writing of this report, if these species were to receive federal
protection, appropriate biological conclusions are as follows:
Biological Conclusion Atlantic Pigtoe: May Affect/Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Biological Conclusion Neuse River Waterdog: Unresolved
Biological Conclusion Carolina Madtom: May Affect/Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 14

8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Adams, W. F., J. M. Alderman, R. G. Biggins, A. G. Gerberich, E. P. Keferl, H. J. Porter, and A.
S.Van Devender. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina's
freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission,
Raleigh. 246 pp, Appendix A, 37 pp.
Alderman, J. M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community. Unpublished
report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of
Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC.
Alderman, J.M. 2003. Status and Distribution of Fusconaia mason and Elliptio lanceolata in
Virginia. USFWS Grant Agreement:1148-401 81-99-G-113. 118pp.
AmphibiaWeb: Information on amphibian biology and conservation [web application]. 2006.
Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. Accessed: March 22, 2016.
http://amphibiaweb.org/index.html.
Angermeier, P. L. 1995. Ecological attributes of extinction -prone species: loss of freshwater fishes
of Virginia. Conservation Biology 9:143-158.
Beane, J. and Newman, J. T. 1996. North Carolina Wildlife Profiles — Neuse River Waterdog.
Division of Conservation Education, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Bogart, A.E., J.Levine, and M.Raley. 2009. Determination of the systematic position and
relationships of the lanceolate Elliptio complex (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) from six
river basins in Virginia. NC Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC. 37pp.
Brimley, C. S. 1924. The waterdogs (Necturus) of North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell
Scientific Society 40: 166-168.
Burr, B. M., B.R. Kuhajda, W.W. Dimmick and J.M. Grady. 1989. Distribution, biology, and
conservation status of the Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus, an endemic North Carolina
catfish. Brimleyana 15:57-86.
Burr, B. M., and J. N. Stoeckel. 1999. The natural history of madtoms (genus Noturus), North
America's diminutive catfishes. Pages 51-101 in E. R. Irwin, W. A. Hubert, C. F.
Rabeni, H. L. J. Schramm, and T. Coon, editors. Catfish 2000: Proceedings of the
International Ictalurid Symposium. Symposium 24. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
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, 1,145 pp. Available online at:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/Candiate%20 Spp/SE—Petition.pdf.
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 15

Clarke, A. H. 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 326. 101 pp.
Clarke, A. H. 1983. Status survey of the Tar River spiny mussel. Final Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service with supplement. 63 pp.
Conant, R. and Collins, J.T. 1998. A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and
Central North America. Third Edition, Expanded. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston,
Massachusetts.
Conrad, T.A. 1834. New freshwater shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations; and a
monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. J.
Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1-76, 8 pls.
Eads, C.B. and J.F. Levine. 2008. Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) and Tar River
Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) Conservation Research: July 2007-June 2008. Final
report submitted to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC.
18 pp.
Eads, C.B. and J.F. Levine. 2009. Propagation and culture of three species of freshwater
mussel: Alasmidonta varicose, Medionidus conradicus, and Elliptio lanceolata from July
2008-June 2009. NC State University, Raleigh, NC. 16pp.
Eads, C.B. and J.F. Levine. 2011. Refinement of Growout Techniques for Four Freshwater
Mussel Species. Final Report submitted to NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh,
NC. 15pp.
Eads, C.B., R. Nichols, C.J. Woods, and J.F. Levine. 2008. Captive spawning and host
determination of the federally endangered Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
Ellipsaria, 10(2):7-8.
EDGE of Existence website. "165. Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi)". Accessed: March
22, 2016. http://www.edgeofexistence.org/amphibians/species—info.php?id=1361.
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42.
Frost, Darrel R. 2016. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.0
(March 22, 2016). Electronic Database accessible at
http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.htm]. American Museum of Natural
History, New York, USA.
Fuller, S. L. H. 1977. Freshwater and terrestrial mollusks. In: John E. Cooper, Sarah S.
Robinson, John B. Fundeburg (eds.) Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of
North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 16

Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents
on Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS: 128 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
140: 263-449.
Johnson, R.I. and A.H. Clarke. 1983. A new spiny mussel, Elliptio (Canthyria) steinstansana
(Bivalvia: Unionidae), from the Tar River, North Carolina. Occasional Papers on
Mollusks, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 4(61): 289-298.
Jordan, D.S. 1889. Descriptions of fourteen species of freshwater fishes collected by the U.S.
Fish Commission in the summer of 1888. Proceedings of the United States National
Museum 11:351-362.Lea, I. 1828. Description of six new species of the genus Unio,
embracing the anatomy of the oviduct of one of them, together with some anatomical
observations on the genus. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
3(N.S.):259-273 + plates iii-vi.
Lea, I. 1828. Description of six new species of the genus Unio, embracing the anatomy of the
oviduct of one of them, together with some anatomical observations on the genus.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 3(N.S.):259-273 + plates iii-vi.
Lea, I. 1829. Description of a new genus of the family of naiades, including eight species, four of
which are new; also the description of eleven new species of the genus Unio from the
rivers of the United States: with observations on some of the characters of the naiades.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 3[New Series]:403-457, pls. 7-14.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer. 1980.
Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural
History, Raleigh.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp.
Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal to list as
an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 10 pp. and appendices.
Mayden, R.L. and B.M. Burr. 1981. Life history of the slender madtom, Noturus exilis, in
southern Illinois (Pisces: Ictaluridae), Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kans. 93:1-64
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 17

McRae, Sarah. 2017. Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh, NC.
Personal communication regarding target species.
Midway, S.R. 2008. Habitat Ecology of the Carolina Madtom, Noturus furiosus, an Imperiled
Endemic Stream Fish. M.S. Thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 74 pp.
McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalvia. Pp. 331-429. IN: J.H. Thorpe and
A.P. Covich. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates.
2ndedition. Academic Press.
Michaelson, D.L. and R.J. Neves. 1995. Life history and habitat of the endangered dwarf
wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 14(2):324-340.
NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org.
(Accessed: May 23, 2016). Species Accessed: Necturus lewisi, Noturus furiosus
Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 1(5): 1-
7.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL.189 pp.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Resources.
2014. 2014 North Carolina 303(d) List. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/clas sification-standards/3 03 d/3 03 d-file s
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2018. Biotics Database. Division of Land and Water
Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
January 2018 version.
North Carolina Scientific Council on Mollusks. 2011. Reevaluation of Status Listings for
Jeopardized Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks in North Carolina. Report of the
Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks, 38 p.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Unpublished Aquatics Database.
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). 2010. NCpedia profile for Carolina
Madtom (Noturus furiosus) [web application]. By Brian Watson, updated by Chris Wood,
June 14, 2010. http://ncpedia.org/wildlife/carolina-madtom Accessed November 4, 2016.
O'Dee, S.H., and G.T. Waters. 2000. New or confirmed host identification for ten freshwater
mussels. Pp. 77-82 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Waters, B.J. Armitage, P.D.
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 18

Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings Part I.
Proceedings of the Conservation, Captive Care and Propagation of Freshwater Mussels
Symposium. Ohio Biological Survey Special Publication, Columbus.
O'Neill, C. R., Jr., and D. B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): an
unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Ortmann, A.E. 1919. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III: Systematic account
of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1): xvi-384, 21 pls.
Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh -water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New
York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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
Savidge, T. W., J. M. Alderman, A. E. Bogan, W. G. Cope, T. E. Dickinson, C. B. Eads,S. J.
Fraley, J. Fridell, M. M. Gangloff, R. J. Heise, J. F. Levine, S. E. McRae, R.B. Nichols,
A. J. Rodgers, A. Van Devender, J. L. Williams and L. L. Zimmerman. 2011. 2010
Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks in
North Carolina. Unpublished report of the Scientific Council on Freshwater and
Teresstrial Mollusks. 177pp.
Shelley, R.M. 1972. In defense of naiades. Wildlife in North Carolina. March: 1-7.
Simpson, C.T. 1900. Synopsis of the naiades, or pearly fresh -water mussels. Proceedings of the
United States National Museum 22(1205):501-1044.
Simpson, C.T. 1914. A descriptive catalogue of the naiades, or pearly fresh -water mussels. Parts
I —III. Bryant Walker, Detroit, Michigan, xii + 1540 pp.
Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range -wide assessment of populations of
Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N.
Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. NPDES facilities by permit
type. NPDESPERMIT—WMERC. Accessed March 2, 2018.
https://watersgeo. epa. gov/arcgis/rest/services/OWPROGRAM/NPDESPERMIT_WMER
C/MapServer
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 19

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Special report on the status of
freshwater mussels.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species
of the southeast United States (The Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992c. Tar Spinymussel (Elliptio (Canthyria)
steinstansana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 34 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 527 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta
heterodon 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Susi vonOettingen, FWS, Concord,
NH.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Yellow Lance Species Status Review
Viosca, P., Jr. 1937. A tentative revision of the genus Necturus, with descriptions of three new
species from the southern Gulf drainage area. Copeia 1937:120-138.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014. Atlantic Pigtoe
Conservation Plan. Bureau of Wildlife Resources. VDGIF, Richmond, VA. 31 pp.
Widlak, J.C. 1987. Recovery Plan for the Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio (Canthyria)
steinstansana) Johnson and Clarke. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wolf, E.D. 2012. Propagation, Culture, and Recovery of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe.
Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute, Project No. 11-108. 55pp.
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 20

APPENDIX A
Figures
Tar River SR 1243 Survey Report March 2018
Job# 17-108 Page 21

\p\ EIRl* Prepared For:
AWA
4
t
Aquatic Species Survey
17BP.4.R.101: Improvements to SR
1243 over Tar River (Bridge #54)
Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Date: March 2018
Scale:
0 200 400 Feet
Job No.:
17-108
Drawn By:
Checked B.v:
KEMS
TWS
Figure

- - �-- --
Y"x
s c $ ' ILI.
r e 33
us 3,4
4 for f'V NC,I
oFr
8 4
to
a,k =mot „tip f
NC 48
crs
EO ID 20981
j \ £ �1 � US 3 l
_ fr Bridge #54
,�464, US 6a
U5 __ d US64
ashvllle 6r - rsx
,77 $fora ��IlG
c, 6�''
_ 7rc E'fi
Nc se 1L+1 r��7/� C
_ o 412
Rocky fAa C Nc 4i 1� G C 4�udIT p
',,
US 64
195
In h tic 97 �: _ n
t3}
SPo Cree 3 y} o, r �' 7
L
SLL1
Cak J
13
97
` - $h ar'), tbw q
fTi iv6' a pf .��r�� - _ U530 46,
Survey Site 5 „`� -� 1 C1�COu. i
- NCNHP Element Occurence ��� A rr m i�, `YTS �y� Carry Cr,�
_ k
Stream U�
�_ 1
�---� County Boundary
00 en treetMap (aod), ,orTfrlb s, C - Y-SA
Pre pared For:
3u19��
Aquatic Species Survey
17BP.4.R.101: Improvements to SR
1243 over Tar River (Bridge #54)
NCNHP Element 0ccurences:
Dwarf Wedgemussel
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Date: March 2018
Scale:
0 1 2Miles
I i I
Job No.:
17-108
Drawn By:
Checked By:
KEMS
TWS
Figu re
2-1

Moore
- � NC
.f' Q
�c00C r Oft_ r -
�}4 Us
EQ ID 21437
Bridge #54 -
r . ✓ At Greek
'P
1•vrbar
US 64 _ e�K
Walnu k Gr
© EO ID 21438
C 43 4 '�� �'- 0
S— -- — NC33
b4
Ln
GQ):'l� S _ �? US54 T r Ta f(f �
r'4 �QI ,4ass $6•� aY s1
b's ' us 64
Ca�
Y, A. 1
NC
43
NC 1 1 1
NC 122 CO
c� G(o
y NC 33
f
"I C reek
` N 22
NC 42
A Survey Site � �'
t
NCNHP Element Occurence NC ���'
Stream
--- county y Boundar NC 124 •" C 3 f
�---� I@srle�u
jenS r'egt map (a d) c ntri or , CC-BA,=SA
Pre pared For:
3u19��
Aquatic Species Survey
17BP.4.R.101: Improvements to SR
1243 over Tar River (Bridge #54)
NCNHP Element 0ccurences.,
Tar River Spinymussel
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Date: March 2018
Scale: 0 05 1 Miles
I I
Job No.:
17-108
Drawn By:
Checked By:
KEMS
TWS
Figu re
2-2

j c 33
e�. Sty` S us3, r�'.Gre+,r 1
S
us 3
EO ID 21948
+�StftO _ us3oJ� -0 _ - _ EO ID 34945
m.40 -
r
Battle,-
'� -arich
- 33
-;' NC48
A
A , �
U53(f, r...�� �. f]_ � r -h son _ 1
e NC 43 py "�'�
C1 �0 ` US 3
f! Bridge #54
EO ID 21947 ' r sit
ti
`St. °ny C'�. t� �13f GV1
17
`:� 1 o u' V P
OCky �JS4 / C4 ..- 13u ` S
+ "^-GCCCfffl
�+ 00 U564
=US ?fit
1
Survey Site
NCNHP Element Occurence
Stream
---� County Boundary
,p\�EIRl* Prepared For:
. _
3u19��
Ca
NC 43 -?
Uo
Aquatic Species Survey
17BP.4.R.101: Improvements to SR
1243 over Tar River (Bridge #54)
NCNHP Element 0ccurences:
Yellow Lance
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
64 1
",*us6-4
V NC `e
EO ID 22004
EO ID 137451 A
ch
Date: March 2018
Scale: 0 0.5 1 Miles
I
Job No.:
17-108
Drawn By:
Checked By:
KEMS
TWS
Figu 2-3

.a
.--• riRL-IFAX COUNTY
t"EDGECC}MBE COUNTY
NC 7
Pson
Gc S7 (;reek s �^y c4
r, orr
NC 47 Us�
f - US 64
Wafnu t.'
- t _ to
13 f�_--.---
V3 ..sueUS 64
Oa
1 NC 43
A Survey Site
- NCNHP Element Occurence
i Stream
1---� County Boundary
p\ EIRl* Prepared For:
t. _
v � tk
94'1j33 :Is]��
yto
_ NC 33
NC 111
NC 122
Aquatic Species Surrey
17BP.4.R.101: Improvements to SR
1243 over Tar River (Bridge #54)
I ICNHP Element 0ccurences:
Atlantic Pigtoe
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
EO ID 19338
Us 64�
J.37
NC 33
Date: March 2018
Scale: 0 0.5 1 Miles
I
Job No.:
17-108
Drawn By:
Checked By:
KEMS
TWS
m
J
-BY=SA
Figu re
2-4

.Flab
14r
I US 64
M
43
n c_n
NC 48
us
r
US
k4m-
(EID 3703
EO ID 3793 __JBridge #54
4FSA r
sr: _
I' o .;a
�rlo Ck�Nc43 m9
Rocky
UG
us ea __.Walnu
NC 07
-WC 43
r
tiharGYiar(J ,
0 '/Q
rOW7 CC
Z� Survey Site
,,- NCNHP Element Occurence
Stream
L- County Boundary
�5�\p\hiEER/* Prepared For: Q
nwrq
y
p e
�/7 m � SQO
1#3311OF TPA
'vT
n
Aquatic Species Survey
17BP.4.R.101: Improvements to SR
1243 over Tar River (Bridge #54)
NCNHP Element Occurences:
Neuse River Waterdog
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
64
NC 43
Date: March 2018
scale, 0 0.5 1 Miles
1 r �
Job No
17-108
Drawn By.
Checked By:
KEMS
TVVS
US 64
NC 1 I'
NC 122
22
Figure
2-5

fJ J
C 33 US 3+,/�I1
Lari� A& Nc/
pa1k--S
us
EO ID 1226
1C = _
j NC 4 Sall1/.1 gra
Sq -
US 3R.4
ll -r son
l
ID 19769 -� � TP
f Bridge #54
o
dLNr <_.
mp
7
z
Rocky,,!�6©
r
U
�
--
y% US6d
1 M.La�
('
J _ Cat)
A survey site f
- NCNHP Element Occurence INC
Stream `5
-_-� County Boundary
\p\ EIRl* Prepared For:
. _
�4
I EO ID 11561 -
Ai •i t \ G -
I
EO ID 16882
[ ' J;L4 R,rW3re -
NC 33
Ln—
US 64 [S�
Oic
Y'.
EO ID 11292
eMrif� ch
NC 111
NC 121 Goa
Openstr etMap ( nd) contri toff UC-BY-SA
Aquatic Species Survey
17BR.4.R.101: Improvements to SR
1243 over Tar River (Bridge #54)
NCNHP Element Occurences.
Carolina Madtom
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Date: March 2018
Scale: 0 0.5 1 Miles
I
Job No.:
17-108
Drawn By:
Checked By:
KEMS
TWS
Figu 2-6

I
Batt] �aOro
`y r
I
[ NC 4R
NC 43 14'
ortthes
NC
i Survey Site
C NPDES Discharge
303(d) Listed Streams
Stream
---� County Boundary
�Uk��Llff,Ifl Prepared For:
CS
�4
LLA rn
3u19�� wF x 4
16
ll 5 Y,1,
1
N — I
11 OHM
t+ NC 48
4f
x US 309
Tar river regional
NC d3 WWTP (NCO030317)
Crab y r �
o r 1 r River
hf" le h"gcertrF�'d' T�C
NC 43 •L. 1 Nrs s i
hC 4N 'L'rvvao Rg4 fff[t@s
_._ P So thews[
Rocky Maumt,,•
rB Ir G;io+ry
_ 1 Bridge #54
•1 ,,
bJf a� is+. 0 �
n=
int
0) f-o -- —_ gUckS`��,
�� .3
c�
Q NC 77
-
�?PJi 43
Co
� ��a R■
NC 43
0
1 ic7 OpenSte t �tp { a a },.�`bnfri • 'tors, C 11-SA
Aquatic Species Survey
171BPAR.101: Improvements to SR
1243 over Tar River (Bridge #54)
303(d) Listed Streams
& NPDES Discharges
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Date: March 2018
Scale:
0 0.5 1 Mile-
I t
Job No.:
17-108
Drawn By:
Checked By:
KEMS
TWS
Figu re
3