20200205 Ver 1_Aquatic Species Assessment Report_20200330

Aquatic Species Assessment Report

Harris Creek Interceptor Project

Wake County, North Carolina

Harris Creek wetland complex downstream from proposed crossing

Prepared For:

1210 Trinity Road, Suite 110
Cary, NC 27513

Prepared By:

324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701

March 26, 2020

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Target Protected, Proposed, and Petitioned Species Descriptions ....................................... 2
2.1 Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) ............................................................... 2
2.1.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 2
2.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 2
2.1.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) ................................................................................. 4
2.2.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 4
2.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 5
2.2.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 5
2.2.4. Designated Critical Habitat ....................................................................................... 5
2.3 Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi) ......................................................................... 7
2.3.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 7
2.3.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 7
2.3.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 8
2.3.4. Designated Critical Habitat ....................................................................................... 8
2.4 Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus) ............................................................................... 9
2.4.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 9
2.4.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 9
2.4.3. Threats to Species ................................................................................................... 10
2.4.4. Designated Critical Habitat ..................................................................................... 10
2.5 Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis)............................................................................ 10
2.5.1. Species Characteristics............................................................................................ 10
2.5.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................. 11
2.5.3. Threats to Species ................................................................................................... 11
3.0 Survey Efforts .................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Conditions of Reach Evaluated ...................................................................................... 11
3.1.1. Harris Creek Wetland Complex .............................................................................. 11
3.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 11
3.2.1. Mussels ................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.2. Carolina Madtom .................................................................................................... 12
3.2.3. Neuse River Waterdog ............................................................................................ 12
4.0 Results ................................................................................................................................ 12
4.1 Mussels ........................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Carolina Madtom............................................................................................................ 12
4.3 Neuse River Waterdog ................................................................................................... 13
5.0 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 13
6.0 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................. 14

Appendix A: Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Appendix B: Select Photographs

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Harris Creek Interceptor Project will involve a crossing of Harris Creek along Jonesville
Road in Wake County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Harris Creek is in the Neuse River basin. The
Federally Endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon, DWM) is listed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the subbasin in Wake County where the project occurs.
The Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), also known from the subbasin, was proposed for listing
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a Threatened Species with Section 4(d) Rule and
Critical Habitat Designation on October 11, 2018 (USFWS 2018). The Neuse River Waterdog
(Necturus lewisi) and Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus) are likewise known to occur in the
subbasin in Wake County. On May 22, 2019, these two species were proposed for listing under
the ESA as a Threatened Species (Neuse River Waterdog) and an Endangered Species (Carolina
Madtom) with Critical Habitat Designation proposed for both species and a Section 4(d) Rule
proposed for the Neuse River Waterdog (USFWS 2019). Additionally, the Green Floater
(Lasmigona subvirdis), is being considered for listing by the USFWS and is known to occur in
Wake County.
Three Oaks Engineering, Inc. (Three Oaks) was contracted to perform habitat evaluations in
Harris Creek at the project crossing for listed mussels, Carolina Madtom, and Neuse River
Waterdog.
Tables 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) in approximate river miles (RM) for these
species relative to the proposed Harris Creek Interceptor crossing. Data is according to the NC
Natural Heritage Program database (NCNHP 2019) most recently updated in January 2020.
Table 1 –Element Occurrences Harris
Species Name EO ID
EO
Waterbody
Distance
from
crossing
(RM)
First
Observed
Last
Observed
EO
Status*
Dwarf
Wedgemussel
7699 Neuse River 10.3 1951 1951 H
13799 Swift Creek 43.2 March 1991 February
2018 C
Atlantic Pigtoe 11071 Walnut Creek 13.1 1951 1951 H
11695 Swift Creek 43.2 March 1991 March 2019 C
Green Floater 28706 Neuse River 12.1 July 2010 July 2016 C
Neuse River
Waterdog
446 Neuse River 1.8 July 1980 July 1980 H
1633 Swift Creek 43.2 April 1979 March 2016 C
Carolina Madtom
10676 Neuse River 8.6 July 1897 August
1902 H
3858 Little River >50 June 1961 July 2005 C
*: C – NCNHP Current; H –NCNHP Historic

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 2
2.0 TARGET PROTECTED, PROPOSED, AND PETITIONED SPECIES
DESCRIPTIONS
2.1 Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
2.1.1. 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
Johnny Darter (E. nigrum). McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be consulted
for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
2.1.2. 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

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 3
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.
2.1.3. 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.
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.

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 4
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.
2.2 Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)
2.2.1. 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

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 5
2012). Eads and Levine (2011) found White Shiner, Satinfin Shiner, Bluehead Chub, Rosyside
Dace (Clinostomus funduloides), Pinewoods Shiner, Creek Chub, Swallowtail Shiner (Notropis
procne), and Mountain Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus oreas) to also be suitable hosts for Atlantic
Pigtoe.
2.2.2. 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.
2.2.3. 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.
2.2.4. Designated Critical Habitat
As mentioned in Section 1.0, the Atlantic Pigtoe is proposed for listing under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) as a Threatened Species with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat
Designation. In accordance with Section 4 of the ESA, Critical Habitat for listed species consists
of:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, in which are found those physical or biological features (constituent elements) that
are:
a. essential to the conservation of the species, and

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 6
b. which may require special management considerations or protection
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed
in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are “essential for the conservation of the species.”
On October 11, 2018, USFWS proposed the Atlantic Pigtoe as a threatened species under the
ESA. Critical habitat designation provided at that time (CFR Vol. 52 No. 186) consists of the
following:
• Unit 1 - 29 river mi (46.7 river km) of Craig Creek in Craig and Botetourt Counties,
Virginia
• Unit 2 - 1 mile (1.6-km) of Mill Creek in Bath County, Virginia
• Unit 3 - 3 miles (4.8-km) of the Middle James River in Fluvanna and Buckingham
Counties, Virginia
• Unit 4 - 50 river miles (80.5 river km) of the Nottoway River in Nottoway, Lunenburg,
Brunswick, Dinwiddie, and Greenville Counties, Virginia
• Unit 5 - 5 miles (8 km) of the Meherrin River in Brunswick County, Virginia
• Unit 6 - 7 miles (11.3 km) of the Dan River in Pittsylvania County, Virginia and
Rockingham County, North Carolina
• Unit 7 - 12 miles (19.3 km) of Aarons Creek in Granville County, North Carolina and
along the Mecklenburg County-Halifax County line in Virginia and North Carolina
• Unit 8 - 85 miles (136.8 km) of the mainstem of the upper and middle Tar River as well
as several tributaries (Bear Swamp Creek, Crooked Creek, Cub Creek, and Shelton
Creek), in Granville, Vance, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina
• Unit 9 - 8 miles (93.3-km) of Sandy/Swift Creek in Vance, Warren, Franklin, and Nash
Counties, North Carolina
• Unit 10 - 85 miles (136.8 km) in Fishing Creek, Little Fishing Creek, Shocco Creek, and
Maple Branch located in Warren, Halifax, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina
• Unit 11 - 30 miles (48.3 km) of the Lower Tar River and Fishing Creek in Edgecombe
County, North Carolina
• Unit 12 - 60 river miles (95 river km) in four subunits including Flat River, Little River,
Eno River, and the Upper Eno River in Durham, Orange, and Person Counties, North
Carolina
• Unit 13 - 61 river miles (98.2 river km) in five subunits including Swift Creek, Middle
Creek, Upper Little River, Middle Little River, and Contentnea Creek, in Johnston,
Wake, and Wilson Counties, North Carolina
• Unit 14 - 6 miles (9.7 km) of habitat in New Hope Creek in Orange County, North
Carolina
• Unit 15 - 10 river miles (16.1 river km) in Randolph County, North Carolina, including
the mainstem Deep River as well as Richland Creek and Brush Creek

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 7
• Unit 16 - 40 miles (64.4 km) of Little River in Randolph and Montgomery Counties,
North Carolina
2.3 Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi)
2.3.1. 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).
2.3.2. 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 (Amphibi aWeb 2006; Beane

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 8
and Newman 1996; Conant and Collins 1998; EDGE of Existence 2016; NatureServe Explorer
2016).
2.3.3. 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).
2.3.4. Designated Critical Habitat
As mentioned in Section 1.0, on May 22, 2019, the Neuse River Waterdog is proposed for listing
under the ESA as a Threatened Species with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Designation.
Critical habitat designation provided at that time (CFR Vol. 84 No. 99) consists of the following:
• Unit 1 - 8.6 river mi (13.8 river km) of the Upper Tar River in Granville County
• Unit 2 - 10.5 river mi (16.9 river km) of Upper Fishing Creek in Warren County
• Unit 3 - 63 river mi (101 river km) of lower Little Fishing Creek in Halifax, Nash, and
Edgecombe Counties.
• Unit 4 - 68-river-mi (110-river-km) segment of Sandy Creek and Red Bud Creek in
Franklin, Nash, and Edgecombe Counties
• Unit 5 - 100-river-mi (161-river-km) segment of the Middle Tar River in Franklin, Nash,
and Edgecombe Counties
• Unit 6 - 60 river mi (96.6 river km) in the Lower Tar River Subbasin including portions
of Town Creek, Otter Creek, and Tyson Creek in Edgecombe and Pitt Counties
• Unit 7 - 41.5 river mi (66.8 river km) of the Eno River in Orange and Durham Counties
• Unit 8 - 17.4-river-mi (28-river-km) segment of the Flat River in Person and Durham
Counties
• Unit 9 - 7.6-river-mi (12.2-river-km) stretch of Middle Creek in Wake and Johnston
Counties
• Unit 10 - 23.35-river-mi (37.6-river-km) stretch of Swift Creek in Johnston County
• Unit 11 - 89.6-river-mi (144.2-river-km) segment of the Little River including Buffalo
Creek in Franklin, Wake, Johnston, and Wayne Counties
• Unit 12 - 18.7-river-mi (30-river-km) segment of Mill Creek in Johnston and Wayne
Counties
• Unit 13 – 40-river-mi of (64.4- river-km) of Middle Neuse River in in Wayne and Lenoir
Counties
• Unit 14 – 117-river-mi (188.3-river-km) of Contentnea Creek, Neuse River, Nahunta
Swamp, and Pinetree Creek in Wayne, Greene, Wilson, Lenoir, Pitt, and Craven Counties
• Unit 15 – 10-river-mi (16-river-km) of Swift Creek in Craven County

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 9
• Unit 16 – 62-river-mi (100-river-km) of Trent River including Beaver Creek in Jones
County
2.4 Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus)
2.4.1. Species Characteristics
The Carolina Madtom (a small catfish) was described at Milburnie, near Raleigh, NC in the
Neuse River by Jordan (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).
2.4.2. 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.
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

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 10
(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.
2.4.3. 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.
2.4.4. Designated Critical Habitat
As mentioned in Section 1.0, on May 22, 2019 the Carolina Madtom is proposed for listing
under the ESA as an Endangered Species with Critical Habitat Designation. Critical habitat
designation provided at that time (CFR Vol. 84 No. 99) consists of the following:
• Unit 1 – 26 river miles (42 river km) of Tar River in Franklin, Granville, and Vance
Counties
• Unit 2 – 66 river miles (106 km) of Sandy/Swift Creek in Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax,
Nash, and Warren Counties
• Unit 3 – 86 river miles (138 km) of the Fishing Creek Subbasin in Edgecombe, Franklin,
Halifax, Nash, and Warren Counties
• Unit 4 – 20 river miles (32 km) of the Upper Neuse River Subbasin (Eno River) in
Durham and Orange Counties
• Unit 5 – 28 river miles (45 km) of the Little River in Johnston County
• Unit 6 – 15 river miles (24 km) of Contentnea Creek in Wilson County
• Unit 7 – 15 river miles (24 km) of the Trent River in Jones County
2.5 Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis)
2.5.1. Species Characteristics
The Green Floater was described by Conrad (1835) from the Schuykill River in Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania. This small mussel species has a thin, slightly inflated, subovate shell that
is narrower in front, higher behind. The dorsal margin forms a blunt angle with the posterior
margin. The shell is dull yellow or tan to brownish green, usually with concentrations of dark
green rays.

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 11
2.5.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Green Floater occurs along the Atlantic slope from the Savannah River in Georgia north to
the Hudson River in New York, as well as in the “interior” basins (New, Kanawah, and
Wataugua Rivers) of the Tennessee River basin. It has experienced major declines throughout
its entire range. Based on preliminary genetics research, the southern populations of the Green
Floater (Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, and Yadkin/Pee Dee River Basins) appear to be genetically distinct
from populations from the Roanoke River to the north and west (Morgan Railey and Arthur
Bogan, North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, 2007 Personal Communication). Further
research is needed to determine if these differences warrant classification of the southern
populations as a distinct species. It occurs in small size streams to large rivers, in quiet waters
such as pools, or eddies, with gravel and sand substrates.
2.5.3. Threats to Species
Threats to the Green Floater and many other species are similar to those described above for
DWM (Section 2.1.3).
3.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Habitat evaluations and brief surveys for target species were conducted March 11, 2020, by
Three Oaks personnel Tom Dickinson and Lillian Lovingood.

3.1 Conditions of Reach Evaluated
3.1.1. Harris Creek Wetland Complex
At the Jonesville Road crossing, Harris Creek consisted of a defined channel for a short reach
and a wide Beaver (Castor canadensis) influenced wetland complex in a broad floodplain. At the
crossing the channel shows no discernable flow. Just upstream, the channel is backed up into a
broad area of shallow open water. Further downstream, the channel is less defined and
contiguous with wetland areas and shallow open water behind established beaver dams. Several
areas of shallow braided channels are present throughout the wetland complex. Substrates
consisted primarily of muck, vegetation, silt, and occasional patches of sand.
3.2 Methodology
Evaluations for mussels, Carolina Madtom, and Neuse River Waterdog were conducted from
approximately 1,312 feet (400 meters) downstream of the Harris Creek crossing to
approximately 328 feet (100 meters) upstream for a distance of approximately 1,640 feet (500
meters; Figure 1).
3.2.1. Mussels
Select areas of appropriate habitat were searched, concentrating on the stable habitats preferred
by the target species. The survey team spread out into identified habitats. Visual surveys were

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 12
conducted using glass bottom view buckets (bathyscopes). Tactile methods were employed,
particularly in sand patches and mud flats. 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.
3.2.2. Carolina Madtom
During the mussel effort for the project, the presence of preferred habitats for the Carolina
Madtom were assessed and cursory visual surveys were conducted by overturning debris in these
areas.
3.2.3. Neuse River Waterdog
Neuse River Waterdog habitat was also evaluated. When present, the Neuse River Waterdog can
be observed with visual surveys. Dip net sweeps through leaf packs and underneath submerged
rootmats were conducted. Due to habitat conditions observed, it was determined full winter
trapping methods were not necessary.
4.0 RESULTS
The evaluation results for the Harris Creek Interceptor by target species are presented as follows.
4.1 Mussels
Very limited appropriate habitat was present in the reach evaluated. A total of 1.5 person hours
of survey time were spent, with two individuals of the lentic adapted Paper Pondshell
(Utterbackia imbecillis) being found near the downstream extent of the reach. Other mollusk
species located included native pea clams (Sphaeriidae), which were common, and the aquatic
snails Pointed Campeloma (Campeloma decisum) and a physid (Physella sp.), which were both
common. No additional evidence or live mussels were found.
4.2 Carolina Madtom
Full survey efforts for the Carolina Madtom were determined not to be warranted based on
impounded conditions. No madtom species were observed during the evaluation.

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 13
4.3 Neuse River Waterdog
Full survey efforts for the Neuse River Waterdog were determined not to be warranted based on
impounded conditions at the project crossing. No Neuse River Waterdog were observed during
the evaluation.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
These efforts provide updated survey data for mussels, Carolina Madtom, and Neuse River
Waterdog for the Harris Interceptor Project. Current records for the target species are located far
from the evaluated reach (Section 1.0). The target species were not located during the efforts
and are very unlikely to occupy this portion of Harris Creek due to the impounded habitat
conditions observed. The current habitats present suggest the area has long been inundated by
beaver dams throughout the floodplain. Two individuals of the Paper Pondshell represented the
only mussel evidence found during the evaluation. The Paper Pondshell is a lentic adapted
native mussel that is common in impoundments. Further, several larger man-made
impoundments are located on the system downstream separating the project crossing area from
the main stem Neuse River. As such, the Harris Creek Interceptor project is very unlikely to
impact the federally protected aquatic target species.

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 14
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
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.
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.
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.
Clarke, A. H. 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias, Alasmidonta,
and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 326. 101 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.
Conrad, T.A. 1835. Monography of the Family Unionidae, or naiades of Lamarck, (fresh water
bivalve shells) of North America, illustrated by figures drawn on stone from nature. J.
Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1:1-12, plates 1-5.

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 15
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.
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.html. 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.
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.
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. 1829. Description of a new genus of the family of naïades, 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 naïades.
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.

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 16
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
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.McRae, Sarah. 2017. Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Raleigh, NC. Personal communication regarding target species.
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.
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.
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
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 Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2019. Biotics Database. Division of Land
and Water Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. January 2019
version.
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.
Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings Part I.

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 17
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.
Railey, Morgan and Arthur Bogan, North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, 2007 Personal
Communication
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.
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.
USFWS 1992a. Special report on the status of freshwater mussels.
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.
USFWS 1993. Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) Recovery Plan. Hadley,
Massachusetts. 527 pp.

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 18
USFWS 2013. Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon 5-Year Review: Summary and
Evaluation, Susi vonOettingen, FWS, Concord, NH.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta
heterodon 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Susi vonOettingen, FWS, Concord,
NH.
United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat
Designation for Atlantic Pigtoe. 50 CFR 17:83 FR 51570, 51570-51609. Docket No.
FWS-R4-ES-2018-0046.
United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Neuse River Waterdog
and Endangered Species Status for Carolina Madtom and Proposed Designations of
Critical Habitat. 50 CFR 17:84 FR 23644. Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-22/pdf/2019-10379.pdf
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.
Wolf, E.D. 2012. Propagation, Culture, and Recovery of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe.
Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute, Project No. 11-108. 55pp.

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 19

APPENDIX A

Figures

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 22

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 21

APPENDIX B

Select Photographs

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 22

Harris Creek Upstream at Jonesville Road crossing

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 23

Harris Creek at project crossing site looking upstream

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 24

Expansive Beaver impounded wetland complex downstream from crossing

Harris Interceptor Project Aquatic Surveys March 2020
Three Oaks Job# 20-303 Page 25

Paper Pondshell located near downstream extent