20190225 Ver 2_Town of Apex_Middle Creek Greenway_USFWS Self-Certiciation Package_03252021_20210326

Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726











































Self-Certification Letter

Project Name______________________________

Dear Applicant:

Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.

The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:

“no effect” determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or

“may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or

“may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination for the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;

“no Eagle Act permit required” determinations for eagles.

3/25/2021
Town of Apex - Middle Creek Greenway Phase I
✔
✔
✔

Applicant Page 2

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

Sincerely,

/s/Pete Benjamin

Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services

Enclosures - project review package

Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
[phone]
March 25, 2021

Town of Apex
Angela Reincke, Parks and Greenways Planner
Town of Apex Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 250
Apex, NC 27502

SUBJECT: Town of Apex, Phase 1 – Middle Creek Greenway – Miramonte to Holly Springs
Connector– Protected Species Survey Report

Dear Ms. Reincke:

Phase 1 of the Town of Apex’s Middle Creek Greenway – Miramonte to Holly Springs Connector project
is comprised of the greenway connection that runs between the northern right-of-way boundary of future
N.C. Highway 540 (also southern property boundary of the Reunion Pointe subdivision) to the southern
right-of-way of SR 1301 (Sunset Lake Road)/ the Town of Holly Springs border at Sunset Lake Road in
Apex, Wake County, North Carolina. A portion of the project is being built as part of the N.C. Department
of Transportation’s (NCDOT) Complete I-540 Project (STIP Nos. R-2721A, R-2721B, and R-2828). Three
Oaks Engineering, Inc. (Three Oaks) has been contracted, as a sub-consultant to Alta Planning + Design,
Inc. (Alta), to perform protected species surveys within the project study area. These surveys were
completed to satisfy Section 404/401 permitting requirements.

Please see the following memorandum for details regarding our survey efforts:

METHODOLOGY
Field work was conducted for terrestrial species on April 7 and June 2, 2020. Aquatic species were assessed
February 25, 2021. The principal personnel contributing to the field work and document were:

Principal
Investigator: James Mason
Education: M.S. Biology/Ecology, UNC – Charlotte, 2004
B.A. Biology, Colby College, 2000
Experience: Senior Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, April 2018-Present
Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT, 2006-2018
Responsibilities: Terrestrial species surveys, GIS mapping, document preparation and review

Principal
Investigator: Tim Savidge, USFWS Permit No. TE075920-0; N.C. Permit No. NC-2020 ES 34
Education: B.S. Biology, Guilford College, 1987
M.S. Marine Biology/Biological Oceanography, University of North Carolina –
Wilmington, 1998
Experience: Environmental Manager & Aquatic Biologist, Three Oaks Engineering, June 2015-
present
Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, 1992-2002
Responsibilities: Aquatic species surveys

Investigator: Nathan Howell
Education: B.S. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, North Carolina State University,
2013
M.S. Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, 2015
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, October 2015 – Present
Responsibilities: Terrestrial and aquatic species surveys

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY RESULTS
As of July 17, 2020, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists six federally protected
species, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for Wake County. Three additional species – one listed
as Proposed Endangered and two listed as Proposed Threatened – have been included due to the potential
that they will be listed during the life of this project. The bald eagle is listed by the USFWS under the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration –
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) lists one federally protected species, Atlantic sturgeon, for
Wake County. For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is included below along
with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results.

Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for Wake County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle BGPA No Not Required
Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Atlantic sturgeon E No No Effect
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E No No Effect
Noturus furiosus Carolina madtom PE No No Effect
Necturus lewisi Neuse River waterdog PT Yes MANLTAA
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E No No Effect
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe PT Yes MANLTAA
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedgemussel E Yes MANLTAA
Parvaspina steinstansana Tar River spinymussel E No No Effect
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance T Yes MANLTAA
Rhus michauxii Michaux’s sumac E Yes No Effect
Note: BGPA – Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; E – Endangered; PE – Proposed Endangered; PT – Proposed Threatened;
T – Threatened; MANLTAA – May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Bald eagle
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: Not Required

The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and enforced by the
USFWS. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity to large bodies
of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0
mile of open water.

A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.13-mile radius of
the project limits, was performed on April 7, 2020, using the most recently available orthoimagery.
Water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were not
identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the project study
area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not required. Additionally, no nests,
nesting habitat, or individuals were identified within the study area. A review of the January 2021
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) dataset revealed no known occurrences of this species
within the study area or within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of nests, nesting habitat,
known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this
project will not affect this species.

Atlantic sturgeon
USFWS/NMFS Recommended Survey Window: surveys not required; assume presence in appropriate
waters
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Suitable habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon does not exist within the study area. Additionally, a review
of the January 2021 NCNHP dataset indicates no known Atlantic sturgeon occurrences within the
study area or within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Cape Fear shiner
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Carolina madtom
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Neuse River waterdog
USFWS optimal survey window: winter months
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Red-cockaded woodpecker
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round; November – early-March (optimal)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Suitable nesting (open to semi-RSHQSLQHVWDQGV•\HDUVRIDJHDQGIRUDJLQJRSHQWRVHPL-open
SLQHVWDQGV•\HDUVRIDJHKDELWDWIRUWKHUHG-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) does not exist in the
study area. The predominant pine species in the study area is loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and stands
are too young and/or too tightly spaced to be considered foraging habitat. The small pine stand is
also completely surrounded by either maintained/disturbed habitat or deciduous forest. Due to the
absence of suitable foraging habitat, nesting habitat surveys within a 0.5-mile radius of the project
study area were not conducted. Additionally, no extant RCW occurrences exist within Wake
County. A review of the January 2021 NCNHP dataset identified no known RCW occurrences of
this species within the study area or within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Atlantic pigtoe
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Dwarf wedgemussel
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Tar River spinymussel
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Yellow lance
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Please see the attached Aquatics Species Survey Memorandum for details regarding this species.

Michaux’s sumac
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May – October
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Marginal habitat is present for this species along roadsides and the sewer line easement. A survey
was conducted by Three Oaks staff on August 1, 2017 and June 2, 2020. No Michaux’s sumac were
identified. A review of the January 2021 NCNHP dataset indicates no known Michaux’s sumac
occurrences within the study area or within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the results of the protected species assessment or
if you require any additional information.

Sincerely,

James Mason, PWS
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Mobile: [phone]

James Mason
Digitally signed by James
Mason
Date: 2021.03.25 20:27:47
-04'00'

Appendix A
Figures

1
Figure
Vicinity Map
Wake County, North CarolinaSTRAYWHITEAVE
REUNIONCREE
K
P
K
WY
FOUNTAINSPRINGSRDARBOR CREEK DR
OLD SMITHFIELD RD
HYANN IS D R
R E U NION PARK
DREWILLIAMSSTF
I
R
EFLY
R
D BLACKFORESTDRR
E
U
NIONPA R KDRWINDCAPDRL O C K L E Y R DSTONECREEKDRSUNSETLAKERD
MYSTICPINEPLDINSORETTELNRIVERF
A
L
L
S
DRCO M M O NSDRCOLBY CHASE DR
OS TERVILLE DR
C RE E K H AV EN D R
HAZELMEREDRT HO RNCR E S T DR
OCTOBER GLORY L
N
DOVESHAV E N D R
VINE
S
T MERI
ONSTATIONDRDANESWAYDRLINDELL DR
EDD IE CR EEK D R
EASTON ST
A N CH OR CREEK W A Y
RIDGELAKEDR
KATHA DR
GOOSEB
E
RRY
DRFORAKER STC OLONIALOAKSDR
NMAINSTCABANADR
LIANFAIR LN
MORENA DRW I L L O W V I E W L NHOLLYHOCK LN
WEL
L
S
P
RIN
G
D
R
STR AYWH IT E AVE
DUTCH E L M D R
A
R
B
O
R
C
RESTRDFAIRFOR
DDRRICHARDSON STCRITTENDEN LN
ADE
F
I
ELDLNFLORIANSDR
R E S T O N W O O D D R
R O S EWOOD CENTRE DR
MONARCH BIRCH DRSMITHRDMiddleCreek
NCCGIA
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:WAKECHATHAMWAK
E
HAR
N
E
T
T
© OpenStreetMap (and)
contributors, CC-BY-SA
¯
April 2020
17-017
CMR JSM
0500250Feet
Study Area
Stream
Streets
^_
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector

March 25, 2021

Town of Apex
Angela Reincke, Parks and Greenways Planner
Town of Apex Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 250
Apex, NC 27502

SUBJECT: Protected Aquatic Species Survey Report for Town of Apex Middle Creek
Greenway – Phase 1 – Miramonte to Holly Springs Connector; Wake County,
North Carolina

Dear Ms. Reincke:

Project Description
The Town of Apex, North Carolina proposes to construct Phase 1 of the Middle Creek Greenway –
Miramonte to Holly Springs Connector (Project) in western Wake County, North Carolina (Appendix A;
Figure 1). The project involves a crossing of an unnamed tributary (UT) to Middle Creek, of the Neuse
River Basin. The project crossing of the UT is approximately 200 linear feet upstream of the confluence
with Middle Creek. Given the close proximity of the project crossing to Middle Creek, potential effects of
the project could extend into Middle Creek. As such, the UT and a portion of Middle Creek were surveyed
for the presence/absence of protected aquatic species (Appendix A; Figure 2). Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
(Three Oaks) was contracted to perform protected species assessment/surveys for the project. This memo
presents the findings of Three Oaks’ field visit, conducted on February 25, 2021. The surveys were
conducted by Three Oaks employees Tim Savidge and Nathan Howell. Qualifications for personnel who
performed the surveys are as follows:

Investigator: Tim Savidge
Education: B.S. Biology, Guilford College, 1987
M.S. Marine Biology/Biological Oceanography, University of North Carolina –
Wilmington, 1998
Experience: Environmental Manager & Aquatic Biologist, Three Oaks Engineering, June 2015-
present
Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, 1992-2002
Responsibilities: Aquatic T&E species assessments/surveys, document preparation

Investigator: Nathan Howell, PWS
Education: B.S. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, North Carolina State University,
2013
M.S. Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, 2015
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, October 2015 – Present
Responsibilities: Aquatic T&E species assessments/surveys

Protected Aquatic Species List and Occurrence Data in Relation to Project

As of July 17, 2020, the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists seven federally protected aquatic
species (either listed or proposed for listing), under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for Wake County
(Table 1). For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is included below along with
the Biological Conclusion rendered based on habitat assessments/survey results in the study area.

Table 1. ESA federally protected aquatic species listed for Wake County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Potential
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf Wedgemussel E Yes MANLTAA
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow Lance T Yes MANLTAA
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic Pigtoe PTCH Yes MANLTAA
Necturus lewisii Neuse River Waterdog PTCH Yes MANLTAA
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E No No Effect
Noturus furiosus Carolina Madtom PECH No* No Effect
Parvaspina steinstansana Tar River Spinymussel E No** No Effect
Notes: T – Threatened, E – Endangered, PTCH – Proposed Threatened with Critical Habitat Designation, PECH – Proposed Endangered with Critical Habitat
Designation; MANLTAA –May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect; * considered extirpated from Middle Creek, ** not present in project area portion
of the Neuse River Basin

Five of the species listed in Table 1 have been reported from Middle Creek, including Dwarf Wedgemussel,
Yellow Lance, Atlantic Pigtoe, Neuse River Waterdog, and Carolina Madtom. Cape Fear Shiner and Tar
River Spinymussel do not have habitat ranges that overlap the project per the USFWS Information for
Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/). The distances from the confluence
of the UT with Middle Creek to records and/or Proposed Critical Habitat Designation are provided below
in order of closest records for respective species:

Atlantic Pigtoe-less than six miles to currently occupied habitat and approximately 13 miles upstream of
proposed Critical Habitat,

Neuse River Waterdog-approximately 13.5 miles to currently occupied habitat and Proposed Critical
Habitat,

Dwarf Wedgemussel-approximately 20 miles upstream to currently occupied 1closest occurrence,

Yellow Lance- approximately 26 miles upstream from currently occupied habitat,

Carolina Madtom-greater than 30 miles to historic record.

1 Dwarf Wedgemussel has potentially been extirpated from Middle Creek; however, not enough time has lapsed since most recent
occurrence to be considered a historic record.

Survey Methodology and Results

Freshwater mussel surveys targeting Dwarf Wedgemussel, Atlantic Pigtoe, and Yellow Lance were
conducted within Middle Creek beginning at the Sunset Lake Road crossing and proceeding upstream into
the UT to Middle Creek and to a point approximately 100 meters upstream of the project crossing (Appendix
A, Figure 2). Areas of appropriate habitat were searched, concentrating on the stable habitats preferred by
the target species. The survey team spread out across the creek into survey lanes. Visual surveys were
conducted using glass bottom view buckets (bathyscopes). Tactile methods were employed, particularly
along 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:
¾ (VA) Very abundant > 30 per square meter
¾ (A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter
¾ (C) Common 6-15 per square meter
¾ (U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter
¾ (R) Rare 1-2 per square meter
¾ (P) Ancillary adjective “Patchy” indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the sampled
site.

A total of 2.10 person hours of mussel survey time were spent in the Middle Creek and UT to Middle Creek
portions of the survey reach, with one species of mussel, the Eastern Elliptio (Elliptio complanata), being
found (Table 2). Other mollusk species located included the aquatic snail Pointed Campeloma (Campeloma
decisum) and the invasive Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea).
Table 2. Mussel Survey Results
Scientific Name Common Name Number CPUE (#/hr)
Freshwater Mussels
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 2 0.95/hr.
Freshwater Snails and Clams Relative
Abundance
Campeloma decisum Pointed Campeloma ~ PC
Corbicula fluminea Asian Clam ~ C

Electro-shocking surveys targeting the Neuse River Waterdog and Carolina Madtom were conducted within
Middle Creek beginning at the Sunset Lake Road crossing and proceeding upstream into the UT to Middle
Creek to a point approximately 100 meters upstream of the project crossing (Appendix A, Figure 2).
Equipment included one Smith Root LR-24 backpack electrofishing unit and dip nets. All habitat types in
the survey reach (riffle, run, pool, slack-water, etc.) were sampled. Stunned fish and amphibians were placed
into buckets and were identified, counted, assigned a relative abundance, and released live onsite. Relative
abundance reported was estimated using the following criteria:
¾ (VA) Very abundant: > 30 collected at survey reach
¾ (A) Abundant: 16-30 collected at survey reach
¾ (C) Common: 6-15 collected at survey reach
¾ (U) Uncommon: 3-5 collected at survey reach
¾ (R) Rare: 1-2 collected at survey reach

¾ (P) Ancillary adjective “Patchy” indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the
sampled site.
It should be noted that relative abundances of particular species can be affected by survey methodologies
and site conditions. Thus, some species, particularly those that are found in deeper pools and runs and those
that can seek cover quickly, may be under-represented, or not detected within the survey reach.

A total of twelve fish and one salamander species were captured during the efforts in 1,734 seconds of
intermittent shocking time (Table 3). The Carolina Madtom and Neuse River Waterdog were not observed.

Table 3. Electroshocking Survey Results: Middle Creek and UT
Scientific Name Common Name Relative
Abundance
Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead R
Clinostomus funduloides Rosyside Dace R
Erimyzon oblongus Creek Chubsucker C
Etheostoma nigrum Johnny Darter C
Eurycea cirrigera Southern Two-lined
Salamander A
Gambusia holbrooki Eastern Mosquitofish U
Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish A
Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed U
Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill VA
Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish R
Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass U
Nocomis leptocephalus Bluehead Chub A
Semotilus atromaculatus Creek Chub U

Species Conclusions of Effects

Dwarf Wedgemussel
Optimal Survey Window: Year-round (low flow and clear water conditions)
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

This species’ status in Middle Creek is uncertain, as it has not been seen in the creek since the mid 1990’s.
It was not found during the survey efforts and is very unlikely to occur in the project area. However, its
presence cannot be entirely ruled out based on a one-time survey. As such, adverse effects cannot be
discounted entirely. As such, it is concluded that the project Biological Conclusion is “May Affect, Not
Likely to Adversely Affect” for the Dwarf Wedgemussel.

Atlantic Pigtoe
Optimal Survey Window: Year-round (low flow and clear water conditions)
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

This species is present in Middle Creek less than six miles downstream of the project. It was not found
during the survey efforts and is unlikely to occur in the project area. However, its presence cannot be
entirely ruled out based on a one-time survey. Given this and the fact that the species is present further
downstream, adverse effects cannot be discounted entirely. As such, it is concluded that the project
Biological Conclusion is “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for the Atlantic Pigtoe.

Yellow Lance
Optimal Survey Window: Year-round (low flow and clear water conditions)
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

This species is present in Middle Creek, with the closest record being approximately 26 miles downstream.
It was not found during the survey efforts and is unlikely to occur in the project area. However, its presence
cannot be entirely ruled out based on a one-time survey. Given this and the fact that the species is present
further downstream, adverse effects cannot be discounted entirely. As such, it is concluded that the project
Biological Conclusion is “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for the Atlantic Pigtoe.

Neuse River Waterdog
Optimal Survey Window: late fall to early spring
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Suitable habitat for this species is not present in the UT Middle Creek, as the stream is too small.
Furthermore, habitat in the surveyed portion of Middle Creek is only marginally suitable for the species, as
it is at the small end of suitability, but more importantly, the substrate is extremely scoured in this section
of the creek. The most often used sampling technique for the Neuse River Waterdog is to conduct baited
trap sampling during colder water temperatures (late fall to early spring). This involves setting 10 baited
traps for four consecutive nights (40 trap nights) within a given site.

Given the low level of habitat suitability, electro-shocking surveys were chosen as the sampling method in
lieu of time intensive trapping protocol, as Neuse River Waterdogs are often captured incidentally while
conducting fish surveys using electro-shocking methods.

This species is present in Middle Creek, with the closest record being approximately 13.5 miles
downstream. It was not found during the survey efforts and is unlikely to occur in the project area. However,
its presence cannot be entirely ruled out based on a one-time survey. Given this and the fact that the species
is present further downstream, adverse effects cannot be discounted entirely. As such, it is concluded that
the project Biological Conclusion is “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for the Neuse River
Waterdog.

Cape Fear shiner
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: Year-round (large rivers); April – June or periods of high flow
(tributaries)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

This species is listed by the USFWS as a “range by basin” species. This project does not occur within this
species’ range per the USFWS IPaC website, as it is restricted to the Cape Fear River Basin. Therefore, a
Biological Conclusion of “No Effect” has been rendered for this species.

Carolina Madtom
Optimal Survey Window: Year-round (low flow and clear water conditions)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

There is only one record of this species in Middle Creek, a lone individual collected in 1961 at the NC 210
crossing in Johnston County more than 30 miles downstream of the project. The species has not been recorded
in subsequent targeted surveys, including N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) monitoring
(NCWRC Unpublished Aquatics Database) and a range-wide status survey. Additionally, visual surveys for
the Carolina Madtom are often conducted in conjunction with freshwater mussel surveys and the species has
never been observed during any of these survey in Middle Creek. The species is considered to be extirpated
from Middle Creek; thus, it can be concluded that the project will have “No Effect” on the Carolina Madtom.

Tar River Spinymussel
Optimal Survey Window: Year-round (low flow and clear water conditions)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

This species has never been found in the Middle Creek subbasin. It is believed that the Little River Sub-
basin is the only place where this species occurs within the Neuse River Basin. Additionally, this species
does not have a range that overlaps the project footprint per the USFWS IPaC website. Thus, it can be
concluded that the project will have “No Effect” on the Tar River Spinymussel.

Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information.

Sincerely,

James Mason
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Mobile: [phone]

James
Mason
Digitally signed by James
Mason
Date: 2021.03.25
19:59:28 -04'00'

Appendix A
Figures

1
Figure
Vicinity Map
Wake County, North CarolinaSTRAYWHITEAVE
REUNIONCREE
K
P
K
WY
FOUNTAINSPRINGSRDARBOR CREEK DR
OLD SMITHFIELD RD
HYANN IS D R
R E U NION PARK
DREWILLIAMSSTF
I
R
EFLY
R
D BLACKFORESTDRR
E
U
NIONPA R KDRWINDCAPDRL O C K L E Y R DSTONECREEKDRSUNSETLAKERD
MYSTICPINEPLDINSORETTELNRIVERF
A
L
L
S
DRCO M M O NSDRCOLBY CHASE DR
OS TERVILLE DR
C RE E K H AV EN D R
HAZELMEREDRT HO RNCR E S T DR
OCTOBER GLORY L
N
DOVESHAV E N D R
VINE
S
T MERI
ONSTATIONDRDANESWAYDRLINDELL DR
EDD IE CR EEK D R
EASTON ST
A N CH OR CREEK W A Y
RIDGELAKEDR
KATHA DR
GOOSEB
E
RRY
DRFORAKER STC OLONIALOAKSDR
NMAINSTCABANADR
LIANFAIR LN
MORENA DRW I L L O W V I E W L NHOLLYHOCK LN
WEL
L
S
P
RIN
G
D
R
STR AYWH IT E AVE
DUTCH E L M D R
A
R
B
O
R
C
RESTRDFAIRFOR
DDRRICHARDSON STCRITTENDEN LN
ADE
F
I
ELDLNFLORIANSDR
R E S T O N W O O D D R
R O S EWOOD CENTRE DR
MONARCH BIRCH DRSMITHRDMiddleCreek
NCCGIA
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:WAKECHATHAMWAK
E
HAR
N
E
T
T
© OpenStreetMap (and)
contributors, CC-BY-SA
¯
April 2020
17-017
CMR JSM
0500250Feet
Study Area
Stream
Streets
^_
Phase 1 - Middle Creek Greenway
Miramonte to Holly
Springs Connector
Lindell DrSunset Lake RdHollyhock LnGreycrest CtRidge
L
a
k
e
Dr NCCGIA, NC911 Board)LJXUHMiddle Creek Greenway - $TXDWLF Survey Extent¯240 0 240120 FeetLegendApex_Greenway_2020_Revised_CorridorApexGreenway_Streams_April2020Survey_Area100M Upstream400M DownstreamISRN_Roads
February 22, 2021
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2021-SLI-0731
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577
Project Name: Town of Apex - Middle Creek Greenway

Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally-listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally-protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
02/22/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577   2

evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally-protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/
towers/comtow.html.
Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office at [e-mail].
02/22/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577   3

▪
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
02/22/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577   1

Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]
02/22/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577   2

Project Summary
Consultation Code:04EN2000-2021-SLI-0731
Event Code:04EN2000-2021-E-01577
Project Name:Town of Apex - Middle Creek Greenway
Project Type:RECREATION CONSTRUCTION / MAINTENANCE
Project Description:Middle Creek Greenway in Apex from Sunset Lake Rd to I-540
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@35.682021750000004,-78.82525767660984,14z
Counties:Wake County, North Carolina
02/22/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577   3

1.
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 7 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Birds
NAME STATUS
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
Endangered
Amphibians
NAME STATUS
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not
available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772
Proposed
Threatened
Fishes
NAME STATUS
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not
available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528
Proposed
Endangered
1
02/22/2021 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-01577   4

Clams
NAME STATUS
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not
available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Proposed
Threatened
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784
Endangered
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not
available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511
Threatened
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Endangered
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
NCNHDE-14028
February 22, 2021
Three Oaks
Three Oaks Engineering
324 Blackwell Street
Durham, NC 27701
RE: Middle Creek Greenway
Dear Three Oaks:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached ‘Documented Occurrences’ tables and map.
The attached ‘Potential Occurrences’ table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one-mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally-listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one-mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund
easement, or an occurrence of a Federally-listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Middle Creek Greenway
February 22, 2021
NCNHDE-14028
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the
NCNHP database does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that
the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project
area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our
database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area*
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Triangle Greenways Council Preserve Triangle Greenways Council Private
Town of Holly Springs Greenway Town of Holly Springs Local Government
*NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve
(DNP), Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally-listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on February 22, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q4 January 2021.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Middle Creek Greenway
February 22, 2021
NCNHDE-14028
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
Group
EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last
Observation
Date
Element
Occurrence
Rank
Accuracy Federal
Status
State
Status
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Dragonfly or
Damselfly
32043 Coryphaeschna ingens Regal Darner 2004-Pre H?5-Very
Low
---Significantly
Rare
G5 S2?
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Town of Holly Springs Open Space - Future Park
Site
Town of Holly Springs Local Government
Triangle Greenways Council Preserve Triangle Greenways Council Private
Town of Holly Springs Greenway Town of Holly Springs Local Government
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on February 22, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q4 January 2021.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 4 of 4