20211513 Ver 1_BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Species Survey Report_Draft 8_09_21_20211019

Aquatic Species Survey Report
Bridge Replacement No. 078 on Burnette Farm Road(SR 1526) over Ballahack Canal
WBS No. BP4.R005
Edgecombe County,North Carolina
p
p
ti
Bridge over Ballahack Canal during May 25, 2021 low flow conditions
Prepared For:
OF µ08 F 4
3 �
Op ZR°
NC Department of Transportation
Contact Person:
Chad Coggins
Division 4 Environmental Officer
tccogginsAncdot.gov
509 Ward Boulevard
PO Box 3165
Wilson,North Carolina 27895-3165
August 9, 2021

Prepared by:
q
HIY33
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham,NC 27701

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED........................................................................................................2
2.1 303(d) Classification........................................................................................................2
2.2 NPDES dischargers..........................................................................................................2
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED AND PROPOSED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS 2
3.1 Tar River Spinymussel (Parvaspina steinstansana)........................................................2
3.1.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 2
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 3
3.1.3. Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni).................................................................................4
3.2.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 4
3.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 5
3.2.3. Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 5
3.2.4. Designated Critical Habitat....................................................................................... 6
3.3 Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi)......................................................................... 7
3.3.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 7
3.3.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 8
3.3.3. Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 8
3.3.4. Designated Critical Habitat....................................................................................... 8
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS ........................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time(s) of Survey: Ballahack Canal............................................. 9
4.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................. 10
4.2.1. Mussel Habitat Assessment.................................................................................... 10
4.2.2. Neuse River Waterdog Surveys.............................................................................. 10
5.0 RESULTS.......................................................................................................................... 10
5.1 Mussel Assessment........................................................................................................ 10
5.2 Neuse River Waterdog................................................................................................... 11
6.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................... 11
7.0 LITERATURE CITED...................................................................................................... 13
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1:Project Vicinity&Survey Reach
Figures 2-1 to 2-7:NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: 303(d)Listed Streams and NPDES Discharges

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT) proposes replacement of Bridge
No. 078 on Burnette Farm Road(SR 1526) in Edgecombe County(WBS Element No.
BP4.R005. Appendix A, Figure 1). The project will cross Ballahack Canal of the Tar Pamlico
River basin. The Federally Endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon, DWM),
Tar River Spinymussel (Parvaspina steinstansana, TSM [formerly Elliptio steinstansana
(Perkins et al. 2017)])), and Federally Threatened Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata) are listed
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and known to occur in Edgecombe County. The
Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), also known to occur in the county, 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 2018a). The Neuse River Waterdog
(Necturus lewisi) and Carolina Madtom(Noturus furiosus) are likewise known to occur in
Edgecombe County. On June 8, 2021, these two species were granted protection 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 granted for
the Neuse River Waterdog (USFWS 2021). Additionally, the Green Floater(Lasmigona
subviridis), is being considered for listing by the USFWS and is known to occur in Edgecombe
County.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Consultation(IPaC)
system lists the Tar River Spinymussel (TSM), Atlantic Pigtoe, and Neuse River Waterdog as
species that could potentially be affected by activities in this location(USFWS IPaC 2021). The
Dwarf Wedgemussel, Yellow Lance, Green Floater, and Carolina Madtom, while listed for
Edgecombe County, are not recognized as species that could be affected by activities in this
location and therefor are not further addressed in this report. In accordance with USFWS IPaC
this report addresses the TSM, Atlantic Pigtoe, and Neuse River Waterdog.
Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) for targeted species in approximate river miles
(RM) from the project crossing. Data are from the NC Natural Heritage Program database
(NCNHP 2019) most recently updated in April 2021 (Figures 2-1 to 2-3).
Table 1. Element Occurrences
Distance
Species EO from crossing First Last EO Figure
Name EO ID Waterbod river miles Observed Observed Status* Number
16980 Tar River 15.9 August September H
Tar River 1963 1978
Spinymussel August October 2-1
21438 Tar River 23.8 C
1963 2001
Atlantic 9 September October C 2-2
Pigtoe 12291 Tar River 15. 1982 2002
Neuse River 12606 Tar River 15.9 December August 2019 C 2-3
Waterdog1953
*: C-NCNHP Current;H—NCNHP Historic
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project-related
effects to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) was contracted by
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 1

NCDOT to update the survey baseline and conduct surveys as necessary targeting TSM, Atlantic
Pigtoe, and Neuse River Waterdog.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
Ballahack Canal is in the Lower Tar subbasin(HUC# 03020103) of the Tar Pamlico River Basin.
Ballahack flows approximately 5.7 RM from the subject bridge to Conetoe Creek. Conetoe
Creek flows approximately 10.2 RM to the Tar River.
2.1 303(d) Classification
Ballahack Canal is on the 2018 303(d) or 2020 303(d) draft list of impaired streams (NC
Department of Environmental Quality(NCDEQ 2018, 2020)). Ballahack Canal is listed as
impaired from the source to Conetoe Creek for exceeding Benthos criteria. (Figure 3).
2.2 NPDES dischargers
There are no permitted dischargers within five RM upstream of the subject bridge (Figure 3,
NCDEQ 2019).
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED AND PROPOSED SPECIES
DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Tar River Spinymussel (Parvaspina steinstansana)
3.1.1. Species Characteristics
The TSM grows to a maximum length of 60 mm. Short spines are arranged in a radial row
anterior to the posterior ridge on one valve and symmetrical to the other valve. The shell is
generally smooth in texture with as many as 12 spines that project perpendicularly from the
surface and curve slightly ventrally. However, adult specimens tend to lose their spines as they
mature (USFWS 1992a). The smooth, orange-brown to dark brown periostracum may be rayed
in younger individuals. The shell is significantly thicker toward the anterior end and the nacre is
usually pink in this area. The posterior end of the shell is thinner with an iridescent bluish white
color. Two or more linear ridges, originating within the beak cavity and extending to the ventral
margin, can be found on the interior surface of the shell. The distance between these ridges
widens toward the ventral margin. Johnson and Clarke (1983)provide additional descriptive
material.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the TSM (USFWS 1992a); however, nearly all
freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which involve a larval stage
(glochidium) that becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel species have
specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. The TSM is believed to be
a tachytictic (short-term)reproducer with gravid females present at some time from April
through August (Widlak 1987). Alderman 1992 reported the period of gravidity from the last
two weeks of May to the first two weeks of July and described the glochidia as subcircular and
spineless and similar to the James River Spinymussel (Parvaspina (formerly Pleurobema)
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 2

collina). Eads and Levine (2008), and Eads et al. (2008) identified the following fish species as
suitable hosts: Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Pinewoods Shiner(Lythrurus
matutinus), Satinfin Shiner(Cyprinella analostana), and White Shiner(Luxilus albeolus).
McMahon and Bogan(2001) and Pennak(1989) should be consulted for a general overview of
freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Previously, this mussel was believed to be endemic to the Tar-Pamlico River basin and probably
ranged throughout most of the basin before the area was settled during the 1700s (Savidge et al.
2011). Historically, the TSM was collected in the Tar River from near Louisburg in Franklin
County to Falkland in Pitt County(approximately 78 RM). By the mid-1960s, its known range
had been reduced to the main channel of the Tar River from Spring Hope in Nash County to
Falkland in Pitt County(Shelley 1972, Clarke 1983). By the early 1980s, its range in the Tar
River was restricted to only 12 miles of the river in Edgecombe County(Clarke 1983). It was
last observed(two individuals) in the river in 2001 within an extensive sandbar habitat in
Edgecombe County (unpublished data,NCWRC Aquatics Database). It is currently found in
three streams, Shocco, Sandy/Swift, and Fishing/Little Fishing creeks in the Tar-Pamlico River
basin (unpublished data,NCWRC Aquatics Database). In 1998, the species was found in
Johnston County in the Little River, a tributary to the Neuse River. Only a few individuals have
been found in the Little River in subsequent years (unpublished data,NCWRC Aquatics
Database).
The preferred habitat of the TSM in the Tar-Pamlico River basin was described as relatively fast
flowing,well-oxygenated, circumneutral pH water in sites prone to significant swings in water
velocity, with a substrate comprised of relatively silt-free loose gravel and/or coarse sand
(Adams et al. 1990). Various species associates, which are good indicators for the presence of
the TSM, include (in decreasing order of association) Atlantic Pigtoe, Yellow Lance, Yellow
Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa),Notched Rainbow (Villosa constricta), Triangle Floater
(Alasmidonta undulata), and Creeper(Strophitus undulatus) (Adams et al. 1990). Johnson
(1970) stated that the Atlantic Pigtoe appeared to be closely associated with the James River
Spinymussel in the James River basin. This same close association is true for the TSM and
Atlantic Pigtoe. In habitats which have not been significantly degraded in the Tar-Pamlico River
basin, the presence of Atlantic Pigtoe is the best indicator of the potential presence of TSM
(Savidge et al. 2011).
3.1.3. Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation,point and non-point
discharge, stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.)have contributed to the
decline of this species throughout its range. All remaining TSM populations are generally small
in numbers and restricted to short reaches of isolated streams, making surviving populations
extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity. Catastrophic
events may consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human influenced
events such as toxic spills associated with highways, railroads, or industrial-municipal
complexes (USFWS, 2014).
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 3

Siltation resulting from substandard land-use practices associated with activities such as
agriculture, forestry, and land development has been recognized as a major contributing factor to
degradation of mussel populations. Siltation has been documented to be extremely detrimental
to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to
other pollutants, and direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979).
Sediment accumulations of less than one inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most
mussel species (Ellis 1936).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna(Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that recovery
of mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage
effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well documented(USFWS 1992c,
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 1992a).
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 TSM. 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 TSM population, nor the Tar-Pamlico River basin.
3.2 Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masonry
3.2.1. 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
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 4

posterior half, and, when fresh, nacre in the anterior half of the shell tends to be salmon colored,
while nacre in the posterior half tends to be more iridescent. The shell has full dentation. In
addition to simple papillae,branched and arborescent papillae are often seen on the incurrent
aperture. In females, salmon colored demibranchs are often seen during the spawning season.
When fully gravid, females use all four demibranchs to brood glochidia (VDGIF 2014).
The Atlantic Pigtoe is a tachytictic (short-term)breeder, brooding young in early spring and
releasing glochidia in early summer. The Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and Shield Darter
(Percina peltata) have been identified as potential fish hosts for this species (O'Dee and Waters
2000). Additional research has found Rosefin Shiner(Lythrurus ardens), Creek Chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and Longnose Dace (Rhynichthys cataractae) are also suitable hosts (Wolf
2012). Eads and Levine (2011) found White Shiner, Satinfin Shiner, Bluehead Chub, Rosyside
Dace (Clinostomus funduloides), Pinewoods Shiner, Creek Chub, Swallowtail Shiner(Notropis
procne), and Mountain Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus oreas)to also be suitable hosts for Atlantic
Pigtoe.
3.2.2. 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.
3.2.3. Threats to Species
Threats to the Atlantic Pigtoe are similar to those described for the TSM 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.
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 5

3.2.4. 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
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 North Carolina
• Unit 9 - 8 miles (93.3-km) of Sandy/Swift Creek in Granville, Vance, 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
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 6

• Unit 12 - 60 river miles (95 river km) in four subunits including Flat River, Little River,
Eno River, and the Upper Eno River
• 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 North Carolina
• Unit 14 - 6 miles (9.7 km) of habitat in the New Hope Creek in Orange County,North
Carolina
• Unit 15 - 10 river miles (16.1 river km) of Deep River in Randolph County,North
Carolina, including the mainstem as well as Richland Creek and Brush Creek
• Unit 16 -40 miles (64.4 km) of Little River in Randolph and Montgomery Counties,
North Carolina
The subject bridge is 21 RM upstream of proposed Critical Habitat Unit 11 (Unit TR4) (Figure
2-4).
3.3 Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisa)
3.3.1. 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). The longevity of the Neuse
River Waterdog is unknown, however, its close relative, the Common Mudpuppy (Necturus
maculosus)may live for over 30 years (USFWS 2018b).
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 7

3.3.2. 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 (AmphibiaWeb 2006; Beane
and Newman 1996; Conant and Collins 1998; EDGE of Existence 2016;NatureServe Explorer
2016).
3.3.3. 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).
3.3.4. Designated Critical Habitat
As mentioned in Section 1.0, on June 8, 2021, 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. 86 No. 109) consists of the
following:
• Unit 1 - 12.3 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 —2 river mi (3.2 river km) of Bens Creek in Warren County
• Unit 4 - 82.8 river mi (133 river km) of lower Little Fishing Creek in Halifax,Nash,
Warren and Edgecombe Counties.
• Unit 5 —72.5-river-mi (I 16.8-river-km) segment of Sandy Creek and Red Bud Creek in
Franklin, and Nash Counties
• Unit 6 - I I I-river-mi (179-river-km) segment of the Middle Tar River in Franklin,Nash,
and Edgecombe Counties
• Unit 7 - 59.9 river mi (96.3 river km) in the Lower Tar River Subbasin including portions
of Town Creek, Otter Creek, and Tyson Creek in Edgecombe and Pitt Counties
• Unit 8 -43.9 river mi (70.6 river km) of the Eno River in Orange and Durham Counties
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 8

• Unit 9 - 15.2-river-mi (24.5-river-km) segment of the Flat River in Person and Durham
Counties
• Unit 10 - 30.8-river-mi (49.6-river-km) stretch of Middle Creek in Wake and Johnston
Counties
• Unit 11 - 24-river-mi (38.6-river-km) stretch of Swift Creek in Johnston County
• Unit 12 - 90.8-river-mi (146.1-river-km) segment of the Little River including Buffalo
Creek in Franklin, Wake, Johnston, and Wayne Counties
• Unit 13 - 20.8-river-mi (33.5-river-km) segment of Mill Creek in Johnston and Wayne
Counties
• Unit 14—43.2 river-mi (69.5 river-km) segment of Middle Neuse River in Wayne
County
• Unit 15 — 114.8 river-mi (184.8 river-km) segments of Contentnea Creek,Nahunta
Swamp and the Neuse River in Craven, Green, Lenoir, Pitt, Wayne, and Wilson Counties
• Unit 16— 10.3 river-mi (16.5 river-km) segment of Swift Creek in Craven County
• Unit 17—32.5 river-mi (52.4 river-km) segments of Beaver Creek and Trent River in
Jones County
• Unit 18 —2 river-mi (3.2 km) segment of Tuckahoe Swamp in Jones County
The subject bridge is 16 RM upstream of proposed Critical Habitat Unit 7 in the Tar River
(Figure 2-3).
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Trapping surveys for Neuse River Waterdog were conducted in Ballahack Canal by Three Oaks
personnel Tom Dickinson(Permit#21-ES00343), Mary Frazer, and Lizzy Stokes-Cawley
February 1-5, 2021. A freshwater mussel survey/habitat assessment was conducted on May 25,
2021, by Tim Savidge (Permit# 21-ES0034), and Lizzy Stokes-Cawley
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time(s) of Survey: Ballahack Canal
During the Neuse River Waterdog trapping efforts, water levels were elevated, and clarity was
turbid following recent rainfall. This condition abated during the trapping week to a normal
level with moderate water clarity. Strong flowing run habitat and substrates ranging from coarse
sand to silt were noted during the trapping efforts, with aquatic vegetation providing cover along
stream margins. The channel width is approximately 20 feet with water depths up to four feet
during the February trapping and one to six inches during the May visit,which occurred during a
period of very low flow. Banks were two to six feet in height, vegetated and fairly stable.
During the May visit, substrates observed consisted of a thick layer of mud, silt and detritus, and
small patches of coarse sand along the right descending bank just above the bridge. Much of the
channel was choked with dense mats of Creeping Water Primrose (Ludwigia grandiflora) and
other invasive macrophytes, as well as filamentous algae and brown algal scums. The stream
was strictly channelized and is surrounded on both sides with agricultural fields. There was less
than ten feet of riparian buffer with no mature or immature trees and therefore no shading of the
stream. There was no discernable flow during the May visit.
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 9

4.2 Methodology
As appropriate flow and potentially suitable habitat conditions were present during the February
visit, thus,the trapping protocol for Neuse River Waterdog was conducted in the survey reach
from approximately 1,312 feet(400 meters) downstream of the crossing to approximately 328
feet(100 meters) upstream of the crossing for a distance of approximately 1,640 feet(500
meters; Figure 1). Potential habitat for listed mussel species was determined not to be present
during the low flow May site visit.
4.2.1.Mussel Habitat Assessment
An attempt to survey the stream reach was initially made at the downstream portion of the reach;
however, the surveyors sunk into the mucky substrate waist deep, or greater, making it very
difficult to ascend the stream. Tactile searches for mussels were made, but after progressing
approximately 20 feet the decision was made to abort the survey efforts, as the thick layers of
muck are unsuitable for the targeted mussel species. Furthermore,the stagnant conditions and
lack of flow are also unsuitable for those species. Evaluations of the substrate were made
approximately every 200 feet,to confirm the condition persisted throughout the reach.
4.2.2. Neuse River Waterdog Surveys
Methods were developed by Three Oaks in consultation with the USFWS and NCWRC and were
designed to replicate winter trapping efforts conducted as part of the recent species status
assessment undertaken by these agencies and collaborators. A total of ten baited traps were set
for four soak nights at the bridge crossing; three traps were set upstream and seven were set
downstream of the bridge. Trap sites were selected based on habitat conditions and accessibility.
Undercut banks, with some accumulation of leaf pack, as well as back eddy areas within runs
were the primary microhabitats selected; however, all of the microhabitats (pool, riffle, run, etc.)
occurring at a site were sampled with at least one trap. Traps were baited with a combination of
chicken livers and hot dogs and allowed to soak overnight. The traps were checked daily, all
species found within the traps were recorded, and the traps were rebaited.
5.0 RESULTS
The following details the results for these efforts where appropriate habitat conditions for
targeted species were conducted.
5.1 Mussel Assessment
As mentioned in Section 4.2.1 habitat conditions in the evaluated portion of Ballahack Canal are
not suitable for the targeted freshwater mussel species, and no evidence of freshwater mussels
was observed during the habitat evaluation. The only mollusk species observed is an air-
breathing freshwater snail Pseudosuccinea sp., which is often found in stagnant, low oxygenated
waters. It was found in relatively large numbers primarily in the mats of emergent vegetation.
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 10

5.2 Neuse River Waterdog
The Neuse River Waterdog was not captured during the trapping efforts; however, one fish
species; Pirate Perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), and one crayfish species, (Procambarus sp.) were
captured(Table 3).
Table 3. Trapping Surveys Species Found in Ballahack Canal
Trap Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4
1 Procambarus s 1 Procambarus s 3
2
3
4
5
6 Pirate Perch 2 — Pirate Perch 1
7 — Pirate Perch(1)
8 Procambarus s 4
9 Pirate Perch(1)
10 Procambarus sp. (1) Procambarus sp. (1)
6.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The target species (TSM, Atlantic Pigtoe, and Neuse River Waterdog)were not found during
these efforts. Suitable habitat for the TSM and Atlantic Pigtoe is not present within the
evaluated portion of Ballahack Canal. Although habitat conditions in Ballahack Canal are of
poor quality for the Neuse River Waterdog, given that there was flow during the February
efforts, a hydrologic connection to known populations downstream and a lack of understanding
of the species movement patterns during higher flows, habitat suitability cannot be altogether
ruled out. Based on the habitat/survey results, impacts to the target species are unlikely to occur
in the study area. Strict adherence to erosion control standards should minimize the potential for
any adverse impacts to occur. Biological conclusions on potential impacts from the project to
the target species are provided below.
The USFWS is the regulating authority for Section 7 Biological Conclusions and as such, it is
recommended that they be consulted regarding their concurrence with the finding of this
document.
Biological Conclusion Tar River Spinymussel: No Effect
Biological Conclusion Neuse River Waterdog: May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 11

While the Atlantic Pigtoe is are not currently federally protected and biological conclusions are
not necessary at the time of the writing of this report, if were to receive federal protection,
appropriate biological conclusions are as follows:
Biological Conclusion Atlantic Pigtoe: No Effect
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 12

7.0 LITERATURE CITED
Adams, W. F., J. M. Alderman, R. G. Biggins, A. G. Gerberich, E. P. Keferl, H. J. Porter, and A.
S.Van Devender. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina's
freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission,
Raleigh. 246 pp, Appendix A, 37 pp.
Alderman, J. M. 1992. Annual Performance Report Non-Game and Endangered Wildlife
Program, July 1991-June 1992; Volume 1. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission Division of Wildlife Management. Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service
Project Number: ES-3, Segment Number:9, 23 pp.
Alderman, J. M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community. Unpublished
report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of
Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC.
AmphibiaWeb: Information on amphibian biology and conservation [web application]. 2006.
Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. Accessed: March 22, 2016.
http://amphibiaweb.org/index.html.
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.
Clarke, A. H. 1983. Status survey of the Tar River spiny mussel. Final Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service with supplement. 63 pp.
Conant, R. and Collins, J.T. 1998. A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and
Central North America. Third Edition, Expanded. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston,
Massachusetts.
Conrad, T.A. 1834. New freshwater shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations; and a
monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. J.
Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1-76, 8 pls.
Eads, C.B. and J.F. Levine. 2008. Carolina Heelsplitter(Lasmigona decorata) and Tar River
Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) Conservation Research: July 2007-June 2008. Final
report submitted to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh,NC.
18 pp.
Eads, C.B. and J.F. Levine. 2011. Refinement of Growout Techniques for Four Freshwater
Mussel Species. Final Report submitted to NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh,
NC. 15pp.
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 13

Eads, C.B., R. Nichols, C.J. Woods, and J.F. Levine. 2008. Captive spawning and host
determination of the federally endangered Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
Ellipsaria, 10(2):7-8.
EDGE of Existence website. "165. Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi)". Accessed: March
22, 2016. http://www.edgeofexistence.org/amphibians/species_info.php?id=1361.
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42.
Frost, Darrel R. 2016. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.0
(March 22, 2016). Electronic Database accessible at
http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html. American Museum of Natural
History,New York, USA.
Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J.Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents
on Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS: 128 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
140: 263-449.
Johnson, R.I. and A.H. Clarke. 1983. A new spiny mussel, Elliptio (Canthyria) steinstansana
(Bivalvia: Unionidae), from the Tar River,North Carolina. Occasional Papers on
Mollusks, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 4(61): 289-298.
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.
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.
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.
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 14

Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL.189 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality(NCDEQ). 2018.NPDES Wastewater
Facilities. NPDES Wastewater Permitting Website. Accessed July 12, 2019.
https://ncdenr.maps.aregis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4ca77e79b68 e466cbc
ae9713a28dde7d
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources.
2018. 2018 North Carolina 303(d) List.
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/3 03 d/2018/2018-NC-303-
d--List-Final.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources.
2020. 2020 North Carolina 303(d) List.
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/3 03 d/2020/2018-NC-303-
d--List-Final.pdf
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2019. Biotics Database. Division of Land and Water
Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Raleigh,North Carolina.
July 2019 version.
North Carolina Scientific Council on Mollusks. 2011. Reevaluation of Status Listings for
Jeopardized Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks in North Carolina. Report of the
Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks, 38 p.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission(NCWRC). Unpublished Aquatics Database.
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.
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.
Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New
York, John Wiley& Sons, Inc.
Perkins, M.A.,N.A. Johnson, and M.M. Gangloff. 2017. Molecular systematics of the
critically-endangered North American spinymussels (Unionidae: Elliptio and
Pleurobema) and description of Parvaspina gen. nov. Conservation Genetics (2017).
doi:10.1007/s 10592-017-0924-z
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 15

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
Terrestrial Mollusks. 177pp.
Shelley, R.M. 1972. In defense of naiades. Wildlife in North Carolina. March: 1-7.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range-wide assessment of populations of
Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N.
Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Tar Spinymussel (Elliptio (Canthyria)
steinstansana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 34 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species
of the southeast United States (The Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992c. Special report on the status of
freshwater mussels.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
Steinstansana) 5 Year Review: Summary and Evaluation.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year—review/doc4468.pdf
USFWS. 2018a. Proposed Rule: Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical
Habitat Designation for Atlantic Pigtoe
(https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/11/2018-21798/endangered-and-
threatened-wildlife-and-plants-threatened-species-status-with-section-4d-rule-and).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018b. Neuse River waterdog.
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/amphibians/neuse-river-waterdog/
United States 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, 23644-23691. Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-
0092.
United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Neuse River Waterdog,
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 16

Endangered Species Status for Carolina Madtom, and Designations of Critical Habitat. 50
CFR 17:86 FR 30688, 30688-30751. Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Information for Planning and
Consultation(IPaC).
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/NUT2CEGQDZA4ZAWLW 6FS7PIIHE/resources
Viosca, P., Jr. 1937. A tentative revision of the genus Necturus, with descriptions of three new
species from the southern Gulf drainage area. Copeia 1937:120-138.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014. Atlantic Pigtoe
Conservation Plan. Bureau of Wildlife Resources. VDGIF, Richmond, VA. 31 pp.
Widlak, J.C. 1987. Recovery Plan for the Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio (Canthyria)
steinstansana) Johnson and Clarke. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wolf, E.D. 2012. Propagation, Culture, and Recovery of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe.
Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute, Project No. 11-108. 55pp.
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 17

APPENDIX A
Figures
BP4.R005 Ballahack Canal Aquatic Surveys August 2021
Three Oaks Job#20-020 Page 18

} N
ASH Li C BERTIE
7arb
I
i
EDGECOMBE MARTIN
� _ r
/r /
} pr
WILSON
BEAOFORT
i p
is Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, io
USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT U
Farrnville R NRC�rtrEsri Japan, METI,n
GREENE �\ Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri �
Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC O ro
co
t m
Burnette Farm Rd
s
i.
4
i
'd
c
ca
U
�C
U
L
fB
m
r
i�
I r.
f. r
Bridge Location +
Survey Reach
Roads
Tar River Streams
r CountyBoundary be. G - rt t r r phi s,
- - - US' RI I h GIS
1NEfB Prepared For: Date: June 2021
��� LNG, gOHTN Aquatic Species Survey Figure
Replace Bridge No, 78 on Scale:0 40 80 Meter
,� ^ y Burnette Farm Rd ove Ballahack Canal I I
O m � Vicinity Map Job No.: 20-020
y 9 sq
F , A�S4 Edgecombe County L
r By Checked R

I N
EO I D 21437
W ,I. , .{
ky M Q'ul t
ti
.. ..e 4.. -Ta rbo rya.::
1
v, -n b
N 64
Survey Bridge
Corn
Creek
EO I D 21438
Co r-,e tcl'e
ht_ I=� ' a�
/ U
1
1 �
Bridge Location
Element Occurrence: Tar River Spinymussel EO ID 16980
Tar River Streams
Boundar Count
Y Y
61NEfR/ Prepared For: Date: June 2021
4,e tlOHTN Aquatic Species Surveys Figure
Replace Bridge No, 078 on Burnette Scaled 0.5 1 Miles
My Farm Road over Ballahack Canal U 2 1
ym NCNHP Element Occurrence °b" 20-020
S `q Tar River Spinymussel
��3�� F ' A�S4 Edgecombe County, North Carolina DrawneLSC cne°kTE�

N
Z-
I;o.�
I ov,
Oo
/Rocks Mou.6t
/ EO ID 19338
Ta'rbo_ro,--
G¢key SWamp eaille
m
1:.G bu rg U
•• J' x
ro
Survey Bridge
Creek
\` Town Creek
1,� C.0 rr 6rti
1 '
5 '4
V' F'IIl'tC 1F
�"'N e: EO I D 33242 i
11 1� moo°'
Bridge Location j' EO ID12291
Element Occurrence:Atlantic Pigtoe
Critical Habitat:Atlatnic Pigtoe
Tar River Streams
Boundar Count
Y Y
EfR' Prepared For Date: June 2021
4,e NOHTN Aquatic Species Surveys Figure
OS �tiW° C490 Replace Bridge No. 078 on Burnette Scale: 0 0.5 1 miles
,.,, y Farm Road over Ballahack Canal U
A S� m NCNHP Element Occurrence Job No 20-019
2-2
1. 4`` Atlantic Pigtoe
F ' Ass Edgecombe County, North Carolina orawneLSC cneckTE6

t�
Speed \
n
x EO I D 8794 ��e Creek
_. 41 rY ��.
;w3mA ;rile
U
x
U
47
� ' r
Survey Bridge m
c
Co M tor.
Torn Gteew
Cree ore�oe
/r G
EO I D 12606c.
i
i
i
i
i
Bridge Location
Element Occurrence: Neuse River Waterdog
Critical Habitat: Neuse River Waterdog
Tar River Streams
Boundar Count
� i Y Y
61NEfB/ Prepared For: Date: June 2021
Non Aquatic Species Surveys Figure
o*4 �.�° �qo Replace Bridge No. 078 on Burnette Scale: O 0.5 1 Miles
Farm Road over Ballahack Canal L—j
'y 9 NCNHP Element Occurrence Job No.: 20-020 2-3
f
S 4`` Neuse River Waterdog
`�N�+y�3N�`���' F ' ASS Edgecombe County, North Carolina Drawn BSC cneckTE�

o�F� OAP G
❑ i.q 64 Ai-" N ht n :❑❑
I J�
❑ r�'1
E2P ❑ ❑❑ 1{�
Tarboro
❑ r, Ry��F. haN
Survey Bridge Princ le Tarboro WWTP
11:
❑ ❑ q�
�c
❑ `so �m Survey Bridge
64
92
onetoe
x 0� ❑ ❑ Gonetoe � e 1
❑ f �COek ----- ElI'� ba n�r
It eeek
Pinetops
Iy:
v
Bridge Location i
Tar River Streams
i
NPDES �' s
Permit Type ' z
Major-Individual Permit
° Minor-Individual Permit
° General Permit ❑
303(d)Listed Streams
Falkland
1NEfR Prepared For: Date June 2021
1WRIN Aquatic Species Survey Figure
Replace Bridge No. 078 on Burnette Scale: 0 0.5 1 Miles
y Farm Road over Ballahack Canal I I
ym NPDES Dischargers and Job No.: 20-020
303(d) Listed Streams
Edgecombe County, North Carolina Drawn B LSC cne�ked TED