20201285 Ver 1_More Info Received_20220707

Strickland, Bev
From: Anna Reusche <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 10:19 AM
To: Phillips, George L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Cohn, Colleen M
Cc: Hamstead, Byron A; Mike Taylor
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Arbor Creek - Middle Creek Greenway DWR#20201285
Attachments: USFWS_Project Certification Form_Arbor Creek_Holly Springs.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good morning Byron and Lyle,
Following the completion of our aquatic and terrestrial species surveys, we have prepared the attached project
certification to assist in agency reviews. Based on our findings, a May Affect — Not Likely to Adversely Affect
determination is proposed. The project information, including species survey findings, are attached.
Thank you,
2 S_M
ANNA REUSCHE, PWS
Senior Environmental Project Manager
SEPI, Inc.
One Glenwood, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27603
919.747.5865 D 919.816.7745 M
Celebrating Twenty Years
From: Phillips, George L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 1:24 PM
To: Cohn, Colleen M <[e-mail]>; Anna Reusche <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Arbor Creek - Middle Creek Greenway DWR#20201285
Anna,
I reviewed the additional information and have everything I need for a complete application. Thank you for the impact
tables; they were very helpful to speed up the review. I will need to send this project to USFWS for review and they may
have comments. Once I hear from USFWS I will relay in comments or be able to move forward with processing the
verification.
Lyle Phillips
Regulatory Specialist
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
1

Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 25.
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/ . Thank you for taking the time to visit this
site and complete the survey.
From: Cohn, Colleen M <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Anna Reusche <[e-mail]>
Cc: Phillips, George L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] FW: Arbor Creek - Middle Creek Greenway
DWR#20201285
Hi Anna,
I got your email, but I haven't had a chance to look at the attachments. If I need anything else, I will let you know as soon
as I can.
Thanks,
Colleen Cohn
Environmental Specialist II
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Raleigh Regional Office
380o Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
Office: 919-791-4258
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Anna Reusche <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 12:19 PM
To: Cohn, Colleen M <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [External] FW: Arbor Creek - Middle Creek Greenway DWR#20201285
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Good morning,
Just checking to be sure this was received.
Thank you,
2

ANNA REUSCHE, PWS
Senior Environmental Project Manager
SEPI, Inc.
One Glenwood, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27603
919.747.5865 D 919.816.7745 M
Celebrating Twenty Years
From: Anna Reusche
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:10 PM
To: 'Cohn, Colleen M' <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Abby Williams <[e-mail]>; Mike Taylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Arbor Creek - Middle Creek Greenway DWR#20201285
Good afternoon,
Responses to the questions below, including the revised impact maps, are attached. Please don't hesitate to let me
know if you have additional questions.
Thank you,
2 S_M
ANNA REUSCHE, PWS
Senior Environmental Project Manager
SEPI, Inc.
One Glenwood, Suite 600, Raleigh, NC 27603
919.747.5865 D 919.816.7745 M
Celebrating Twenty Years
From: Cohn, Colleen M <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 1:35 PM
To: Anna Reusche <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Arbor Creek - Middle Creek Greenway DWR#20201285
CAUTION: External email. **NEVER CLICK or OPEN** unexpected links or attachments. **NEVER** provide your user ID or
Password. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam.
Good morning,
I am beginning my review of the above referenced project, and in order to complete the review, some additional
information is required:
1) Please provide the Division with a copy of your response to the May 12, 2022, request for additional information
from the US Army Corps of Engineers. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]
2) The Division concurs with the USACE that it appears that wetland impacts could be further minimized by using
raised piling boardwalks within wetlands versus the proposed grading and fill for the greenway trail. Please
3

redesign or provide additional information to support grading and paving the greenway within wetland areas.
[15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(1)]
3) The Division concurs with the USACE that it appears that stream impacts could be further minimized by using
raised bridges instead of culverts and rip rap within stream channels. Please redesign or provide additional
information to support culverts and rip rap. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(1)]
4) Please provide more detailed information on the requested buffer impacts. "Allowable with Authorization" does
not specify which item under the Table of Uses you are proposing the activity falls under. [15A NCAC 02B
.0714(11)]
5) How wide are the shoulders for the greenway? The maps appear to show shoulders wider than 2 ft. Are the
maps showing the whole easement? Are the requested buffer impacts for the entire easement width or just for
the asphalt trail and shoulders? [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]
6) I'm not understanding what this item is in Wetland Impact WA-3. What is this? [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]
Please provide a response within 30-days. Additional information may be requested upon review of your response.
Thanks,
Colleen Cohn
Environmental Specialist II
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Raleigh Regional Office
380o Barrett Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
Office: 919-791-4258
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
4

QS�ENT OF TyF FUMI a wn.u�. LFE
CE
United States Department of the Interior K i
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Date:06/27/2022
Self -Certification Letter
ProjectNameArbor Creek Greenway
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.

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

ATTACHMENT
US Fish and Wildlife Service & NC Natural Heritage Program Database
Review Results

IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust
resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area
referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly
or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on
trust resources typically requires gathering additional site -specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude
and timing of proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the
defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities,
and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.'
Location
Wake County, North Carolina
Holly lopring;
Lkro-rt
RKJqe Go u
cis
r
4
Local office
6' i
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office

k. [phone]
IJ3 [phone]
MAILING ADDRESS
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, INC 27636-3726
PHYSICAL ADDRESS
551 Pylon Drive, Suite F
Raleigh, NC 27606-1487
�o�

Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI)
for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by
activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly
impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the
species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species,
additional site -specific and project -specific information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which
is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted,
funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be
obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local
field office directly. At V
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by
doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
c6\0)"
Listed speciesi and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries
for species under their jurisdiction. %
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or
proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see
FAQ).
2. 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.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Birds
NAM E STATUS
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
Amphibians
NAME STATUS
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi Threatened
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772
Fishes
NAM E STATUS
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecptspecies/528
The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Clams I? \W;
NAME 44,11,
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
Wherever found -
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not
available. f 114
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecptspecies/5164
Endangered
STATUS
Proposed Threatened
Ism

Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon
Wherever found
Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511
Flowering Plants
NAM E
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Critical habitats
Threatened
STATUS
Endangered
-.Wow k \\
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.
%OOJ
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds .0 1
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act' and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats
should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-
guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirdS/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list
or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is
generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will
be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your
project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that
occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list
are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list,
including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. 4 31111L
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds
on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be
present and breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON (IFA BREEDING SEASON IS
INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE
BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA
SOMETIME WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED,
WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE OF THE
-0\ ...............................................................................................................................................
DATES INSIDE WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS
ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE. "BREEDS
......................................................................................................................
ELSEWHERE" INDICATES THAT THE BIRD DOES
A NOT LIKELY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.)
r ...............................................................................................................................................
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to Jul 31
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of
the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of
development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor
Breeds May 1 to Jul 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and
Alaska.
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and
Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and
Alaska.
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and
Alaska.
Probability of Presence Summary
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
Breeds May 10 to Sep 10
Breeds May 10 to Aug 31
0
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This
information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read
and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this
report.
Probability of Presence( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular
week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The
survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the
presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected
divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted
Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability
of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in

week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the
year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall
between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow
bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the
10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data (—) 0 <� \0
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas
off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more
sparse.
SPECIES ]AN
Bald Eagle
Non -BCC Vulnerable (This
........................................................................
is not a Bird of
.........................................
Conservation Concern
.............................................................
(BCC) in this area, but
...........................................................
warrants attention
...................................................
because of the Eagle Act
....................................................................
or for potential
...........................................
susceptibilities in offshore
.........................................................................
areas from certain types
...................................................................
of development or
.............................
activities.)
FEB MAR APR
lil Aft AL
MAY
J
probability :f\prWese)nce
JUN JUL JV_ AUG
lid 1111 +++1
■ breeding season I survey effort — no data
SEP OCT NOV DEC
IIII �-4--:�1 Illl IIII

Prairie Warbler
BCC Rangewide (CON)
..............................................................
(This is a Bird of
.............................................
Conservation Concern
.............................................................
(BCC) throughout its
.........................................................
range in the continental
...................................................................
USA and Alaska.)
...............................................
Prothonotary Warbler ++++
BCC Rangewide (CON)
..............................................................
(This is a Bird of
.............................................
Conservation Concern
..............................................................
(BCC) throughout its
.........................................................
range in the continental
...................................................................
USA and Alaska.)
...............................................
Red-headed Woodpecker ++++
BCC Rangewide (CON)
.. .................
(This is a Birdof
.............................................
Conservation Concern
............................................................
(BCC) throughout its
.........................................................
range in the continental
...................................................................
USA and Alaska.)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide (CON)
..............................................................
(This is a Bird of
............................................
Conservation Concern
............................................................
(BCC) throughout its
.........................................................
range in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
++++ ++++ ++I+
++++ ++++
++ —+—+ ++++ ++++ ++++
--4- + +—++ ++++ ++++
1111 1111 1111 11-1
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
1+++ + ++ \A+
++++ ++++
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of
these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the
locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be
breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of
activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
w
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your
project location.
10

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing
collection of survey., banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid
cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle
(Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur
in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKIN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is
derived from a growing collection of survey., banding, and citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of
presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following
resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of
Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not
breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii,
the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 1b -%
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles)
or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or
longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds
on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and
minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off
the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be
helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS

Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project
webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey
data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact
Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is
generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory
birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s)
that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black
vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then
the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore,
a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to
be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to
look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your
project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can
implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
OP
National Wildlife Refuge landsc�
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination'
conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
oil -� -
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries

THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other
State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
WETLAND INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many
wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location.
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these
resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography.
A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland
boundaries or classification established through image analysis. % -1�
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral
data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any
mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon
boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to
detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and
nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats,
because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this
inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local
government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving

modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency
regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
�o�

m mom Roy Cooper, Governor
■� NC DEPARTMENT OF 5usi Hamilton, Secretary
■moms NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
s mom Walter Clark, director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-11494
February 27, 2020
Robert Lepsic
SEPI, Inc.
1 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
RE: Arbor Creek Greenway
Dear Robert Lepsic:
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/Di rectory/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, Clean Water
Management Trust 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 rod ney.butler(a)ncdcr.aov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPAR71MEN7 OF {NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
fl 121 W. JONES STREET, RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 16S1 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH. NC 27699
OFC 919.707.9120 • FAX 919.707,9121

ATTACHMENT 2
Species Survey Results

DRAFT
Natural Resources Memo
Arbor Creek Greenway Project
Wake County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Town of Holly Springs
Prepared by:
S=�1
1 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27603
June 2020

Natural Resources Memorandum Town of Holly Springs, Wake County, N.C.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION -•
2
2.0 WATER RESOURCES----------------------------------------------------------------------2
3.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES---------------------------------------------------------------4
3.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.---------------------------------------------------4
3.2 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern--------------5
3.3 Construction Moratoria------------------------------------------------------------------5
3.4 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules ----------------------------------------------------------- 5
3.5 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters ----------------------------- 5
3.6 Wetland and Stream Mitigation--------------------------------------------------------5
3.6.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts ------------------------------------------- 5
3.6.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts ----------------------------------------------- 6
3.7 Endangered Species Act Protected Species ------------------------------------------- 6
3.8 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act -------------------------------------- 10
3.9 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species----------------------------------------11
3.10 Essential Fish Habitat-------------------------------------------------------------------11
4.0 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES---------------------------------------11
5.0 REFERENCES------------------------------------------------------------------------------12
Appendix A
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Jurisdictional Features Map
Figure 3. USGS Quad Map
Figure 4. Natural Communities Map
Appendix B
NCDWR Surface Water Determination Letter (NBRRO #20-098)
NCSHPO Review Letter (ER 20-0773)
Appendix C
Aquatic Survey Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Streams in the project study area.......................................................................... 3
Table 2. Surface waters in the study area........................................................................... 4
Table 3. Jurisdictional characteristics of streams in the project study area ........................ 4
Table 4. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the project study area ...................... 5
Table 5. Federally protected species listed for Wake County ............................................ 6
SEPI i June 2020

Natural Resources Memorandum Town of Holly Springs, Wake County, N.C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Holly Springs plans to construct a greenway trail between Sunset Lake Road
and Holly Springs Road in Wake County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The following Natural
Resources Memorandum has been prepared to comply with federal and state environmental
regulations. The project study area is primarily composed of the wooded floodplain of
Middle Creek with a few maintained utility line crossings.
METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS
A wetland and stream delineation was completed by SEPI biologists Anna Reusche, PWS,
Robert Lepsic, PWS, and Rachel Quindlen on March 3-5, 9-12 and 16, 2020 for the
approximate 136-acre project study area. Potentially jurisdictional wetlands were identified
by using applicable methods as defined in the 1987 USACE manual and the USACE
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Supplement (Version 2.0, November 2010). Stream
determinations were completed in accordance with the USACE Regulatory Guidance
Letter No. 05-05, Ordinary High Water Mark Identification for Streams and NCDWR's
Stream Identification Manual (Version 4.11, 2010). Jurisdictional streams and wetland
areas encountered during the site assessment were marked sequentially with flagging and
a GPS point with sub -meter accuracy was taken at each flag. A surface water determination
meeting with NCDWR was conducted on April 16, 2020 at the site. The Surface Water
Determination Letter (NBRRO #20-098) is attached. A field determination meeting with
the USACE was held on June 4, 2020. Streams and wetlands presented in this report reflect
the results of this meeting.
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
Water resources in the study area are part of the Neuse River basin [U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201]. Seventeen streams were identified in the
project study area (Figure 2). Middle Creek flows through or immediately adjacent to the
study area. All other tributaries are located within Middle Creek's floodplain and flow into
Middle Creek. The streams and their physical characteristics are provided in Table 1.
Middle Creek is designated as a Class C and NSW water by the North Carolina Department
of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). There are no designated anadromous fish waters or
Primary Nursery Areas (PNA) present in the project study area. The NCDEQ 2018 Final
303(d) list of impaired waters lists Middle Creek 27-43-15-(1)b 1 and 27-43-15-(1)b2
which is within the study area for benthos and fecal coliform.
SEPI 2 June 2020

Natural Resources Memorandum Town of Holly Springs, Wake County, N.C.
Table 1. Streams in the project study area
Stream
NCDEQ
Best Usage
Bank
Bankfull
Water
Name
Map ID
Index
Classification
Height
Width
Depth
Number
(ft)
(ft)
(in)
Middle Creek
Middle
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
6
10-15
2-36
Creek (SA)
UT to Middle
Creek
SB
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
3-4
4-6
8-16
UT to Middle
SB1
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
1-2
3-4
5-15
Creek
UT to Middle
SB2
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
1-3
3-5
5-20
Creek
UT to Middle
SC
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
1-1.5
4-6
3-8
Creek
UT to Middle
SD
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
2-5
3-8
3-20
Creek
UT to Middle
SE
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
1-1.5
1-3
1-8
Creek
UT to Middle
SF
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
2-4
6-10
5-25
Creek
UT to Middle
SG
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
1
3-6
1-2
Creek
UT to Middle
SH
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
0.5-1.5
1-4
1-25
Creek
UT to Middle
SI
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
3-4
3-10
5-15
Creek
UT to Middle
SJ
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
4-6
5-10
1-24
Creek
UT to Middle
Creek
SK
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
2-4
3-6
2-30
UT to Middle
Creek
SL
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
2-3
3-4
2-12
UT to Middle
Creek
SM
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
1-2
2-3
1-15
UT to Middle
Creek
SN
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
0.5-1
2-5
1-6
UT to Middle
SO
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
1-2
4-5
2-10
Creek
UT to Middle
SP
27-43-15-(1)
C; NSW
0.5
2-5
1-12
Creek
One pond (PA) was identified within the project study area. The pond is an impoundment
of SF (Table 2).
SEPI 3 June 2020

Natural Resources Memorandum Town of Holly Springs, Wake County, N.C.
Table 2. Surface waters in the study area
Map ID of
Area (ac) in
Surface Water
Jurisdictional
Connection
Study Area
PA
Yes
Stream SF
2.91
3.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
3.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
Seventeen potentially jurisdictional streams were identified in the project study area (Table
3 and Figure 2). All streams in the project study area have been designated as warm water
streams for the purposes of stream mitigation. The study area is located in the Neuse River
basin, and therefore is subject to the Neuse River buffer rules administered by NCDWR.
Table 2. Jurisdictional characteristics of streams in the project study area
Map ID
Length (ft.)
Classification
Compensatory
Mitigation
Required
River Basin
Buffer*
SA
10,557
Perennial
Yes
Subject
SB
520
Intermittent
Yes
Subject
SB1
299
Intermittent
Yes
Not Subject
SB2
843
Intermittent
Yes
Subject
SC
272
Intermittent
Yes
Subject
SD
47
Perennial
Yes
Subject
SE
123
Intermittent
Yes
Not Subject
SF
867
Perennial
Yes
Subject
SG
587
Perennial
Yes
Subject
SH
226
Intermittent
Yes
Not Subject
SI
716
Intermittent
Yes
Subject
SJ
578
Perennial
Yes
Subject
SK
1,085
Perennial
Yes
Subject
SM
215
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
SN
267
Intermittent
Yes
Not Subject
SO
313
Intermittent
Yes
Not Subject
SP
814
Perennial
Yes
Subject
Total
18,329
*Based on NCDWR Surface Water Determination Letter, NBRRO#20-098
Eleven potentially jurisdictional wetland were identified within the project study area
(Figure 2). North Carolina Wetland Assessment Methodology (NCWAM) classification
and hydrologic classification data is presented in Table 4.
SEPI 4 June 2020

Natural Resources Memorandum Town of Holly Springs, Wake County, N.C.
Table 3. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the nroiect studv area
Map ID
NCWAM Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
Area (ac.)
WA
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Riparian
2.75
WB
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Riparian
0.91
WC
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Riparian
0.37
WD
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Riparian
6.76
WE
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Riparian
0.11
WF
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Riparian
0.12
WG
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Riparian
0.02
WH
Headwater Forest
Riparian
2.11
WI
Headwater Forest
Riparian
0.12
WJ
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Riparian
47.19
WK
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Riparian
7.84
3.2 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern
Wake County is not subject to Coastal Area Management regulations.
3.3 Construction Moratoria
There will be no construction moratoria associated with the project. Wake County is not
one of the 25 designated trout counties of North Carolina. There are no designated inland
Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas (AFSA) within 25 miles of the study area. Middle
Creek at the confluence with the Neuse River is designated AFSA by the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC).
3.4 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
Streamside riparian zones within the project study area are protected under provisions of
the Neuse River Buffer Rules administered by NCDWR. Table 3 indicates the streams
subject to buffer rule protection.
3.5 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
No features within the project study area have been designated by the USACE as a
Navigable Water under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
3.6 Wetland and Stream Mitigation
3.6.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
The Town of Holly Springs will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and
wetlands to the greatest extent practicable in choosing a preferred alternative and during
project design. At this time, no final decisions have been made regarding the location or
design of the preferred alternative.
SEPI 5 June 2020

Natural Resources Memorandum Town of Holly Springs, Wake County, N.C.
3.6.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts
The Town of Holly Springs will investigate potential on -site stream and wetland mitigation
opportunities once a final decision has been rendered on the location of the preferred
alternative. If on -site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation could be purchased from an
approved mitigation bank to offset stream impacts. If no credits are available through an
existing mitigation bank, mitigation could be purchased through North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality's Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS).
3.7 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
As of June 27, 2018, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists nine
federally protected species for Wake County (Table 5). A brief description of each species'
habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on
survey results in the study area. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the
current best available information from referenced literature and/or USFWS.
Table 4. Federally rotected species listed for Wake County.
Scientific
Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Notropis mekistocholas
Cape Fear shiner
E
N
No Effect
Picoides borealis
Red -cockaded woodpecker
E
Y
MA-NLAA
Noturus furiosus
Carolina madtom
PE
Y
MA-NLAA
Necturus lewisi
Neuse River waterdog
PT
Y
MA-NLAA
Fusconaia masoni
Atlantic pigtoe
PT
Y
MA-NLAA
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
E
Y
MA-NLAA
Parvaspina steinstansana
Tar River spinymussel
E
Y
MA-NLAA
Elliptio lanceolata
Yellow lance
T
Y
MA-NLAA
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Y
No Effect
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
PE — Proposed Endangered
PT— Proposed Threatened
MA-NLAA — May Affect -Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Cape Fear shiner
USFWS optimal survey window: April -June (tributaries); Year-round (large rivers)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Cape Fear shiner lives in streams and rivers within the Cape Fear basin.
Streams consisting of gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates, as well as slow riffles
and pools, provide optimal habitat. The project study area is in the Neuse River
SEPI 6 June 2020

Natural Resources Memorandum Town of Holly Springs, Wake County, N.C.
basin; therefore, this project will have no effect on this species. Additionally, a
review of the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database on February 27, 2020
documented no occurrences of this species within one mile of the study area.
Red -cockaded woodpecker
USFWS optimal survey window: Year-round; November -early March (optimal)
Biological Conclusion: May Affect — Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The red -cockaded woodpecker prefers mature, open pine stands at least 60 years
old for nesting, and open stands of pines at least 30 years old for foraging,
preferably with a slightly open understory. Mixed hardwood/pine forests with
loblolly pines at least 60 years old considered suitable nesting habitat were
observed within the project study area. Suitable foraging habitat of mixed
hardwood/pine forests at least 30 years of age were also observed within the study
area. Surveys conducted on March 5, 2020 identified no cavity trees or individual
red -cockaded woodpeckers. No cavity trees or individuals were identified during
other field surveys conducted within the study area. Additionally, NHP records
generated on February 27, 2020 documented no occurrences of the red -cockaded
woodpecker within one mile of the study area.
Carolina madtom
USFWS optimal survey window: Year-round
Biological Conclusion: May Affect — Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The Carolina madtom prefers shallow sand-, gravel-, and detritus -bottomed riffles
and runs with little or no current over fine to coarse sand bottom in small to medium
rivers. Middle Creek and its tributary provide suitable habitat for Carolina madtom.
An aquatic survey of the location of the proposed crossing was conducted on April
8 and 10, 2020. No individuals were identified. See attached Aquatic Survey
Report. Additionally, NHP records generated on February 27, 2020 document no
known occurrences of Carolina madtom within one mile of the study area.
Neuse River waterdog
USFWS optimal survey window: late fall to early spring
Biological Conclusion: May Affect — Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The Neuse River waterdog inhabits well oxygenated medium to large rivers and
streams with high water quality. They prefer eddies and backwaters with large
amounts of leaves and woody debris. Middle Creek provides suitable habitat for
Neuse River waterdog. Aquatic surveys for Neuse River waterdog were performed
within the project area March 3-7, 2020. No individuals were identified. See
attached Aquatic Survey Report. Additionally, NHP records generated on February
27, 2020 document no known occurrences of Neuse River waterdog within one
mile of the study area.
SEPI 7 June 2020

Natural Resources Memorandum Town of Holly Springs, Wake County, N.C.
Critical Habitat Neuse River waterdog
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
USFWS has proposed critical habitat for the Neuse River waterdog within Wake
County. The nearest proposed critical habitat is on Middle Creek approximately 9
miles downstream of the study area.
Atlantic pigtoe
USFWS optimal survey window: Year-round
Biological Conclusion: May Affect — Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The Atlantic pigtoe requires fast flowing, well oxygenated high quality
riverine/large creek and is restricted to fairly pristine habitats. It is typically found
in headwaters or rural watersheds. The preferred habitat of the Atlantic pigtoe is
coarse sand and gravel at the downstream edge of riffles. Middle Creek provides
suitable habitat for Atlantic pigtoe. An aquatic survey of the location of the
proposed crossing was survey on April 8 and 10 2020. No individuals were
identified. See attached Aquatic Survey Report. Additionally, NHP records
generated on February 27, 2020 document no known occurrences of Atlantic pigtoe
within one mile of the study area.
Critical Habitat Atlantic pigtoe
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
USFWS has proposed critical habitat for the Atlantic pigtoe within Wake County.
The nearest proposed critical habitat is on Middle Creek approximately 9 miles
downstream of the study area.
Dwarf wedgemussel
USFWS optimal survey window: Year-round
Biological Conclusion: May Affect — Not Likely to Adversely Affect
In North Carolina, the dwarf wedgemussel is known from the Neuse and Tar River
drainages. The mussel inhabits creek and river areas with a slow to moderate
current and sand, gravel, or firm silt bottoms. Water in these areas must be well
oxygenated. Stream banks in these areas are generally stable with extensive root
systems holding soils in place. Middle Creek provides suitable habitat for dwarf
wedgemussel. An aquatic survey of the location of the proposed crossing was
survey on April 8 and 10 2020. No individuals were identified. See attached
Aquatic Survey Report. Additionally, NHP records generated on February 27, 2020
document no known occurrences of dwarf wedgemussel within one mile of the
study area.
SEPI 8 June 2020

Natural Resources Memorandum Town of Holly Springs, Wake County, N.C.
Tar River spinymussel
USFWS optimal survey window: Year-round
Biological Conclusion: May Affect — Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The Tar spinymussel is endemic to the Tar and portions of Neuse River drainage
basins in North Carolina. This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well -
oxygenated, circumneutral pH water. The bottom should be composed of
unconsolidated gravel and coarse sand. The water needs to be relatively silt -free,
and stream banks should be stable, typically with many roots from adjacent riparian
trees and shrubs. An aquatic survey of the location of the proposed crossing was
survey on April 8 and 10 2020. No individuals were identified. See attached
Aquatic Survey Report. Given that no individuals were identified during the aquatic
survey and NHP records generated on February 27, 2020 documented no
occurrences of the Tar River spinymussel within one mile, this project will have no
effect on this species.
Yellow lance
USFWS optimal survey window: Year-round
Biological Conclusion: May Affect — Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Optimal habitat for the yellow lance consists of well oxygenated and flowing
streams with coarse gravel or sand. Excellent water quality is a requirement for the
yellow lance. Middle Creek provides suitable habitat for yellow lance. An aquatic
survey of the location of the proposed crossing was survey on April 8 and 10 2020.
No individuals were identified. See attached Aquatic Survey Report. Additionally,
NHP records generated on February 27, 2020 document no known occurrences of
yellow lance within one mile of the study area.
Michaux's sumac
USFWS optimal survey window: May —October
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Michaux's sumac most commonly grows on highway rights -of way, roadsides, or
on the edges of artificially maintained clearings. The majority of the study area is
located within the forested floodplain of Middle Creek. The only potential habitat
for Michaux's sumac is located at the southern end of the study area where it
follows a maintained powerline and Sunset Fairways Drive. Surveys for Michaux's
sumac were conducted on June 3, 2020 and no individuals were identified. NHP
records generated on February 27, 2020 document occurrences of Michaux's sumac
within one mile of the project study area.
SEPI 9 June 2020

Natural Resources Memorandum Town of Holly Springs, Wake County, N.C.
3.8 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest 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. Bodies of water typically need to be at least 2 acres or larger
to be able to support a bald eagle population.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1-mile
radius of the project limits, was performed on February 27, 2020, using 2010 color aerials.
Sunset Lake and Bass Lake are located approximately 1 mile south of the study area. Sunset
Lake is an impoundment of Middle Creek. Both are large enough to provide foraging
habitat for bald eagle. The mature trees within the study area in the floodplain of Middle
Creek provide nesting sites.
The bald eagle survey area designated by USFWS is a 660-foot buffer around the project
study area. Land use within and in the 660 feet surrounding the project study area is highly
urbanized. Surveys for bald eagle were performed on within the study area March 12, 2020
and 660 feet of the study area. No bald eagles or nests were identified. No bald eagles or
nests were identified during additional field assessments conducted within the study area.
Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on February 27, 2020, revealed no known
occurrences of this species within one mile of the project study area. Due to the lack of
known occurrences, and no observation of individuals or nests, it has been determined that
this project will not affect this species.
3.9 Eastern Tiger Salamander
The eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) is a state threatened animal species
that has been documented within the study area. Tiger salamanders use ephemeral ponds
for breeding and moist upland area for their burrows. In the late -winter or early -spring,
they migrate from their burrows to the breeding sites. Tiger salamanders feed mostly at
night, catching prey in and around their burrows rather than foraging for food.
In an effort to reduce the potential impacts to the tiger salamander population, Section
10.05 of the Town's Engineering Design and Construction Standards will be implemented
during the construction of the project. These standards specifically address work that
occurs in the area upstream of Holly Springs Road. Other measures will include:
• Land disturbance in habitat area will be minimized and carefully designed to avoid
impact to suitable breeding pools.
• Logs from construction in preserve shall be left on the ground to enhance habitat.
3.10 Virginia Least Trillium
Virginia least trillium (Trillium pusillum var. virginianum) is a state endangered plant
species identified within the study area by SEPI biologists. This is a new population for
Wake County, with only one other known population within the county.
SEPI 10 June 2020

Natural Resources Memorandum Town of Holly Springs, Wake County, N.C.
Virginia least trillium prefers mesic to swampy hardwood forests in low alluvial
woodlands. Flowering occurs in March -April. Seeds are disbursed mainly by ants and
yellow jackets and wasps. Seeds require two winters and one summer to break dormancy,
generally 1.5 — 2 years.
In an effort to reduce the potential impacts to Virginia least trillium populations, the land
disturbance and greenway path construction will be designed to avoid the identified
population.
3.11 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species
As of June 27, 2018, the USFWS has no listed Candidate Species for Wake County.
3.12 Essential Fish Habitat
There is no Essential Fish Habitat located within the project study area. Essential Fish
Habitat will not be impacted or effected.
4.0 Cultural and Historic Resources
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) conducted a review of the
project and determined no historic resources would be affected by the project (ER 20-
0773). See attached letter.
SEPI I I June 2020

Natural Resources Memorandum Town of Holly Springs, Wake County, N.C.
5.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA): Essential Fish Mapper [web
application]. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/essential-fish-habitat-
mapper. (Accessed on February 27, 2020).
NatureServe. 2020. NatureServe Explorer 2.0: [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington,
Virginia. Available https://explorer.natureserve.org/. (Accessed: February 27,
2020).
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2018 Final 303(d)
list.
https:Hfiles.nc. gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2018/2018-
NC-303-d--List-Final.pdf (Accessed on February 27, 2020).
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality -Division of Water Resources. NC
Surface Water Classifications [web application].
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6e l25ad7628f
494694e259c80dd64265. (Accessed on February 27, 2020).
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources -State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO): HPOWEB 2.0 [web application].
https://nc.mgps.aregis.com/home/ rgroup.html?id=d56ec9c8aa77423b93lf4d359fl
03 ae6&view=list&cate gories=%5B%22%2FCategories%2FHPOWEB%22%5D#
content. (Accessed on March 23, 2020).
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS). 1970. Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012. Regional Supplement to the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Region Version 2.0, ed. Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional
Working Group: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS). 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States,
Version 8.2 L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS,
in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)
htlps:Hecos.fws.gov/egpO/Trofile/speciesProfile?sld=5164 (Accessed: March 24,
2020).
SEPI 12 June 2020

Natural Resources Memorandum Town of Holly Springs, Wake County, N.C.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-
species/bald-and-golden-eagle-information.php. (Accessed: February 27, 2020).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Cape Fear shiner
(Notropis mekistocholas)
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_cape fear_shiner.html. (February 27,
2020).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus)
https:Hecos.fws. o�pO/profile/speciesProfile?sId=528(Accessed: March 24,
2020).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) bttps://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es dwarf wedgemussel.html.
(Accessed: February 27, 2020).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
https://www.fws. ov�gh/species/es_michauxs_sumac.html (Accessed:
February 27, 2020).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Neuse river waterdog (Necturus
lewisi) hLtps:Hecos.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile?sld=6772 (Accessed:
March 24, 2020).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Red -cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_red-
cockaded_ woodpecker.html. (Accessed: February 27, 2020).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Tar River spinymussel
(Parvaspina steinstansana) htips://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/mussels/tar-
river-spinymussel/. (Accessed: February 27, 2020).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Threatened and Endangered Species in
North Carolina: Wake County. Updated June 27, 2018.
hLtps://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cptylist/wake.html
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata)
hLtps:Hecos.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile?sld=4511. (Accessed: February
27, 2020).
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Eastern Tiger Salamander.
North Carolina Wildlife Profiles.
https://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Learning/documents/Profiles/Amphibians/E
astern Tiger Salamander FINAL _2018_l.pdf
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. Apex, North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (7.5-minute series).
SEPI 13 June 2020

Appendix A
Figures

� F
M6 R'^rty Ra
a
Project Vicinity
b
>r
b
�l"^'arf drrn lid m
oAbmr.kla
Hdly Slitiml::
9a Lin avll Or
�v
Project Study Area
,M
h'r
❑r �
° �j'i Fh her
r [i
r _
�fJa4k0
P
-
V
Eason 3[
O
y n
°
v
� Spnr Ssm an Sh, p Way
An°l+°r Cr4,sk'm aY
Ar cllc old Jr :.
I
n
E�
[i
Fes` �hurar�
Slewmanl Dr pq
TfaytlS�d �
.Jndale Cr G 6
q
8 �r m PR
SpNn Qat �� g °ra WAY
'yarn .r
Se`
R
m q
3
Ra
Groaan.�, Ln 4
s
_ ClC lk�4
u Cli M1d�
o y a c ns
n A C
a
v $
HOLLY
SPRINGS
N—h Co rolln�
Figure 1
Project Vicinity
Arbor Creek Greenway Project
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County, Raleigh NC
June 2020
de
Gool=ley cr
co "'n Cr ]lQ ❑r
n
3
v
m~
n
EAwatid c
v x
getad
_
z y
O
O
°
Clydv �l
� to�AleY qa
F�YG
ry
r ¢ s
v a
�
n 3
r
° 94
bCrsek to
Warm �
a i
IV
g
n+r
°od
or
pl
fl°Ily
�nrton
yy°y
S Rncg
G FarrV leW 51 4
� 4
4 D
w �a`
v qQ
Ro ra
L
%to
P
C Ja�r�
a
f�

~ -a. F.i "' _ �'4 � a � •+��'.F - err
i r Project Study Area
Potentially Jurisdictional Wetlands
-- -- Potentially Jurisdictional Streams - Intermittent -
„,� , Potentially Jurisdictional Streams - Perennial -
� r
opt Ponds
-
4b *� "
SM
S
�t7�►.rim
This Exhibit is for planning purposes only and shown
herein does not meet NC 47-30 Requirements and
therefore is not for design, construction, or recording or
transfer of title. The Exhibit was compiled from available
information obtained from the sources listed below
Sources:
NCDOT, NC OneMap, ESRI N
June 2020
27
Figure 2. Jurisdictional Features Map
Arbor Creek Greenway Project
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County, North Carolina
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
SE
HOLLY
SPRINGS

1
r :
i
vCrri
h
V!_a 1 -

0
1 11
This Exhibit is for planning purposes only and shown
herein does not meet NC 47-30 Requirements and
therefore is not for design, construction, or recording or
transfer of title. The Exhibit was compiled from available
information obtained from the sources listed below
Sources: NCDOT, NC OneMap, ESRI N
June 2020
A-
41P •�
Project Study Area
Natural Community Type
Mesic Mixed Hardwood- Piedmont Subtype
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
Maintained/Disturbed }
Pond/Open Water T
f
III F. .• _
44i .7
4§
M W _. +
Figure 4. Natural Communities Map
Arbor Creek Greenway Project
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County, North Carolina
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
= HOLLY
, SPRINGS

Appendix B
NCDWR Surface Water Determination Letter
(NBRRO #20-098)
NCSHPO Review Letter (ER 20-0773)

ROYY COOPER
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. DANIEL SMITH
Diwcw
April 16, 2020
Sohn Schifano, Town Attorney
Town of Holly Springs
PO Box 8
Holly Springs, NC 27540-0008
Subject: Surface Water Determination Letter
NBRR0#20-098
Wake County
Determination Type: -
Buffer Call
Isolated or EIP Call
® Neuse (15A NCAC 28.0233)
❑ Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 28.0259)
❑ Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial Determination
❑ Jordan
❑ Isolated Wetland Determination
(15A NCAC 2B .0267)
Project Name: Arbor Creek Greenway
Location/Direct The projected area is at 4300 Sunset Lake Road in Holly Springs, Wake
ions. County (136-acre area between Sunset Lake Road and Holly Springs Road)
Subject Stream: UTs to Middle Creek
Determination Date: 4/16/2020 Staff: Cheng Zhang
Stream
E/I/P*
I Not Subject
to Buffers
Subject to
Buffers
Start@
Stop@
Sofl
survey
OSGS
To o
SA**
P
X
X
X
SB
I
X
X
SC
i
X
X
Still
I
X
Confluence of SB
and SC
DWR flag (SB2-
04
X
SB2
I
DWR flag SB2-05
X
SD
P
X
X
SF
P
X
X
X
Pond A
X
X
X
SY
E
X
X
SG
P
X
X
X
SP
P
X
X
X
SI
1
X
X
SJ
P
X
X
X
SK
P
X
X
SZ
E
X
X
DEQJ� NorthCamllnaDepartmentofEnvironmetitalQua9lyIDivision ofWarerResources
Raleigh Regional Offitt 13a000arrett Orie Raleigh North Carolina P409
^ 919.M1.4200

*E111P = Ephemeiaillntermittent/Perennia!
** Middle Creek
*** Features within the vicinity ofthe project area that are not evaluated in this letter are on the opposite
side of Middle Greek with the proposed greenway and will not be impacted by the project.
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Wake County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
'Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property. Features that are checked
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There maybe
other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of Water Resources
(DWR).
This on-slte determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected
parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR or Delegated Local Authority may request a
determination by the Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter or
from the date the affected party (including downstream and/or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter. A
request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing Ifsexding via US
Postal Service e/o Paul Wojoski DWR— 401 & Buffer, Permitting Unit 1617 Afad Service Center Raleigh, NC
276994617. Ifsem/ing via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.) Pant 1Fojoski DWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting
Unit, 512 N. Salisbrny Street Raleigh, NC27604
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within sixty
(60) days.
The owner/future owners should notify the Division of Water Resources (including any other Local, State,
and Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property
(stated above). This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries
should be directed to the Division of Water Resources (Central Office) at (919)-807-6300, and the US Army
Carp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-5544884.
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel Gee to contact Chang Zhang at [phone],
Sincerely,
Scott Vinson, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Raleigh Regional Office
Division of Water Resources
cc: RAO DWR File Copy
Bob Lepsic, SEPI (electronic copy only)

�C
,nri
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
May 13, 2020
Anna Reusche
SEPI, Inc.
1 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27603
AReuschegsepiinc. com
Re: Construct Arbor Creek Greenway, Holly Springs, ER 20-0773
Dear Ms. Reusche:
Thank you for your March 25, 2020 email concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.review(kncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
(1� _- T - �.
LWRamona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Project Study Area
Gel)?
This Exhibit is for planning purposes only a d sho•:m
herein does not meet NC 47-30 Requirements and
therefore Is not for design, construction, or re raiding or
transfer of title. The Exhibit was compiled from available
information obtained from the sources fisted bel w.
Sources:
NCDOT, NC OncMap, ESRI
March 2020
Figure 4. NRCS Soils Map
Arbor Creek Greenway Project
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County, North Carolina
500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet

Thls Exhibit is for plonntng purposes only and shovm
herein does not meet NC 47-30 Requirements and
therefore is not for design, construction, or recording or
transfer of title. The Exhibit was compiled from available
Information obtained from the sources fisted below.
Sources:
NCOOT, NC OneMap. E.SRI
March 2020
Figure 3. USGS Topographic Map
Arbor Creek Greenway Project
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County, North Carolina
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
S_?I
1101.1.1
SPRINU S

Appendix C
Aquatic Survey Report

Aquatic Survey Report
Arbor Creek Greenway
Middle Creek
Wake County, North Carolina
Upstream facing view of Middle Creek
Prepared For:
HOLLY
SPRINGS
Hersh Co -oilne
Town of Holly Springs
Raleigh, North Carolina
Contact Person:
Matt Beard, Park Planner
128 S. Main Street
Holly Springs, NC 27540
June 2020

Prepared by:
SEPI
1 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27603
Contact Person:
Chris Sheats
[e-mail]
919-417-2732

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Waters Impacted...........................................................................................................
2
2.1 303(d) Classification........................................................................................................2
2.2 NPDES Discharges...........................................................................................................2
3.0 Target Protected Species Description............................................................................
2
3.1 Necturus lewisi (Neuse River Waterdog)........................................................................2
3.1.1 Species Characteristics............................................................................................2
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements...................................................................2
3.2 Noturus furiosus (Carolina Madtom)..............................................................................3
3.2.1 Species Characteristics............................................................................................3
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements...................................................................3
3.3 Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel)..............................................................3
3.3.1 Species Characteristics............................................................................................3
3.3.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements...................................................................4
3.4 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe).................................................................................4
3.4.1 Species Characteristics............................................................................................4
3.4.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements...................................................................4
3.5 Lasmigona subviridis (Green Floater).............................................................................4
3.5.1 Species Characteristics............................................................................................4
3.5.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements...................................................................5
3.6 Parvaspina steinstansana (Tar River Spinymussel).........................................................5
3.6.1 Species Characteristics............................................................................................5
3.6.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements...................................................................5
3.7 Elliptio lanceolate (Yellow Lance)...................................................................................6
3.7.1 Species Characteristics............................................................................................6
3.7.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements...................................................................6
4.0 Survey Efforts................................................................................................................
6
4.1 Methodology..................................................................................................................7
4.1.1 Neuse River Waterdog Surveys...............................................................................7
4.1.2 Freshwater Mussel and Carolina Madtom Surveys.................................................7
5.0 Results..........................................................................................................................
7
5.1.1 Neuse River Waterdog.............................................................................................7
5.1.2 Freshwater Mussels and Carolina Madtom.............................................................9
6.0 Discussion/Conclusions...............................................................................................10
7.0 Literature Cited...........................................................................................................
13
Appendix A.
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Locations
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figures 3-5: Proposed Critical Habitat
Figure 6: NPDES Discharges

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Holly Springs (Town) proposes to extend its greenway network by constructing a 2-
mile hard surface trail along the Arbor Creek, Bridgewater, Woodcreek, and Sunset Ridge North
subdivisions. Bridges and boardwalks will be constructed to cross portions of Middle Creek, as
necessary. Seven aquatic species known in the Neuse River Basin are federally listed or are
proposed for protection by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for Wake County. Two
federally endangered freshwater mussels (dwarf wedgemussel, Tar River spinymussel), one
federally threatened freshwater mussel (yellow lance), and four "At Risk Species" (ARS) are
known from the Neuse River basin in Wake County which includes two freshwater mussels
(Atlantic pigtoe, green floater), one fish (Carolina madtom), and one aquatic amphibian (Neuse
River waterdog). Atlantic pigtoe is proposed for listing as "Threatened", and the green floater is
petitioned for listing as threatened or endangered. Carolina madtom (CMT) is proposed
"Endangered", Neuse River waterdog (NRWD) is proposed "Threatened". ARS's are species that
are Petitioned, Candidates or Proposed for Listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Consultation under Section 7(a) (2) of the ESA is not required for Candidate or Proposed
species, although a Conference, as described under Section 7(a) (4) of the ESA is recommended
for actions affecting species proposed for listing.
According to the NC Natural Heritage Program database (NCNHP, Access date: March 23, 2020),
There is one element occurrence (EO) record for Atlantic pigtoe 2.3 miles downstream of the
survey area in Middle Creek (EO #34956). There is one EO in the Neuse River for CMT
approximately 15 miles upstream of the survey area (EO #10676). There is an EO for dwarf
wedgemussel (EO#13799) and yellow lance (EO#21894) 11.9 miles downstream from the
survey area in Swift Creek. There is an EO for green floater 16.5 miles upstream of the study
area in the Neuse River (EO #28706). The closest EO for NRWD is 1.3 miles from the study area
in Middle Creek (EO #8258). There is an EO for the Tar River spinymussel 38.5 miles away in the
Tar River (EO #21412).
According to the US Fish and Wildlife Services Threatened and Endangered Species Active
Critical Habitat Report (USFWS, Update date: March 27, 2020), proposed critical habitat for
NRWD, Atlantic pigtoe, and yellow lance occurs downstream of the project study area (Figure 3-
5). Proposed critical habitat for NRWD and Atlantic pigtoe occurs in Middle Creek
approximately 9 miles downstream of the study area. Proposed critical habitat for yellow lance
occurs 12 miles from the study area in Swift Creek.
SEPI was contracted by the Town to conduct surveys targeting the NRWD, Carolina madtom,
dwarf wedgemussel, Atlantic pigtoe, green floater, Tar River spinymussel, and yellow lance as
part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project -related
impacts to federally protected species.
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 1

2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
Middle Creek is part of the Upper Neuse River sub -basin of the Neuse River basin (U.S.
Geological Survey [USGS] Hydrological Unit Code 03020201).
2.1 303(d) Classification
The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) 2018 Final 303(d) list was reviewed to
better understand water quality upstream of the survey area. A 6 mile portion of Middle Creek
from 0.8 miles south of US 1 to the backwaters of Sunset Lake [(27-43-15-(1)b1),( 27-43-15-
(1)b2)] is listed for benthos, which starts approximately 6 miles upstream of the survey area
and flows through it (NCDEQ, 2020a).
2.2 NPDES Discharges
Several discharges are located throughout the Upper Neuse River basin. The closest active
permitted NPDES discharge to Middle Creek is approximately 1.75 miles upstream of the study
area (NCDEQ, 2020b); Wall Recycling LLC (NPDES Permit # NCG130099) is located along Middle
Creek (Figure 3).
3.0 TARGET PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTION
3.1 Necturus lewisi (Neuse River Waterdog)
3.1.1 Species Characteristics
The NRWD is a fully aquatic salamander that ranges in size from six to nine inches in length,
with a maximum record length of 11 inches. It has a stocky, cylindrical body, small limbs,
smooth skin, and a flattened, elongate head with a square ended nose. The tail is keeled on
both the top and bottom. It has four toes on each foot and is a rusty brown color on the dorsal
side and dull brown or slate colored on the ventral side. Both sides are strongly spotted, but
the ventral side tends to have fewer and smaller dark bluish to black spots. They have a dark
line running through the eye. Adults are neotenous and retain three bushy, dark red external
gills. Male and females are similar in appearance and can be distinguished by differences in the
cloaca (Amphibiaweb 2019; Brimley, 1924; Conant and Collins, 1998).
NWRD become sexually mature at approximately five to six years, breeding typically occurs in
the spring. The male deposits a spermatophore that is picked up by the female and used to
fertilize between 30 and 50 eggs that are attached to the underside of flat rocks or other large
objects. The female guards them until they hatch in June or July (Conant and Collins, 1998).
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The NRWD is found only in the Neuse and Tar River basins of North Carolina, inhabiting rivers
and larger streams, where it prefers leaf beds in quiet waters. This species needs high levels of
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 2

dissolved oxygen and good water quality. The NRWD 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. This species
is active during the night, leaving these retreats to feed. The NRWD is carnivorous, feeding on
invertebrates, small vertebrates, and carrion. It is most active during winter months even when
temperatures are below freezing. During summer months, it will burrow into deep leaf beds
and is rarely found. Inactivity in the summer may be an adaptation to avoid fish predators,
which are more active at these times. In addition, the NRWD produces a defensive, toxic skin
secretion that is assumed to be distasteful to predators (AmphibiaWeb 2019; Conant and
Collins, 1998).
3.2 Noturus furiosus (Carolina Madtom)
3.2.1 Species Characteristics
The CMT is a freshwater fish reaching up to five inches in length. The body is short and chunky
with a distinct pattern of three dark saddles starting at the dorsal fin and ending at the caudal
fin. These dark saddles connect a wide, black stripe along the side which extends from the
snout to the base of the tail (Menhinick 1991). The adipose fin is connected to the caudal and
has a dark blotch that ends slightly below the fins edge. The belly is not speckled, and crescent
shaped brown bands are present at the edge of the caudal. Its pectoral spines have serrated
projections along both margins (USFWS 2018).
The CMT feeds on larval midges, mayflies, caddisflies, dragon flies and beetles. They are most
active during dawn and dusk. Individuals reach reproductive maturity by 2 years and spawn
from May to July in moderate to slow flowing areas, often using mussel shells, woody debris
and trash as cover. Females produce up to 300 eggs per breeding season and the male guards
the nest until eggs are hatched (Burr et al. 1989).
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The CMT is endemic to the Tar and Neuse River basins in North Carolina, and currently exists in
fragmented populations. Streams harboring the CMT often have sand, gravel and detritus
bottoms with free -flowing conditions (USFWS 2018a). This species tends to avoid areas with
large submerged plants, however specimens have been found in small patches of vegetation.
During warm months, adults occupy areas with a swift current and a maximum depth of about
one meter. Juveniles inhabit shallow riffles and runs with slower currents.
3.3 Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel)
3.3.1 Species Characteristics
The Dwarf wedgemussel is a freshwater mussel reaching up to 56mm in length, but is mostly
found under 45mm (Beans and Niles 2003). Shell shape is classified as trapezoid to ovate.
Individuals possess a small, thin shell that is somewhat inflated and thickens anteriorly. The
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 3

anterior margin is sharply curved, while the ventral margin is broadly curved to straight; the
posterior region is roundly pointed near the base. Lateral teeth are a defining characteristic of
this species, two are present on the right valve and one on the left valve (Bogan 2002, Ortmann
1919).
3.3.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Dwarf wedgemussel is endemic to the Atlantic Slope basins from New Brunswick to North
Carolina, with populations being historically located in the Neuse and Pamlico River basins in
North Carolina. This species is thought to be a habitat generalist, as it has been found in small
streams to large rivers with slow to moderate flows and occupies a variety of substrates to
include sand, gravel and firm silt (Fuller 1977).
3.4 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe)
3.4.1 Species Characteristics
The Atlantic pigtoe is a freshwater mussel reaching up to 60mm in length. This species is
characterized by having a sub -rhomboidal shaped shell with a distinct posterior ridge. The
umbo is elevated well above the dorsal margin and the beak cavity is shallow. The periostracum
is yellow to dark brown and has a parchment- like texture (Bogan 2002, Bogan and Alderman
2008). Pseudocardinal and lateral teeth are well developed except for the anterior
pseudocardinal tooth in the right valve, while the interdental tooth is absent in the left valve
(USFWS 2018b).
The Atlantic pigtoe is a tachytictic breeder, gravid females have been found from late June to
early July (Fuller 1973). Fish hosts for this species include bluegill sunfish, shield darter,
longnose dace, rosefin shiner and creek chub (Watters and O'Dee 1997, Wolf and Emrick 2011).
3.4.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Atlantic pigtoe is endemic to the southern Atlantic Slope, and is found from the Ogeechee
River Basin in Georgia to the James River Basin in Virginia. In North Carolina, this species is
known from the Catawba, Pee Dee, Cape Fear, Neuse, Pamlico and Roanoke River basins
(Johnson 1970, Bogan 2002). This species can be found in medium to large streams with clean,
swift waters and a stable gravel or sand and gravel substrate. Individuals are often found on the
downstream edge of riffle areas
3.5 Lasmigona subviridis (Green Floater)
3.5.1 Species Characteristics
The green floater is a small, thin shelled freshwater mussel that reaches a maximum length of
55mm. Individuals have a subovate shaped shell with depressed beaks that only project slightly
above the hinge line. A double -looped sculpture is present on the beak. The lateral teeth are
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 4

long, straight and thin; two lamellate pseudocardinal teeth are present on the left valve while
one is present on the right, both are directed forward of the beak and parallel with the hinge
line. The dorsal margin forms a blunt angle with the posterior margin (Bogan 2002).
The green floater is a bradytictic breeder, with a reproductive season from August to May.
Interestingly, this species is also hermaphroditic, meaning individuals contain both male and
female gonadal tissues. Host fish for this species are currently unknown.
3.5.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The green floater spans across the Atlantic slope and Interior basins, with a historical range
spanning from the Savannah River in Georgia to the Hudson River in New York, as well as in the
New, Kanawha , and Watauga Rivers. In North Carolina, this animal occurs in the Watauga,
New, Neuse, and Tar River basins. Individuals can be found in small to medium sized streams in
low flow areas, specifically in pool or eddy habitats with gravel and sand substrates.
3.6 Parvaspina steinstansana (Tar River Spinymussel)
3.6.1 Species Characteristics
Young individuals are often a shiny yellowish -brown color with greenish rays streaking outward
from the hinge area, while older individuals tend to have a brown color and rays are absent
from the shell. Short spines reaching a maximum length of 5mm are on the anterior region of
the shell and curve ventrally. Spines can be in one or two rows with up to six spines on each
valve that are symmetrical to the other valve. Shells are thicker toward the anterior end while
the posterior end is thinner, and the nacre usually fades from pink to bluish white (Johnson and
Clarke 1983, USFWS 2014).
This species is a tachytictic breeder with gravid females occurring from April to August (Widlak
1987). Fish host for this species include bluehead chub, pinewoods shiner, satinfin shiner and
white shiner (Eads and Levine 2008). Like other mussel species, these individuals are filter
feeders and forage by siphoning and filtering small food particles that are suspended in the
water.
3.6.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar and Neuse River basins in North Carolina, and is
currently only found in Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Johnston, Nash, Pitt, and Warren
Counties. This species lives in fast flowing streams with silt -free unconsolidated beds composed
of coarse sand and gravel.
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 5

3.7 Elliptio lanceolata (Yellow Lance)
3.7.1 Species Characteristics
The yellow lance is characterized by having shells twice as long as they are tall, with elongate
shells reaching up to 86mm in length. A bright yellow and waxy periostracum without rays is
present, however older individuals may have a brownish color at the posterior end. The
posterior ridge is round and curves dorsally towards the posterior end. The periostracum has
brown growth rings. Two long lateral teeth are present on the left valve and one is present on
the right, while two pseudocardinal teeth are present on each valve. The nacre is normally an
iridescent blue color shifting to white or salmon on the anterior region (USFWS 2017).
Historically many species were synonymized with yellow lance (E. lanceolata) as a part of the
lanceolate Elliptio complex, but in 2009 the yellow lance was recognized as its own species
(Bogan et al. 2009). The yellow lance is a short-term brooder that spawns in the spring. Lab
studies found that white shiners and pinewood shiners are acceptable host fish for this species,
while other members of the minnow family are also believed to serve in this role. Like other
mussels, the yellow lance is a filter feeder that has a diet consisting of phytoplankton,
zooplankton, bacteria, detritus and dissolved organic matter. (Haag 2012).
3.7.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Historically, this species was found from the Patuxent River Basin in Maryland to the Neuse
River Basin in North Carolina, ranging from the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains through
the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. In the last 10 years, individuals have only been found in the
Patuxent, Rappahannock, York, Chowan, Tar, and Neuse River Basins (USFWS 2017).
Yellow Lance can be found in clean rivers or streams with moderate flows and high dissolved
oxygen concentrations. Individuals are often found buried in coarse to medium sand, however
they have also been found in gravel substrates. Individuals tend to aggregate to sand substrates
downstream of stable sand and gravel bars.
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Field efforts were conducted by SEPI personnel Chris Sheats (Permit # 19-ES00558), Bob Lepsic
and Tori Fowler. NRWD traps were set in Middle Creek on March 2, 2020, and checked on
March 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, 2020. NRWD traps were set in the UT to Middle Creek on March 3, 2020,
and checked on March 4, 5, 6 and 7, 2020. Freshwater mussel and CMT surveys were
completed on April 8 and 10, 2020.
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 6

4.1 Methodology
4.1.1 Neuse River Waterdog Surveys
Ten traps were set on March 2, 2020 to soak in Middle Creek for five consecutive nights. Traps
1-3 were deployed upstream of the powerline easement at Arctic Ridge Way in the Arbor Creek
neighborhood. Traps 4-6 were deployed within the easement and traps 7-10 were deployed
downstream of the easement. Eleven traps (Traps 1-11) were set on March 3, 2020 to soak in
an UT to Middle Creek for four consecutive nights. Traps 1-4 were deployed upstream of the
boardwalk area, traps 5-8 were deployed starting at the boardwalk going downstream to the
confluence with the pond, and traps 9-11 were deployed downstream of the pond area. Trap
sites were selected based on habitat conditions and accessibility. Traps were checked daily
during the soaking period and, were baited and refilled as needed with a combination of
chicken livers and chicken hotdogs. All species observed in traps were recorded.
4.1.2 Freshwater Mussels and Carolina Madtom Surveys
Freshwater mussel and CMT surveys were completed on April 8, in UT to Middle Creek and on
April 10, 2020 in Middle Creek. Visual and tactile surveys were completed at each location using
bathyscopes and hand dip nets. Habitat conditions were recorded at each location.
5.0 RESULTS
5.1.1 Neuse River Waterdog
The NRWD was not found during the trapping survey efforts. Species observed in the traps
include bluehead chub, creek chub, bluegill sunfish, green sunfish, pumpkinseed sunfish, golden
shiner, pirate perch and snail bullhead (Table 1-2). Water temperature ranged from 7-8 degrees
Celsius.
Table 1. Species observed during NRWD trapping surveys in Middle Creek.
Trap
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
#
(3/3/2020)
(3/4/2020)
(3/5/2020)
(3/6/2020)
(3/7/2020)
1
1 bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus)
2
1 pirate perch
1 green sunfish (Lepomis
1 crayfish sp.
1 pirate perch
(Aphredoderus
cyanellus)
(Aphredoderus
sayanus)
sayanus)
3
3 bluehead chub
1 bluehead chub
3 bluehead
2 crayfish sp.
(Nocomis
(Nocomis leptocephalus)
chub
leptocephalus)
(Nocomis
leptocephalus)
4
1 bluehead chub
8 bluehead chub
1 bluehead
(Nocomis
(Nocomis
chub
leptocephalus)
leptocephalus),
(Nocomis
1 pirate perch
leptocephalus)
(Aphredoderus
sayanus),
1 crayfish sp.
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 7

Trap
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
#
(3/3/2020)
(3/4/2020)
(3/5/2020)
(3/6/2020)
(3/7/2020)
5
1 pumpkinseed
sunfish (Lepomis
gibbosus)
6
1 pumpkinseed
sunfish (Lepomis
gibbosus)
7
3 bluehead chub
8 bluehead chub
1 bluegill sunfish
1 bluehead
1 crayfish sp.
(Nocomis
(Nocomis
(Lepomis macrochirus),
chub
leptocephalus)
leptocephalus)
1 bluehead chub
(Nocomis
(Nocomis leptocephalus)
leptocephalus)
8
2 bluehead chub
1 golden
1 crayfish sp.
(Nocomis leptocephalus)
shiner
(Notemigonus
crysoleucas)
9
ti
10
1 bluehead chub
(Nocomis
leptocephalus)
Table 2. Species observed during NRWD trapping surveys in UT to Middle Creek.
Trap
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
#
(3/4/2020)
(3/5/2020)
(3/6/2020)
(3/7/2020)
1
2
1 creek chub (Semotilus
3 green sunfish
1 pumpkinseed sunfish
atromaculatus),
(Lepomis cyanellus),
(Lepomis gibbosus)
1 green sunfish (Lepomis
1 pumpkinseed
cyanellus),
sunfish
2 crayfish sp.
(Lepomis gibbosus)
3
1 crayfish sp.
1 bluegill sunfish (Lepomis
macrochirus),
1 green sunfish
(Lepomis cyanellus)
4
1 pumpkinseed sunfish
1 green sunfish
1 green sunfish
1 bluehead chub
(Lepomis gibbosus)
(Lepomis cyanellus)
(Lepomis cyanellus),
(Nocomis
1 crayfish sp.
leptocephalus),
2 pumpkinseed sunfish
(Lepomis gibbosus),
1 green sunfish
(Lepomis cyanellus)
5
1 green sunfish (Lepomis
1 green sunfish
2 pumpkinseed sunfish
cyanellus)
(Lepomis cyanellus)
(Lepomis gibbosus)
6
1 bluegill sunfish
1 crayfish sp.
(Lepomis
macrochirus),
1 pumpkinseed
sunfish
(Lepomis gibbosus)
7
1 bluegill sunfish
1 snail bullhead
(Lepomis macrochirus)
(Ameiurus brunneus)
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 8

Trap
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
#
(3/4/2020)
(3/5/2020)
(3/6/2020)
(3/7/2020)
8
1 pumpkinseed
4 bluegill sunfish
1 bluegill sunfish
sunfish
(Lepomis macrochirus),
(Lepomis macrochirus)
(Lepomis gibbosus),
1 green sunfish
1 bluegill (Lepomis
(Lepomis cyanellus),
macrochirus)
3 pumpkinseed sunfish
(Lepomis gibbosus)
9
1 yellow bullhead
1 green sunfish
1 bluehead chub (Nocomis
(Ameiurus natalis)
(Lepomis cyanellus)
leptocephalus)
10
1 green sunfish (Lepomis
3 bluehead chub (Nocomis
cyanellus)
leptocephalus),
1 creek chub
(Semotilus atromaculatus),
1 green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus)
11
1 green sunfish (Lepomis
1 bluehead chub
1 green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus),
(Nocomis
cyanellus),
1 creek chub (Semotilus
leptocephalus)
1 pumpkinseed sunfish
atromaculatus)
(Lepomis gibbosus),
1 bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus)
5.1.2 Freshwater Mussel and Carolina Madtom
No dwarf wedgemussel, Tar River spinymussel, yellow lance, Atlantic pigtoe, green floater or
CMT individuals were located during our survey efforts. Mussel species observed include
Eastern elliptio, Eastern floater and the Paper pondshell (Table 3-4). Asian clam was the only
clam species observed. Other species observed include pumpkinseed sunfish, bluegill sunfish,
largemouth bass, creek chubsucker, mosquitofish, tessellated darter, fantail darter, creek chub
and an unknown crayfish species (Table 3-4).
Table 3. Species observed in Middle Creek (200412.1cros) 10.5 hrs total time
Scientific Name I Common Name # Live
Abundance/CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
Elliptio complanata Eastern elliptio 106
10.10/hr
Freshwater Clams and Fish
Relative Abundance
Corbicula fluminea
Asian clam
-
common
Lepomis gibbosus
Pumpkinseed sunfish
-
common
Lepomis macrochirus
I
Bluegill sunfish
-
common
Erimyzon oblongus
Creek chubsucker
-
common
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish
-
common
Etheostoma olmstedi
Tessellated darter
-
common
Etheostoma flabellare
Fantail darter
-
common
Semotilus atromaculatus
Creek chub
-
common
The surveyed area of Middle Creek started along Creekvista Drive and extended to 100 meters
above the powerline easement along Arctic Ridge Way. The stream was 5 meters wide with
majority of the reach having depths less than 1 meter. Substrate was dominated by silt, sand,
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 9

and cobble particles. Evidence of beaver activivty was noted by the presence of gnawed
branches. Within this reach run, riffle and pool habitats were present. Water levels were
normal and visibility was clear during surveys. This site had 80% forest cover with moderate
wooded buffers and a surrounding land -use being classified as natural and urban.
Table 4. Species observed in UT to Middle Creek (200408.1cros) 6.5 hrs total time
Scientific Name Common Name # Live
Abundance/CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
Elliptio complanata
Eastern elliptio
99
15.23/hr
Pyganodon cataracta
Eastern floater
1
Utterbackia imbecillus
Paper pondshell
1
Freshwater Clams and Fish
Relative Abundance
Corbicula fluminea
Asian clam
-
common
Lepomis gibbosus
Pumpkinseed sunfish
-
common
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill sunfish
-
common
Micropterus salmoides
Largemouth bass
-
common
Erimyzon oblongus
Creek chubsucker
-
common
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish
-
common
Etheostoma olmstedi
Tessellated darter
-
common
Etheostoma flabellare
Fantail darter
-
common
Semotilus atromaculatus
Creek chub
-
common
Surveys within UT to Middle Creek started at the confluence with Middle Creek and extended
to 100 meters above the current boardwalk crossing (Figure 1). The stream width was 2 meters
with majority of the reach having depths less than 0.5 meters within the reach downstream of
the pond. Substrate was dominated by silt, sand, cobble, and gravel. Evidence of beaver activity
was noted by the presence of gnawed branches. Run, riffle, and pool habitats were present
within this reach. The stream width ranged from 2-3 meters with majority of the reach having
depths less than 0.75 meters upstream of the pond and substrate was dominated by sand and
silt. Evidence of beaver activity was noted by the presence of gnawed branches. Run and pool
habitats were dominant within the upstream reach. Water levels were normal, and visibility
was clear during surveys. This site had 70% forest cover with moderate wooded buffers and a
surrounding land -use being classified as natural and urban.
6.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The survey efforts resulted in no observations of Neuse River waterdog, Carolina madtom,
dwarf wedgemussel, Atlantic pigtoe, green floater, Tar River spinymussel or yellow lance
individuals within Middle Creek or its unnamed tributary. Mussel species observed include
Eastern elliptio, Asian clam, Eastern floater and the paper pondshell. Fish species observed
include bluehead chub, creek chub, bluegill sunfish, green sunfish, pumpkinseed sunfish, golden
shiner, creek chubsucker, mosquitofish, tessellated darter, fantail darter, largemouth bass and
snail bullhead. Based on the distances to known occurrences of the target species and the
results of these surveys, the project may affect but will not adversely affect the target species.
The survey efforts detailed in the report serve to update species information within Middle
Creek and its unnamed tributary.
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 10

Neuse River Waterdog
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Habitat for the species was observed but no individuals were found within the surveyed
reaches.
Recommended Biological Conclusion for Proposed Critical Habitat: May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
Proposed critical habitat for Neuse River waterdog is located downstream of the study area,
suggesting that the proposed project may have an effect on proposed critical habitat for this
species.
Carolina Madtom
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Habitat for the species was observed but no individuals were found within the surveyed
reaches.
Dwarf Wedgemussel
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Habitat for the species was observed but no individuals were found within the surveyed
reaches.
Atlantic Pigtoe
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Habitat for the species was observed but no individuals were found within the surveyed
reaches.
Recommended Biological Conclusion Proposed Critical Habitat: May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
Proposed critical habitat for Atlantic pigtoe is located downstream of the study area, suggesting
that the proposed project may have an effect on proposed critical habitat for this species.
Green Floater
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 11

Habitat for the species was observed but no individuals were found within the surveyed
reaches.
Tar River Spinymussel
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Habitat for the species was observed but no individuals were found within the surveyed
reaches.
Yellow Lance
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Habitat for the species was observed but no individuals were found within the surveyed
reaches.
Recommended Biological Conclusion for Proposed Critical Habitat: May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
Proposed critical habitat for yellow lance is located downstream of the study area, suggesting
that the proposed project may have an effect on proposed critical habitat for this species.
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 12

7.0 LITERATURE CITED
AmphibiaWeb. 2019. <http://amphibiaweb.org> University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Accessed 10 Apr 2019. https://amphibiaweb.org/search/index.html
Beans, BE and Niles, L. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of New Jersey. Rutgers
University Press. 303pp.
Bogan, AE. 2002. Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Freshwater Mussel Conservation Partnership, Raleigh, NC 101 pp, 10 color
plates.
Bogan, AE and Alderman, J. 2008. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of South
Carolina. Revised Second Edition.
Bogan, A.E., J.Levine, and M.Raley. 2009. Determination of the systematic position and
relationships of the lanceolate Elliptio complex (Molluscs: Bivalvia: Unionidae) from six
river basins in Virginia. NC Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC. 37pp.
Brimley, CS. 1924. The waterdogs (Necturus) of North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell
Scientific Society 40: 166-168.
Burr, BM, Kuhajda, BR, Dimmick, WW, Grady, JM. 1989. Distribution, Biology, and Conservation
Status of the Carolina Madtom, Noturus furiosus, an Endemic North Carolina Catfish.
Brimleyana 15:57-86.
Conant, R and Collins, JT. 1998. A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and
Central North America. Third Edition, Expanded. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston,
Massachusetts.
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•
Fuller, SLH. 1973. Fusconaia mosoni (Conrad 1834) (Bivalvia: Unionacea) in the Atlantic drainage
of the Southeastern United States. Malacological Review 6:105-117.
Fuller, SLH. 1977. Freshwater and terrestrial mollusks. In: John E. Cooper, Sarah S. Robinson,
John B. Fundeburg (eds.) Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North
Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Haag, W. 2012. North American Freshwater Mussels: Natural History, Ecology, and
Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY.
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 13

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(6):263-449.
Johnson, R.I. and Clarke, A. H. 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.
Menhinick, EF. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)a. Division of Water Resources.
2019. 2018 North Carolina Final 303(d) List. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-data-assessment/integrated-
report-files
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)b. Online GIS NPDES Stormwater
Permits. Accessed March 23, 2020. https://data-
ncdenr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/aec2efd4lf844be499db8adef43f9fd3_0
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2020. Natural Heritage Element
Occurrence. February 2020.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2007. Carolina madtom species profile. Raleigh,
NC.https://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/O/Conserving/documents/Carolina_madtom_fac
t_sheet_lo_res.pdf
Ortmann, A.E. 1919. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III: Systematic account
of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1):xvi-384, 21 pls.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) 5-Year
Review: Summary and Evaluation. Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Species status assessment report for the Yellow Lance
(Elliptio lanceolata). Version 1.2. March, 2017. Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018a. Species status assessment report for the Carolina
Madtom (Noturus furiosus). Version 1.1. November 2018. Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for
Atlantic Pigtoe. 50 CFR 17: 83 FIR 51570, 51570-51609 Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-
0046.
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
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 14

Endangered Species Status for Carolina Madtom and Proposed Designation of Critical
Habitat. 50 CFR 17:84 FR 23644, 23644-23691 Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092.
Watters, G.T. and S.H. O'Dee 1997. Identification of potential host: Elliptio fisheriana (Lea,
1838), Fusconaia masoni (Conrad, 1834), Fusconaia flava (Rafinesque, 1820), and
Pleurobema clava (Lamarck, 1819). Triannual Unionid Report No. 13:38.
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, ED and Emrick V. 2011. Propagation and Culture of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe.
Arbor Creek Greenway Aquatic Survey Report June 2020
Page 15

r_1124.LBI►:V_i
Figures

NLA
*
�,�
Ally
#+5�
Holly Springs
R
i + - : � • �
Box zen : Esr.i, H-F-RE, C-armin, .
C-REMET-T P. NRCen, F-sri
to
Jr
i• 'may' �■ "' �
+
" Rp
, `W.
-_
+a
Bridge #'I
" Project Study Area
-
Aquatic Su ryeys Reach
41
i
Prepared By:
Prepared F«:
�s,x J1u
vi xc e_
i=lure
Arbor Creek Greenway Project
--
S P I
�' y Hf7T TN-
SPRTTtic,P
Vicinity Map and Survey Location
Middle Greek and UT Middle Greek
o
225 45.;
E
from the vicinity of Sunset Lake Road
to Lockley Road:
ke County! North Carolina
May20M

s
-..
U W
4P r
tr
} ,
Ry
4 Y ��
r �k iF
fibH! Maki EO #21412
P%+
�ry[y
z 1L
V ¢
r
t y cr V rL
HW,. kq p Op
J• yl 9
011eonn i.i >ti; 'war_
VT
,,ry 4F EO#10676 1i
dr}
O see
Alp
-rxi,rrO
IL
EO #8258
E4 #21894°"
EO #34 95
F
E4 #13799
+* y
% RW
Su ,y
de NMI �
= Project Studx .area
Tar River spinymussel r� "Olt
.Atlantic plgtoe
Yellavv lance
D'rvarf ,wedge mu ssel t 4
Neuse River,uaterdog wk,�
Sourfles: Esri, HE.F-to t�a, Irx'CREMEtCT ri
Crean floater n �F Lp
Jeri, M£rl, EsViChina , cng �j,Esri ea, Fsri IThailend), NOC
Carolina
m3dtom
Op,pStreetMa� .tributors, and GISLrser Community, Esri, ffERE..
_ q�armin.r*Oper4Steeetrs'lap ributars,andMeGISusercommunity 10
Prepared By:
Prepared Far:
{}esn�cd 3y
ieoud D -
Figure
Arbor Creek Greenway Project
P I
HfTT T,l'
IF TTti N
NNHP Element Occurrences
Middle Creek and UT Middle Creek
�,
D 9 2
from the vicinity of Sunset Lake Road
� Miles
to Lockley Road
Mike Co u nty, H orth C a ro iin a
11�3�:
�°�°

11 ka Ad
x fi*
7 - 4 4 .r F' }• �'I _. S y s n 0Tw
.
`a n rkl
t d
Fib 05'
LW D lld J 1�
%.
r 4
u '
--A
po 4 S+
u YOJ
vpls + tia
Cary a 9 mom.
1� 4e "rp, � mom u
g} P ht*f 6.1. Pod°JFQ a
0 p
HRH Qll GM
,,ly'
' ? i' .• s •F. ' 511
Dr
yCP Jr— .4+ r wyai Hu ii
y e jVj E
O
2[`
m
e #
a �
i}¢
'ya Stifl Nacin� ilrliu ti
Fc
ti � fQilF �J.714 i '
Ian ��e• a
Project Stud,-- Area SoLraes: Esri, HERE, GaFmin, U , Inter INCREMEtCT P, NRCsn, Esri
japsn,METI, EsriChina ;Hong K g}Esri Kor Fsri Jhailerd), NGCC, Lc7
Atlantic pigtoe Proposed Critical Habitat OpenStfeetrO9p mr.Libutars, and be&IsU er C munity, F-50. HERE, -
Garmin, rq) OpenStF�tr%lap ten. butors, and the sercxxnmunity
Prepared By:
F7epered Far:
��dBy
FigureArbor
reek raenway Project
--
Ld
_
Pti
S
Hf7T TN
sT�rzTr:N
Proposed Critical Habitat
Middle Creek and UT Middle Creek
u -
fro mthe vicinity of sunset Lake Road
to Lockley Roam
mot:
VlhkeCounty,NorthCaroEEna
way =

46,
%
4 N
�¢
4'
'r '; •J rRC Sin rkl Rainnl���4
Y * d
l
�
mr,r6wpa 41'� LWiR YL� � J �� a 4 MI
ar
rypy�
I'
- Caryl"{ e
q x w ti
ifrP All Ib S
qw
Dr
F'.9J Y � S`
_x• lwr H,A HJ 4-
,p
,hhti.
;+ E
AL
;{:
#
{
•
t
r'
'
r
?1} a
+l,1
'y-1 Rd Naci.,,q i1�'71 �'S
J Fcmu 4aYSi
I
:a_I t
Project Study Area ;a SoLroes: Esri, HFRE, Garm in, L'S # , Inter IrrCREMEKTP, XRCan, Esri
apan,METI, air iChina ;Hong kC gj,Esri Kflr Esri ;Thailandj, fdGCC, tc?
Neuse Riverwaterdog Proposed Critical H3Mit3t Op�enStfeeVdap mnbdbutcrs, and 1Siiser C munity, Esri, -rERE, -
C-ermin, {c} OpenStreetf-lap ion. butars, and the C %.ui-er community
Prepared By:
Prepared Far:
'QrcYjx!d Dy
Lim {_-dDy
Arbor Creek Greenway Project
Figure
P I
sTYrzTr ;,s
Proposed Critical Habitat
Middle Creek and UT (diddle Creek
+
from the vicinity of SI_InsetLake Road4
to LocNey Road
Vr k&Coaaty, North Carolina
— `•_-

iod%
i
t, -gyp
'F { •J fR4; ; r Fo111.51,
in nkl&nrf } xkp
r �q
C{'•
P
{('� Cr+5R 11� 4 ��
* ; }
� �
Q I '
Nor 90n►' .• U,
W-Pr �'6I. P061-9Jhq s 'o
_ R _ 0b
rN"�PY+tKp.
'+4 �� S
kRM
,fit•{
Iftb.1 Br
r fiF
+ Far' fiy Myt1� H 6 *i
A
_ i
4'r�F
R
46
De
Ix
Rff
'x� ��b Na[i,11�Alvlluh
Chic �*
r - Hd
FaurOskG
I #
'1pi51r{}ri Qn '99" p#0
L
LL 1{{ I
Study Area Souses: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Lrs^ , Inter INCREMENT P, WRCan, ESri
F3Project
Japan,METI, EsriChins ;Hong Kar Tsri ;Thailand}, NC -CC, tc?
�g},Esri
YeIlo;nr lance Proposed Critical HaMaf Oper.StreetrOap �r.tributoFs, and a GIS Ltser C munity, SSri, HERE, -
Garmin, 10 OpenStreeffOap mn twtars, and the - sercomm unity
Prepared By:
Prepaf2d Fnr:
4caicdBy:
erredGy
Figure
Arbor Creek Greenway Project
var
P I
POT T,Y
ti SMTK S
Proposed Critical Habitat
Middle Creek and UT Middle Creek
. Q
D 1 2
from the vicinity of Sunset Lake Road
MEN=r4rkEs
to Lockley Road
vex.
MkeCounty, North CaroktnEt
May 2a2O

nl
11L�
� r,1r'r--,Y �7 f11�1115
I �I N C G 1 J 00 9 �a.sV 0r g L r, 6r I?
} fr%4° k.f
a e
= ti,,s Ws ?+i, T.. rd
o
T. -
Y;
Y: S OL �Ie
It N.,Il n,
RJ
hLtd'r Rn c
;ti:YG fo 8alnl. koy f.
.y,. RI49- Mrs 6
caul41,1-1 P:
6 Y
u
�
Od, r.4r
.r4 lly Y
w r
9� L,
II{:II�=�JrC
+y
9 :•3. 3P v 71�01{....II Itn{a
,r
Ar''}xry• _
Frlb. a
Illanll2lr r'n7 G" r CJr.p LI
tcruT,n
.Z "1�o b. `] +�, Lra �I LII 'A n4,IF AUA
J 1 WWII"
s
Stu {•Ilh. r, _ _ �n C' o
_ �I { * •`:' x' ,hut
E by `
'far7. I
- .,.. c
a`
n � •
cxa dl �
a
_
L ri h r Pjrf lCr ;ref z
'xa
r F �•yF £ •L �,
utl #�L •i4 V N
IiA � ar
y-I I'.nliS.h lPW,r1 Rllcllr{ram'YPN .. r R., _
4 +tA
b
rr f+Y {*4+ g II 4f
VIa.,. r, L.
E
G = Cft:yn
rl„ 61
- r II
J-
PrOJECt StLIdy.Area ¢ J Who- = Scir.l : Esri, 4-kERE',!Garmin,-USG3, Intermap, INCREMEVTT', NRCen, Lri
r
5 1�par.,MEY I, EsriChMm ,Hong }Gong), Esri Koree, Esri (T#Iailand),?�E3DCC, A
hJPDES Discharges
OpenStreef{Pi@.pcontrit}jf aWhe615 User Comuiun`6, Esri, iiERE.
R! Garr*. {q Op%nStreetMap rc Y� butm, end the G IS user coni,TUn ity
Prepared By:
Prepere:i Far:
a�xd ay:
xud ay:
FgEire
Arbor Creek Greenway Project
VCF
GMS
NDPES Discharges
r l
PS�_
FOTT,l'
ti T'RTTtit ��
S
Middle Creek and UTRrliddle Creek
9 50U1,UOfl
fromthe vicinity of SLinset La-.e Road
Feet
to Lockley Road
keCounty, North Carolina
rt!:
v2a2a

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Arbor Creek Greenway
February 27, 2020
NCNHDE-11494
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area _
axonomic Scientific Iram ommon Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status
Date Rank
Amphibian 11840 Ambystoma tigrinum Eastern Tiger 1995-10 H? 3-Medium --- Threatened
Salamander
Vascular Plant 23424 Didiplis diandra Water Purslane
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area
Global State
Rank Rank
G5 S2
1995-12-13 E 2-High --- Significantly G5 S1
Rare
Peripheral
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Town of Cary Open Space Town of Cary Local Government
Town of Holly Springs Open Space Town of Holly Springs Local Government
Town of Holly Springs Open Space - Future Park Town of Holly Springs Local Government
Site
Town of Cary Open Space Town of Cary Local Government
Town of Holly Springs Open Space Town of Holly Springs Local Government
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 httos://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/content/help. Data query generated on February 27, 2020; source: NCNHP, Q1 Jan 2020.
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 5

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Arbor Creek Greenway
February 27, 2020
NCNHDE-11494
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name ast Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
A Date Rank
Amphibian 11840 Ambystoma tigrinum Eastern Tiger 1995-10 H? 3-Medium --- Threatened G5 S2
Salamander
Dragonfly or 32043 Coryphaeschna ingens Regal Darner 2004-Pre H? 5-Very --- Significantly G5 S2?
Damselfly Low Rare
Vascular Plant 23424 Didiplis diandra Water Purslane 1995-12-13 E 2-High --- Significantly G5 S1
Rare
Peripheral
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
Town of Cary Open Space
Town of Cary
Triangle Greenways Council Preserve
Triangle Greenways Council
Town of Holly Springs Open Space
Town of Holly Springs
Town of Holly Springs Open Space - Future Park
Town of Holly Springs
Site
Town of Cary Open Space
Town of Cary
Town of Holly Springs Open Space
Town of Holly Springs
Town of Holly Springs Open Space - Jones Park
Town of Holly Springs
Triangle Greenways Council Preserve
Triangle Greenways Council
Town of Holly Springs Open Space - Veterans Park
Town of Holly Springs
Town of Holly Springs Open Space
Town of Holly Springs
Town of Holly Springs Greenway
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County Open Space - Feltonsville Park
Wake County
Local Government
Private
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Private
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/content/help. Data query generated on February 27, 2020; source: NCNHP, Q1 Jan 2020.
Page 3 of 5

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 4 of 5

NCNHDE-11494: Arbor Creek Greenway
0 0
-
o �
7 ft }ion r
a:
a
-
i
a
_
Sunset
CitUN r3ran�tr
�taY Rh
- -
J
e`F
ArOW
eek
�
-
4
r;r
t Vet
Rd -"<9
01,
A,ntcd5'
D _
``
�1m
�
w�
Q 55
m v -
Ys Dr
-
Devil's Ridge
�1101IXSAnr"9s
Goff Club
Thomas k4ill'Rd
Rd r liottY S41rrn, Rd
Holly rings
N
-
�N
,eke
WE
n
Edge inset Lake
L
�d
S
February 27, 2020
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
1:33,236
0 0.275 0.55 1.1 mi
0 0.45 0.9 1.8 km
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community
Page 5 of 5