The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20231413 Ver 1_ACCOMPANYING PCN PACKAGE - OLD MILBURNIE ROAD GASLINE REPAIR_20231017Dominion Energy North Carolina 2020 Energy Drive Apex, North Carolina 27502 1 of 2 Attention: Lyle Phillips Wake County – Raleigh – Project Manager george.l.phillips@usace.army.mil October 17, 2023 United States Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Office 3331 Hermitage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources Section 401 & Buffer Permit Office 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 Attention: Zack Thomas Environmental Program Consultant zachary.thomas@deq.nc.gov RE: Pre-Construction Notification for Authorization Under Nationwide Permit No. 3 and Water Quality Certification General Certification No. 4239 Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Dominion Energy North Carolina Wake County, North Carolina Dear Mr. Phillips and Mr. Thomas, In accordance with the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) requirements, Dominion Energy North Carolina (DENC) is submitting the enclosed support materials pursuant to issuance of the aforementioned Nationwide Permit (NWP) and Water Quality Certification (WQC) General Certification (GC) authorization. The project entails restoration, repair, and reinforcement of an exposed segment of natural gas pipeline off Old Milburnie Road in Wake County, North Carolina. Project implementation will require a minimum disturbance width of approximately 20 feet or the width of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) right-of-way (ROW) to the edge of pavement, whichever is the lesser of the two. The anticipated overall limits of disturbance (LOD) is approximately less than one acre. It is anticipated, due to the nature of the proposed project, that minor permanent and temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters and riparian buffers will occur. Based on our understanding of project, written authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) under NWP No. 3 and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) WQC GC No. 4239 is required prior to construction. Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact Joey Lawler of S&ME at 704.604.6474/ jalwler@smeinc.com, or Staci Rogge with DENC at 804.381.8398 / Staci.L.Rogge@dominionenergy.com at your earliest convenience if you have questions or need additional information regarding this request. Dominion Energy North Carolina 2020 Energy Drive Apex, North Carolina 27502 2 of 2 Sincerely, Staci Rogge Dominion Energy North Carolina Attachments: PCN prepared by S&ME Cc: Angel Flores (DENC) Joey Lawler, PWS (S&ME) Rebeckah Sims, PWS (S&ME) List of Supporting Information Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair  Appendix I – Project Information  Appendix II - Figures  Appendix III - Site Photographs  Appendix IV - Delineation Information and Agent Authorization Form  Appendix V - Stream/Riparian Buffer Impact Exhibits and Typical Construction Details  Appendix VI - General Restoration Plan  Appendix VII – NCNHP and USFWS IPaC Reports; Three Oaks Engineering Aquatic Species Survey Report Appendix I Project Information Project Information Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 23350474 1 General Project Information, Purpose and Need S&ME is submitting this pre-construction notification (PCN) on behalf of Dominion Energy North Carolina (DENC) to inform you of work they plan to conduct in order repair and reinforce an exposed segment of natural gas pipeline. The project area consists of a portion of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) right-of-way (ROW) on the east side of Old Milburnie Road, south of Hodges Mill Creek in Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina. The purpose and need of the project is to restore, repair, and reinforce the exposed segment of high- pressure natural gas pipeline, which lies in an eroding segment of unnamed intermittent tributary draining to Hodges Mill Creek, just downstream of the exposure. The intermittent tributary originates at a headcut below a riprap lined roadside drainage ditch, then flows through a short segment of eroded channel to Hodges Mill Creek. The project will also inhibit erosion within the channel to prevent the re-exposure of the pipe in the future. The project as proposed will require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The applicable authorizations are Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 3 (Maintenance) and Water Quality Certification (WQC) General Certification (GC) No. 4239, respectively. The project will also require authorization for impacts to riparian buffers subject to the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Protection Rules. A signed Agent Authorization Form is included in Appendix I. Existing Conditions The project area is located in the Neuse River Basin Milburnie Lake-Neuse River subwatershed (030202010703). The appropriate USGS Topographic Map and USGS National Hydrography Data and National Wetland Inventory exhibits (Figures 2 and 3) depict Hodges Mill Creek (NCDWR Index No. 27- 26-1-(2); classified as C (aquatic life, secondary contact recreation, freshwater) and nutrient sensitive water (NSW)) just north of the project area. The predominant soil types mapped within the project area are depicted on Figure 4 and include Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (ChA); Rawlings-Rion complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes (RgB); Rawlings-Rion complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes (RgC); and Rawlings-Rion complex, 10 to 15 percent slopes (RgD). These soil types are not considered hydric with the exception of Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, which are considered partially hydric. The published soil survey (Figure 5) also depicts Hodges Mill Creek and a drainage feature just east of the project area. Review of the LiDAR Exhibit (Figure 6) confirms the stream features observed in the location of features depicted on the previous exhibits (Appendix II). The project area vicinity consists primarily of residential development and roadways, wooded and riparian areas, and open fields. Representative photographs of existing conditions within the project area and features are included in Appendix III. Project Information Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 23350474 2 Field Survey Jurisdictional features located within the project area were delineated by S&ME on July 27, 2023. The delineation was conducted utilizing currently accepted methods for wetland determination, as set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement. When necessary, stream assessments were conducted in accordance with NCDWR and USACE guidelines. Three jurisdictional streams (S1-S3) were identified in the field. The jurisdictional features associated with this project are summarized in Table 1 below and depicted on the Figure 7. Table 1: Summary of Delineated Features Feature ID Feature Type Feature Description/Notes S1 Stream Small, intermittent, ditch-like stream where the pipe exposure is located. S1 flows to the northeast conferencing with S2. S2 Stream Perennial stream, known as Hodges Mill Creek, that flows from east to west located north of the project area. S3 Stream Small, intermittent stream that flows northeast conferencing with S2, located outside of the proposed project area. Information related to a delineation concurrence and an Agency Authorization letter are included in Appendix IV. Construction Sequence Construction will first involve demarcation of clearing limits, jurisdictional boundaries, and other associated workspaces, etc. Once the limits of disturbance (LOD) has been demarcated, minor brush clearing or side-trimming of vegetation abutting the NCDOT ROW may occur. Where necessary, adjacent environmental resources will be protected by use of temporary measures such as staked waddles, compost filter socks, or other less-invasive siltation barriers that can temporarily be installed during this phase of the project. Following preparation of the work area and installation of necessary Erosion and Sediment Control (E&SC) measures, the streambed at the exposure location will be prepared and work will occur “in the dry.” The repair work will be performed from one lane of the roadway and the adjacent shoulder. The exposed pipeline area will be stabilized with a downstream grade control structure in the form of a redi-rock concrete unit, with the exposed pipe backfilled using controlled low strength material (clsm) and the existing roadside ditch upstream of the exposure reconstructed with concrete and riprap. Downstream of the redi-rock section, a riprap apron will be installed to stabilize the area prior to reintroduction to the channel by way of the existing flow path. After construction, any temporary fills will be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-construction elevations. The areas affected by temporary fills will be revegetated, as appropriate. All work within the stream will be conducted in accordance with the applicable general conditions of the permits. Best management practices (BMPs) will be employed to help prevent siltation or inadvertent Project Information Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 23350474 3 discharges to a Water of the U.S. Impact exhibits that depict the proposed stream and buffer impacts and typical construction details associated with project are included Appendix V. Proposed Project Impacts Project impacts to the delineated streams are summarized in Table 2. Stream impacts will result from temporary disturbance and permanent impacts through placement of material to repair and reinforce a segment of exposed pipeline. Any temporarily disturbed areas outside of the proposed repair and stabilization area will be returned to pre-existing conditions. Note that although Streams S2 and S3 were delineated based on its proximity to the project area, no impacts to these streams will occur. Table 2: Summary of Delineated Stream Impacts Stream ID Impact Description Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts Linear Feet (LF) Ac. LF Ac. S1 Grade control structure and fill to cover exposure 0 0.0 21 0.0017 S1 Temporary disturbance 16 0.0015 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 16 0.0015 21 0.0017 Additional Protected Areas The project area is located in the Neuse River Basin and therefore is subject to riparian buffer protection rules. These rules apply to perennial and intermittent streams, ponds and lakes located in the watershed, if these features are shown on either the most recent printed version of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey map or the most recent version of the USGS 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) topographic quadrangle map. Stream S1 is not subject to Neuse River Riparian Buffer Protection Rules, as it is not identified on either the USDA-NRCS soil survey map or USGS 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle map. Hodges Mill Creek and S3 are subject to the buffer rules, although riparian buffer impacts associated with S3 are not anticipated. In accordance with the Table of Uses associated with the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Protection Rule, protection of existing structures when this requires additional disturbance of the riparian buffer or the stream channel are allowable upon authorization. Further, the proposed project will occur within a portion of riparian buffer where a use is existing and ongoing. The exposed gasline is located within an existing easement (i.e., the NCDOT ROW) and is not proposed for conversion to a different use. The proposed impacts will result from temporary disturbance within the buffer where equipment will work to make the repairs. Table 3: Summary of Temporary Riparian Buffer Impacts Stream ID Zone 1 Impacts (Square Feet (SF)) Zone 2 Impacts (SF) S2 (Hodges Mill Creek) 418 363 Project Information Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 23350474 4 Avoidance and Minimization To minimize impacts to Waters of the U.S., DENC has proposed to limit the workspace to the NCDOT ROW and eliminate additional temporary workspace where tree clearing or additional riparian buffer impacts would occur. Additionally, construction equipment operating near the stream will be limited to that necessary for repair work and restoration activities. Following construction, temporarily-affected streambanks will be restored in accordance with the project construction documents. Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate permits, no fills or spoils of any kind will be permanently placed along streambanks. Additional details are provided in the General Restoration Plan (Appendix VI). The project has been designed to incorporate appropriate erosion and sediment control practices outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Erosion and Sedimentation Control Planning and Design Manual” and approved by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) prior to construction. Mitigation Because the project will not result in less than 40 linear feet/0.02 acre of permanent stream impacts and affected areas will be restored upon completion of the work, compensatory stream mitigation is not required. Because the project will not result in wetland impacts, compensatory wetland mitigation is not required. Based on the appropriate Table of Uses in the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Protection Rules, the project is allowable upon authorization and does not require buffer mitigation. Federally Protected Species To assist you with determining compliance with applicable sections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543), S&ME submitted a request for information to the NCNHP. The NCNHP responded with a July 28, 2023 report that listed element occurrences, natural areas, and managed areas within the project area and within a one-mile radius of the project area. The NCNHP database review did not identify records of element occurrences, natural areas, or managed areas within the project area. The NCNHP database review identified two (2) element occurrences (which do not hold a federal protection status), one (1) natural area, and three (3) managed areas documented within a one-mile radius of the project area. The natural area is the Lake Mirl Granitic Flatrocks. The managed areas are the City of Raleigh Open Spaces – Hodges Mill Creek Property, Planned Neighborhood Park NPS-16, and Watkins Road Community Park. S&ME also consulted the USFWS IPaC database system for a list of species that are known or expected to be near the project area. The IPaC report identified the following species as having potential to be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. Project Information Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 23350474 5 Table 4: Federally Protected Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Habitat Present? Perimyotis subflavus Tricolored Bat Proposed E In adjacent wooded areas Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker E No Necturus lewisi Neuse River Waterdog T In Hodges Mill Creek Noturus furiosus Carolina Madtom E In Hodges Mill Creek Fusconaia masoni Atlantic Pigtoe T In Hodges Mill Creek Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf Wedgemussel E In Hodges Mill Creek Danaus plexippus Monarch Butterfly C No Rhus michauxii Michaux’s Sumac E No Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle BGEPA No BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; C = Candidate; E = Endangered; T = Threatened Descriptions of the relevant species taken from USFWS sources are provided below. Copies of the NCNHP and USFWS IPaC reports are included in Appendix VII. Tricolored Bat Status: Proposed Endangered Biological Determination: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect The tricolored bat is small, varying from 2.8 to 3.4 inches long with a wingspan of 8 to 10 inches. It is distinguished by its unique tricolored fur which often appears yellowish to nearly orange. The species range stretches from the eastern and central United States north to southern Canada, and south into Central America. This species overwinters in caves and abandoned mine shafts but is known to frequently roost in road-associated culverts in the southern United States where caves are scarce. During the spring, summer, and fall - collectively referred to as the non-hibernating seasons - tricolored bats primarily roost among live and dead leaf clusters of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees. In the southern and northern portions of the range, tricolored bats will also roost in Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides) and Usnea trichodea lichen, respectively. In addition, tricolored bats have been observed roosting during summer among pine needles, eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), within artificial roosts like barns, beneath porch roofs, bridges, concrete bunkers, and rarely within caves. Female tricolored bats exhibit high site fidelity, returning year after year to the same summer roosting locations. Female tricolored bats form maternity colonies and switch roost trees regularly, while males roost singularly. Riparian areas and roost habitat with a closed canopy has been shown to be preferred by tricolored bat. The species tends to avoid deep woods or open field habitat. Foraging is often done over water bodies such as rivers or lakes where insect populations are typically highest. Project Information Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 23350474 6 Adjacent wooded portions of the project area and the bridge over Hodges Mill Creek exhibited suitable habitat for tricolored bat. This species is listed as Proposed for Endangered; therefore, it is not currently subject to Section 7 consultation. However, this species may be up-listed as early as the fall of 2023. With respect to tricolored bat, it is our opinion that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect this species for the following reasons: Although limited side-trimming for implementation of the proposed project will occur, efforts will be made to avoid clearing during the active season; We are aware of no records of tricolored bat in the vicinity of the project area; and Ample forested areas are located in the greater vicinity. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Status: Endangered Biological Determination: No Effect The red-cockaded woodpecker is a small bird measuring approximately seven inches in length. The bird is identified by the black and white barred back, white cheek patch, and by the red “cockade” feathers. These red feathers are limited to the male birds of the species and can only be seen when the male bird is disturbed or otherwise excited. Red-cockaded woodpeckers require open mature forests of pine, generally approximately 60 to 120 years old, for roosting. These birds need large, live older pines in which they can excavate their nesting cavities. Long leaf pines are preferred, but other species of pine can also be acceptable. Dense stands or stands with dense understories are avoided. The red-cockaded woodpecker forages in pine and pine hardwood stands 30 years old or older, preferring stands with pine trees 10 inches or larger in diameter. Clusters of cavity trees can include one or more cavity trees with an average of 10 cavities on 3-60 acres. Sufficient foraging habitat can be provided on 80 to 125 acres. It is threatened by hardwood mid-story encroachment and a lack of suitable mature trees for nesting. Suitable nesting or foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker was not observed in the project area. Based on our pedestrian field review, it is not anticipated that this project will affect this species. Neuse River Waterdog Status: Threatened Biological Determination: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect The Neuse River waterdog is a permanently aquatic salamander which can reach 11 inches in length. It has a reddish brown body with an irregular pattern of large blue or black spots. The waterdog has a laterally compressed tail which is the same color as the body. The belly is typically a dull brown or grey color with spots similar to those elsewhere on the body. Adults of the species have elongated heads with square noses, cylindrical trunks, and three dark-red, bushy gills protruding from the side of the head. The limbs are rather small with four toes on each foot, unlike most salamanders which have five toes per back foot. This species breeds annually, mating in the fall or winter with females spawning in the spring. The waterdog prefers low to moderate gradient streams and low current velocity. It requires clean, flowing water with high dissolved oxygen levels due to their lack of lungs and reliance on their external gills for oxygen. This species is found in larger waterbodies (greater than 45 feet) but had been found in smaller Project Information Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 23350474 7 creeks. Threats to this species include siltation, pollution from industrial and urban developments, low dissolved oxygen levels, and non-point pollution sources. Hodges Mill Creek exhibited potentially suitable habitat for the Neuse River waterdog. Although Hodges Mill Creek will not be directly affected by the project, its proximity to the unnamed tributary warranted further assessment to determine if the project will indirectly affect the Neuse River waterdog. Accordingly, S&ME contracted Three Oaks Engineering to conduct a survey of the reach. Results of the Three Oaks assessment are detailed in an August 30, 2023 report (included in Appendix VII). No individuals of the Neuse River waterdog were identified during the survey. Three Oaks Engineering concluded that although the surveyed portion of Hodges Mill Creek contains physical habitat attributes that could support the target aquatic species, none were found during these efforts. Although the presence of this species cannot be altogether ruled out, the smaller size of the stream and heavy sand deposition may serve as limiting factors to colonization. Given the results of the survey and the lack of known records in the stream, the presence of the targeted protected aquatic species is unlikely in Hodges Mill Creek. Therefore, it is our conclusion that the project may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect the listed aquatic species. Carolina Madtom Status: Endangered Biological Determination: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect The Carolina madtom is a small catfish reaching a maximum length of nearly five inches. The madtom has a short, chunky body. This species has three dark saddles along its back which connects a wide, black stripe along its side extending from the snout to the base of the tail. There is an additional dark blotch on the adipose fin which can give the impression of a forth saddle. Yellowish to tan blotches space the saddle while the rest of the fish is tan. The belly is not speckled and the tail has crescent-shaped brown bands near the edge and center. Its pectoral fins have well defined serrated projections along the margins with stinging spine in its pectoral fins. This species occurs in riffles, runs, and pools in medium to large streams and rivers. It prefers fresh waters with continuous, year-round flow and moderate gradient. Optimal substrate is predominantly silt-free, stable, gravel and cobble bottom habitat with cover for nest sites. Threats to this species include declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, deterioration of instream habitats, and expansion by the predator Flathead catfish. Human caused increases in river water temperatures have been identified as a factor in the decline of the madtom. Hodges Mill Creek exhibited potentially suitable habitat for the Carolina madtom. Although Hodges Mill Creek will not be directly affected by the project, its proximity to the unnamed tributary warranted further assessment to determine if the project will indirectly affect the Carolina madtom. Accordingly, S&ME contracted Three Oaks Engineering to conduct a survey of the reach. Results of the Three Oaks assessment are detailed in an August 30, 2023 report (included in Appendix VII). No individuals of the Carolina madtom were identified during the survey. Three Oaks Engineering concluded that although the surveyed portion of Hodges Mill Creek contains physical habitat attributes that could support the target aquatic species, none were found during these efforts. Although the presence of this species cannot be altogether ruled out, the smaller size of the stream and heavy sand deposition may serve as limiting factors to colonization. Given the results of the survey and the lack of known records in the stream, the presence of the targeted protected aquatic species is unlikely in Hodges Mill Creek. Therefore, it is our conclusion that the project may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect the listed aquatic species. Project Information Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 23350474 8 Atlantic Pigtoe Status: Threatened Biological Determination: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect The Atlantic pigtoe is a freshwater mussel which rarely exceeds two inches in length. The shell is a rhombus shape similar to that of a horse or pig’s hoof. The outer shell is yellow to dark brown in color and parchment like with a distinct posterior edge. The inner shell is iridescent blue to salmon, white, or orange. Young individuals may have greenish rays across the shell surface. The Atlantic pigtoe has interlocking hinge teeth in the inside of the shell to keep the valves in proper alignment. This species prefers course sand and gravel and is rarely found in silt or detritus substrates. Historically this species was most often found in small creeks to larger rivers with excellent water quality where the stream flow is sufficient to maintain clean, silt-free substrates. Threats to this species include non-point and point sources of pollution, sedimentation, and the construction of dams. Hodges Mill Creek exhibited potentially suitable habitat for the Atlantic pigtoe. Although Hodges Mill Creek will not be directly affected by the project, its proximity to the unnamed tributary warranted further assessment to determine if the project will indirectly affect the Atlantic pigtoe. Accordingly, S&ME contracted Three Oaks Engineering to conduct a survey of the reach. Results of the Three Oaks assessment are detailed in an August 30, 2023 report (included in Appendix VII). No individuals of the Atlantic pigtoe were identified during the survey. Three Oaks Engineering concluded that although the surveyed portion of Hodges Mill Creek contains physical habitat attributes that could support the target aquatic species, none were found during these efforts. Although the presence of this species cannot be altogether ruled out, the smaller size of the stream and heavy sand deposition may serve as limiting factors to colonization. Given the results of the survey and the lack of known records in the stream, the presence of the targeted protected aquatic species is unlikely in Hodges Mill Creek. Therefore, it is our conclusion that the project may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect the listed aquatic species. Dwarf Wedgemussel Status: Endangered Biological Determination: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect The dwarf wedgemussel is a small bivalve mussel which rarely exceeds 1.75 inches in length. Young shells are greenish-brown with green rays. As the mussel ages, the shell color becomes obscured by algae or mineral deposits and appears brown or black. The anterior end is rounded while the posterior end is angular and forms a point. The nacre is bluish-white. The most distinctive shell character is the arrangement of the lateral teeth. There are two lateral teeth in the right valve and one in the left valve. Their foot and other organs are white. This species is a generalist in terms of habitat. It has been identified in small streams less than 15 feet wide to large rivers and can be found in a variety of substrates including gravel, clay, sand, and pebble. It usually inhabits hydrologically stable areas such as the shallow water along streambanks and under root mats. Threats to this species include riparian disturbance, pollution, sedimentation, impoundments, artificial flow regimes, and stream fragmentation. Toxic effects from industrial, domestic, and agricultural pollution are the primary threats to this species. Hodges Mill Creek exhibited potentially suitable habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel. Although Hodges Mill Creek will not be directly affected by the project, its proximity to the unnamed tributary warranted further assessment to determine if the project will indirectly affect the dwarf wedgemussel. Accordingly, S&ME contracted Three Oaks Engineering to conduct a survey of the reach. Results of the Three Oaks Project Information Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 23350474 9 assessment are detailed in an August 30, 2023 report (included in Appendix VII). No individuals of the dwarf wedgemussel were identified during the survey. Three Oaks Engineering concluded that although the surveyed portion of Hodges Mill Creek contains physical habitat attributes that could support the target aquatic species, none were found during these efforts. Although the presence of this species cannot be altogether ruled out, the smaller size of the stream and heavy sand deposition may serve as limiting factors to colonization. Given the results of the survey and the lack of known records in the stream, the presence of the targeted protected aquatic species is unlikely in Hodges Mill Creek. Therefore, it is our conclusion that the project may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect the listed aquatic species. Monarch Butterfly Status: Candidate Biological Determination: Not Applicable for Candidate Species The monarch butterfly is a stunning bright orange insect with scattered white dots and black vein-like markings. The monarch butterfly’s scientific name, Danaus plexippus, translated in Greek means “sleepy transformation” in reference to the species hibernation and metamorphosis. The monarch butterfly is also one of the few insect species that migrate. Monarch butterflies fly up to 2,500 miles from their breeding grounds in the United States and Canada to their overwintering spots in central Mexico. Milkweed plays an essential role in monarch butterfly species survival. This flowering plant is the only food source for monarch butterfly larva. Monarch caterpillars gain toxicity from eating the plant, and these toxins are stored in their bodies making them poisonous to predators. Monarch butterflies maintain this toxicity into adulthood. Major threats to the monarch butterfly are habitat loss and climate change. Pesticide use also contributes to the decline of monarch butterflies. As a candidate species, there is no federal protection currently afforded to the monarch butterfly. However, the USFWS appreciates its inclusion in assessments. Suitable habitat was not present in the project area and no milkweed or individuals of monarch butterfly were observed during the site assessment. A biological determination for the monarch butterfly is not applicable to the proposed project as the monarch butterfly is a candidate species. Michaux’s Sumac Status: Endangered Biological Determination: No Effect Michaux’s sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub with erect stems approximately one to three feet in height. The compound leaves are evenly serrated, oblong to lanceolate, acuminate leaflets. Flowers are small, borne in a terminal, erect, dense cluster and are greenish yellow to white in color. Michaux’s sumac flowers between June and July and the fruit, a red drupe, is produced through the months of August to October. Michaux’s sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils, surviving best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area. In North Carolina, observed populations have been identified on highway rights-of-way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially maintained clearings. It is commonly observed with species such as pitchfork crowngrass (Paspalum Project Information Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 23350474 10 bifidum), woodland sunflower (Helianthus divaricatus), Carolina fluffgrass (Tridens carolinianus), winged sumac, green silkyscale (Anthaenantia villosa), skeletongrass (Gymnopogon sp.), and woolysheath threeawn (Aristida lanosa). This species does not tolerate shade or wet soils. Threats to this species include its low reproductive capability, a reduction in habitat due to fire suppression and habitat destruction due to residential and industrial development. The existing ROW and disturbed areas did not exhibit suitable habitat for this species and no individuals of Michaux’s sumac were observed. Based on our pedestrian field review, it is not anticipated that this project will affect this species. Bald Eagle Status: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Biological Determination: No Effect Bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan of approximately seven feet. Adult individuals of this species have a mainly dark brown plumage with a solid white head and tail. Bald eagles develop adult plumage in the fifth or sixth year. Juveniles of the species exhibit a chocolate brown to blackish plumage with occasional occurrences of white mottling on the tail, belly, and under-wings. Bald eagle’s primary diet consists of fish. However, it will feed on birds, mammals, and turtles when fish are not available. Bald eagle is associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting near large bodies of water where it feeds. Nesting habitat in the Carolinas usually occurs in large pine trees along the edge of large bodies of water. The project area did not exhibit suitable habitat for bald eagle, and no potential bald eagle nests were observed. Therefore, the project will have no effect on bald eagle. Additional Permits The combined workspace for the proposed project will not exceed 1.0 acre of land disturbance. However, preparation of an E&SC Plan for use during construction and stabilization of the project site upon completion of construction activities will be completed but not submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Land Quality Section for approval. Based on the proposed pipeline alignment, the project will encroach upon the FEMA-designated floodplains/floodway associated with Hodges Mill Creek. A courtesy notification will be submitted to the Wake County Floodplain Administrator. The floodplain impacts should not result in a rise of the base flood elevation. Appendix II Figures SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NO. 11 " = 4,000 'DATE: 10-17-23 23350474 DOMINION ENERGY NORTH CAROLINA OLD MILBURNIE ROAD GASLINE EXPOSURE REPAIR WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Drawing Path: \\EgnyteDrive\Ops\Charlotte-1350\Projects\2023\23350474_DENC_Old Milburnie Road Washout_Raleigh NC\Civil-Geo-Env\GIS\MAP SETS\PERMIT\1-VICINITY.mxd plotted by kwallace 10-10-2023 SITE VICINITY EXHIBIT LEGEND PRO POSED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (LOD) 0 4,000 8,000 (FEET) REFERENCE:GIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM ESRI. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NO. 21 " = 2,000 'DATE: 10-17-23 23350474 DOMINION ENERGY NORTH CAROLINA OLD MILBURNIE ROAD GASLINE EXPOSURE REPAIR WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Drawing Path: \\EgnyteDrive\Ops\Charlotte-1350\Projects\2023\23350474_DENC_Old Milburnie Road Washout_Raleigh NC\Civil-Geo-Env\GIS\MAP SETS\PERMIT\2-USGS.mxd plotted by kwallace 10-10-2023 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC EXHIBIT LEGEND PROPO SED LOD 0 2,000 4,000 (FEET) REFERENCE:GIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM ESRI. THIS MAPIS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURELOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEY ARENOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESSSTATED OTHERWISE. GRAPHIC SCALE BloomfieldWay Liz e i S t McGrathWay G l e n g r o v e R d K e n n i n g P a r k Dr BuntingDr Lauren Oaks Dr O ld MilburnieRd Hodges Mill C re ek LEGEND PRO POSED LOD NHD FLOWLINES NHD WATE RBODIES NWI WETL AND S ROADS PARCELS FEMA FLOOD WAY FEMA - 100Y R FEMA - 500Y R SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NO. 31 " = 300 'DATE: 10-17-23 23350474 DOMINION ENERGY NORTH CAROLINA OLD MILBURNIE ROAD GASLINE EXPOSURE REPAIR WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Drawing Path: \\EgnyteDrive\Ops\Charlotte-1350\Projects\2023\23350474_DENC_Old Milburnie Road Washout_Raleigh NC\Civil-Geo-Env\GIS\MAP SETS\PERMIT\3-NWI.mxd plotted by kwallace 10-10-2023 USGS NHD/USFWS NWI/FEMA EXHIBIT REFERENCE: 2021 AERIAL IMAGERYGIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM ESRI AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLEDATA SOURCES. THIS EXHIBIT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEY ARENOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED 0 300 600 (FEET) GRAPHIC SCALE RgC RgB ChA RgD K e n n i n g P a r k D r L a u r e n O a k s D r B u n t i n g D r GlengroveRd Old Milburnie Rd REFERENCE:GIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATASOURCES. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALLFEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOTBASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. LEGEND PROPOSED LOD ROADS ChA : Chewa cla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 2 perc ent slopes RgB : Rawlings-Rion complex, 2 to 6 perc ent slopes RgC : Rawlings-Rion complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes RgD : Rawlings-Rion complex, 10 to 15 percent slopes SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NO. 41 " = 200 'DATE: 10-17-23 23350474 DOMINION ENERGY NORTH CAROLINA OLD MILBURNIE ROAD GASLINE EXPOSURE REPAIR WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Drawing Path: \\EgnyteDrive\Ops\Charlotte-1350\Projects\2023\23350474_DENC_Old Milburnie Road Washout_Raleigh NC\Civil-Geo-Env\GIS\MAP SETS\PERMIT\4-SOILS.mxd plotted by kwallace 10-10-2023 0 200 400 (FEET) NRCS SOILS EXHIBIT GRAPHIC SCALE REFERENCE:GIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATASOURCES. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALLFEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOTBASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. LEGEND PROPO SED LOD NRCS STREAMS SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NO. 51 " = 500 'DATE: 10-17-23 23350474 DOMINION ENERGY NORTH CAROLINA OLD MILBURNIE ROAD GASLINE EXPOSURE REPAIR WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Drawing Path: \\EgnyteDrive\Ops\Charlotte-1350\Projects\2023\23350474_DENC_Old Milburnie Road Washout_Raleigh NC\Civil-Geo-Env\GIS\MAP SETS\PERMIT\5-SOIL SURVEY.mxd plotted by kwallace 10-10-2023 0 500 1,000 (FEET) SOIL SURVEY EXHIBIT GRAPHIC SCALE LEGEND PROPOSED LOD SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NO. 61 " = 300 'DATE: 10-17-23 23350474 DOMINION ENERGY NORTH CAROLINA OLD MILBURNIE ROAD GASLINE EXPOSURE REPAIR WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Drawing Path: \\EgnyteDrive\Ops\Charlotte-1350\Projects\2023\23350474_DENC_Old Milburnie Road Washout_Raleigh NC\Civil-Geo-Env\GIS\MAP SETS\PERMIT\6-LiDAR.mxd plotted by kwallace 10-10-2023 LiDAR EXHIBIT REFERENCE:GIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATASOURCES. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALLFEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOTBASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. 0 300 600 (FEET) GRAPHIC SCALE WA S2 S3S1 2 1 9 218 217 214 2 13 212 207 206 204 216 203 202 2 1 6 2 1 5 21 4 213 212 21 1 20 9 208 207 206 204 211 209 208 207 205 2 0 3 L a u r e n O a k s D r G l e n g r o v e R d B u n tin g D r Old Milburnie Rd REFERENCE:GIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATASOURCES. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALLFEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOTBASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. LEGEND PRO POSED LOD STREAMS STREAM CENTERLI NES WETLAN D ROADS PARCELS MA JOR INTERVALS - 10' MINOR IN TE RVALS - 2' SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NO. 71 " = 100 'DATE: 10-17-23 23350474 DOMINION ENERGY NORTH CAROLINA OLD MILBURNIE ROAD GASLINE EXPOSURE REPAIR WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Drawing Path: \\EgnyteDrive\Ops\Charlotte-1350\Projects\2023\23350474_DENC_Old Milburnie Road Washout_Raleigh NC\Civil-Geo-Env\GIS\MAP SETS\PERMIT\7-AERIAL.mxd plotted by kwallace 10-10-2023 0 100 200 (FEET) AERIAL ORTHOIMAGERY EXHIBIT GRAPHIC SCALE Appendix III Site Photographs PHOTOGRAPH 1 VIEWING DIRECTION: South DESCRIPTION/COMMENT: View of S1 at its origin facing downstream at exposure location. PHOTOGRAPH 2 VIEWING DIRECTION: Southwest DESCRIPTION/COMMENT: View of riprapped-lined channel upstream of S1 origin. 1 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 23350474 PHOTOGRAPH 3 VIEWING DIRECTION: North DESCRIPTION/COMMENT: View of exposure facing upstream. 2 PHOTOGRAPH 4 VIEWING DIRECTION: South DESCRIPTION/COMMENT: View of S1 near its confluence with Hodges Mill Creek. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 23350474 PHOTOGRAPH 5 VIEWING DIRECTION: N/A DESCRIPTION/COMMENT: View of exposure just upstream of head-cut signifying origin of S1. 3 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina S&ME Project No. 23350474 PHOTOGRAPH64 VIEWING DIRECTION: West DESCRIPTION/COMMENT: View of Hodges Mill Creek upstream of its confluence with S1. Appendix IV Delineation Information and Agent Authorization Letter Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES) State: County/parish/borough: City: Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat.: Long.: Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: Field Determination. Date(s): TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE” SUBJECT TO REGULATORY JURISDICTION. Site number Latitude (decimal degrees) Longitude (decimal degrees) Estimated amount of aquatic resource in review area (acreage and linear feet, if applicable) Type of aquatic resource (i.e., wetland vs. non-wetland waters) Geographic authority to which the aquatic resource “may be” subject (i.e., Section 404 or Section 10/404) S1 35.854506 -78.497873 37 LF Non-wetland water Section 404 S2 35.854577 -78.497839 170 LF Non-wetland water Section 404 S3 35.854418 -78.497668 97 LF Non-wetland water Section 404 October 2023 J.Lawler,PWS,2016 Ayrsley Town Boulevard,Suite 2-A Charlotte,NC 28273 NC Wake Raleigh 35.854447 -78.497958 17S 3970695.32N 725939.48E UT to Hodges Mill Creek July 2023 7/27/2023 1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate. 2)In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre- construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be” navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information: SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply) Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items: Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor: Map: ___________________________________________________. Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: ___________________. Data sheets prepared by the Corps: _______________________________________________. Corps navigable waters’ study: ____________________________________________________. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ___________________________________________. USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: _______________________________. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: ___________________________. National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ______________________________________. State/local wetland inventory map(s): _______________________________________________. FEMA/FIRM maps: ____________________________________________________________. 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ________________.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): ___________________________________________. or Other (Name & Date): ____________________________________________. Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: __________________________. Other information (please specify): _________________________________________________. IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations. Signature and date of Signature and date of Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is impracticable)1 1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action. See attached information provided by S&ME 730 L,1997 1:24,000 Knightdale,NC 2022 Wake County,1970 USFWS NWI,1982 3720174600K (FIRM 37183C) 2021 Aerial Imagery (from ESRI) See attached photographs provided by S&ME Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: May 2017 Page 1 This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by assigned counties can be found on-line at: http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx, by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager. ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICES US Army Corps of Engineers 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006 General Number: (828) 271-7980 Fax Number: (828) 281-8120 RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE US Army Corps of Engineers 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 General Number: (919) 554-4884 Fax Number: (919) 562-0421 WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE US Army Corps of Engineers 2407 West Fifth Street Washington, North Carolina 27889 General Number: (910) 251-4610 Fax Number: (252) 975-1399 WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE US Army Corps of Engineers 69 Darlington Avenue Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 General Number: 910-251-4633 Fax Number: (910) 251-4025 INSTRUCTIONS: All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G. NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H. NOTE ON PART D – PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s) authorized agent to be considered a complete request. NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols. NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work. Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: May 2017 Page 2 A. PARCEL INFORMATION Street Address: _______________________________________________ City, State: _______________________________________________ County: Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION Name: Mailing Address: _________________________________________ Telephone Number: _________________________________________ Electronic Mail Address: ________________________________________ Select one: I am the current property owner. I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant1 Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase Other, please explain. ________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION2 Name: Mailing Address: Telephone Number: Electronic Mail Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter. 2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record). Old Milburnie Road Raleigh,North Carolina Wake County 1746952990 J.Lawler,PWS 2016 Ayrsley Town Blvd.,Suite 2-A Charlotte,North Carolina 28273 704-523-4726 jlawler@smeinc.com NCDOT ROW (DENC easement only) 2020 Energy Drive Apex,North Carolina 27502 919-819-9932 angel.flores@dominionenergy.com 4 Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: May 2017 Page 3 D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION3,4 By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on- site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property. Print Name Capacity: Owner Authorized Agent5 Date Signature E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable) I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be designed to avoid all aquatic resources. I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority. I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting process. I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application and the JD is to be used in the permitting process. I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization. I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel. I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land. Other:___________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 3 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E. 4 If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a continuation sheet. 5 Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s). Joey Lawler (See attached Authorized Agent Form) 4 4 Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: May 2017 Page 4 F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One) I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein. A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may be “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United States”on a property. PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional “waters of the United States”. PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is “preliminary” in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do not expire. I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein. An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that jurisdictional “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United States” are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other “affected party” (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years (subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05- 02). I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information to inform my decision. G. ALL REQUESTS Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the review area. Size of Property or Review Area acres. The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site. 0.18 4 4 4 Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: May 2017 Page 5 H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude: ______________________ Longitude: ______________________ A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area. Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been reviewed and approved).6  North Arrow  Graphical Scale  Boundary of Review Area  Date  Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary assessment reach. For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:  Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404 wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.  Jurisdictional non-wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries, impoundments) should be labeled as Non-Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary, open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear length of each of these features as appropriate.  Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non- jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non-Jurisdictional. Please include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non-jurisdictional (i.e. “Isolated”, “No Significant Nexus”, or “Upland Feature”). Please include the acreage or linear length of these features as appropriate. For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:  Wetland and non-wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404, Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non-wetland Waters of the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and linear length of these features as appropriate. Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region (at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type) ____________________________________________________________________________ 6 Please refer to the guidance document titled “Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations” to ensure that the supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit- Program/Jurisdiction/ 35.854447 -78.497958 4 4 4 Jurisdictional Determination Request Version: May 2017 Page 6 Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form • PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form7 and include the Aquatic Resource Table • AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form8 Vicinity Map Aerial Photograph USGS Topographic Map Soil Survey Map Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps) Landscape Photos (if taken) NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms Other Assessment Forms _____________________________________________________________________________ 7 www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/JD/RGL_08-02_App_A_Prelim_JD_Form_fillable.pdf 8 Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/ Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory authorities referenced above. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website and on the Headquarters USAGE website. Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM Project Information S&ME Project Name: Dominion Energy North Carolina (DENC) Projects Type of Project: Natural Gas Transmission/Distribution Construction/Maintenance Projects Location:DENC North Carolina Service Territory Property Owner/Rep Information Owner Name: Dominion Energy North Carolina Mailing Address: 2020 Energy Drive Apex, North Carolina 27502 Telephone No. 704.273.2906 Contact:Staci Rogge Agent Information Business Name: S&ME, Inc. Street Address: 2016 Ayrsley Town Blvd., Suite 2-A City, State, Zip: Charlotte, North Carolina 28273 Telephone No. 704-523-4726 Contact:Joey Lawler, PWS Authorization: Signature:_______________________________________________________________________________ S&ME, INC. / 2016 Ayrsley Town Blvd., Suite 2-A / p 704-523-4726 f 704-525-3953 / www.smeinc.com I, ________________________________________________ , hereby authorize S&ME, Inc. to submit information to and coordinate with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or the NC Division of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and other relevant Federal/State/Local agencies pursuant to obtaining necessary environmental permits for various DENC natural gas-related projects. If applicable, this also authorizes the USACE/NCDEQ to access DENC existing/proposed easements for the purposes of conducting site assessment/confirming the accuracy of delineated boundaries. Date: October 17, 2023 Staci Rogge Appendix V Stream/Riparian Buffer Impact Exhibits And Typical Construction Details 2 0 0 20 0 205 2 1 0 LID A R 2 0 1 7 SU R V E Y 2 0 2 3 SUR V E Y 2 0 2 3 LIDA R 2 0 1 7 202 205 210 20 3 20 4 206 207 208 209 202 GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GA S GAS GAS GA S COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M CO M M CO M M CO M M O H -E O H -E O H -E O H -E O H -E O H -E O H -E OH-E OH-E OH-E COM M COM M COM M CO M M COM M COM M COM M COM M PID: 1746952990 2301 SUGAR BUSH ROAD STE 400 PID: 1746864213 3613 OLD MILBURNIE ROAD PID: 1746866079 3628 BUNTING DRIVE OLD M I L B U R N I E R O A D 36-I N . RCP HO D G E S M I L L C R E E K UN N A M E D T R I B U T A R Y (S 2 ) WETLAND WA ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ FIGURE NO. Dr a w i n g p a t h : t: \ c h a r l o t t e - 1 3 5 0 \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 0 2 3 \ 2 3 3 5 0 4 7 4 _ d e n c _ o l d m i l b u r n i e r o a d w a s h o u t _ r a l e i g h n c \ c i v i l - g e o - e n v \ C A D \ D W G \ s t r e a m - w e t l a n d i m p a c t s \ 2 3 3 5 0 4 7 4 _ P R O P O S E D S I T E P L A N . d w g PROJECT NUMBER DATE: SCALE: N US A C E - P C N A P P L I C A T I O N OL D M I L B U R N I E R O A D G A S L I N E E X P O S U R E R E P A I R WA K E C O U N T Y , NO R T H C A R O L I N A 1 10/17/2023 JU R I S D I C T I O N A L F E A T U R E A N D R I P A R I A N B U F F E R I M P A C T E X H I B I T 1" = 30' 23350474 EXISTING GAS PIPELINE EXPOSURE PLAN 0 30 60 (IN FEET)GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET)GRAPHIC SCALE (TYP.) 4 4 SILT FENCE (TYP.) 5 5 COMPOST FILTER SOCK (TYP.) 6 6 WATTLE (TYP.) 1 2 REINFORCED CONCRETE DITCH (TYP.) 2 2 RIPRAP ARPON AND DITCH TRANSITION PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT 21 L.F. 0.0017 AC. TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT 16 L.F. 0.00157 AC. ZONE 2 IMPACT 364 S.F. ZONE 1 IMPACT 418 L.F. 4-IN. 4-IN. SAW CUT MIN 1/4 THICKNESS OF SLAB OR 1-IN. MIN. PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW DIRECTION SPACED MAXIMUM OF 10 FEET SUBGRADE COMPACTED ABC 3-FT. SUBGRADE COMPACTED ABC 4-IN. 4-IN. 8-IN. 8 OZ/SY NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE UNDERLYING RIPRAP SUBGRADE NCDOT CLASS A RIPRAP 3-FT. SUBGRADE NCDOT CLASS A RIPRAP UNDERLAIN BY 8 OZ/SY NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE 8-IN. 18-IN. 18-IN. FIGURE NO. Dr a w i n g p a t h : t: \ c h a r l o t t e - 1 3 5 0 \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 0 2 3 \ 2 3 3 5 0 4 7 4 _ d e n c _ o l d m i l b u r n i e r o a d w a s h o u t _ r a l e i g h n c \ c i v i l - g e o - e n v \ C A D \ D W G \ s t r e a m - w e t l a n d i m p a c t s \ D E T A I L S \ C O N C R E T E D I T C H . d w g PROJECT NUMBER DATE: SCALE: US A C E - P C N A P P L I C A T I O N OL D M I L B U R N I E R O A D G A S L I N E E X P O S U R E R E P A I R WA K E C O U N T Y , NO R T H C A R O L I N A 2 10/17/2023 RE I N F O R C E D D I T C H N.T.S. 23350474 1 2 REINFORCED CONCRETE DITCH SCALE: N.T.S. 2 2 RIPRAP ARPON AND DITCH TRANSITION SCALE: N.T.S. CHK APPREVISION DESCRIPTIONDATENO. GENERAL NOTES: 1.UNITS FOR DIMENSIONS ARE INCHES (MM), TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2.BLOCK PRODUCTION VARIES WITH EACH LICENSED REDI-ROCK MANUFACTURER. CONFIRM AVAILABILITY BEFORE SPECIFYING OR ORDERING. 3.ARCHITECTURAL FACES ON THE BLOCKS HAVE VARYING TEXTURE. 4.ACTUAL BLOCK VOLUMES AND WEIGHTS MAY VARY. 5.WEIGHTS ARE BASED UPON A CONCRETE DENSITY OF 143 LB/FT3 (2291 KG/M 3 ). 6.6-IN. (152 MM) DIAMETER VERTICAL SEMI-CLYINDRICAL VOIDS AT THE ENDS OF THE BLOCK FOR MECHANICAL TIE-DOWN ARE AVAILABLE, REFER TO FORCE PROTECTION BLOCKS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 7.KNOBS ARE TYPICALLY 10-IN. (254MM) DIAMETER BY 4-IN. (102 MM) TALL. SMALLER KNOBS ARE AVAILABLE. 46 1 8 (1 1 7 2 ) FACE TEXTURE VARIES FACE TEXTURE VARIES LIFTING INSERT OR TEXTURED TOP SURFACE, OPTIONAL F-ST STRAIGHT TOP FACE TEXTURE BLOCK WEIGHT BLOCK VOLUME COBBLE / LIMESTONE 1,380 LB. (620KG)9.61 FT3 (0.272 M3) KINGSTON / LEDGESTONE 1,230 LB. (560KG)8.62 FT3 (0.244 M3) 24 (610) ± LEDGESTONE COBBLESTONE 23 (584) ± LIMESTONE 13 (3 3 0 ) 18 (457) FIGURE NO. Dr a w i n g p a t h : t: \ c h a r l o t t e - 1 3 5 0 \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 0 2 3 \ 2 3 3 5 0 4 7 4 _ d e n c _ o l d m i l b u r n i e r o a d w a s h o u t _ r a l e i g h n c \ c i v i l - g e o - e n v \ C A D \ D W G \ s t r e a m - w e t l a n d i m p a c t s \ D E T A I L S \ R E D I - R O C K . d w g PROJECT NUMBER DATE: SCALE: US A C E - P C N A P P L I C A T I O N OL D M I L B U R N I E R O A D G A S L I N E E X P O S U R E R E P A I R WA K E C O U N T Y , NO R T H C A R O L I N A 3 10/17/2023 RE D I - R O C K N.T.S. 23350474 3 3 REDI-ROCK SCALE: N.T.S. GENERAL NOTES 1.SILT FENCE SHOULD BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA. 2.CONSTRUCT THE FILTER FABRIC FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE SILT FENCE TO AVOID JOINTS. 3.WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH 4 FEET MINIMUM OVERLAP TO THE NEXT POST. 4.ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO THE STEEL POSTS USING PLASTIC OR WIRE TIE (MIN. 50-LB. TENSILE STRENGTH) THAT ARE EVENLY SPACED WITHIN THE TOP 8-IN. OF THE FABRIC. 5.INSTALL THE SILT FENCE PERPENDICULAR TO THE DIRECTION OF THE STORMWATER FLOW AND PLACE THE SILT FENCE THE PROPER DISTANCE FROM THE TOE OF STEEP SLOPES TO PROVIDE SEDIMENT STORAGE AND ACCESS FOR MAINTENANCE AND CLEANOUT. 6.INSTALL SILT FENCE CHECKS (TIE-BACKS) EVERY 50-100 -FT., DEPENDENT ON SLOPE, ALONG SILT FENCE THAT IS INSTALLED WITH SLOPE AND WHERE CONCENTRATED FLOWS ARE EXPECTED OR ARE DOCUMENTED ALONG THE PROPOSED/INSTALLED SILT FENCE. 7.DO NOT ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES. 8.THE TRENCH SHOULD BE BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FABRIC TO MINIMIZE WATER INFILTRATION WHICH COULD LEAD TO UNDERMINING. POST REQUIREMENTS 1.SILT FENCE POSTS MUST BE 5-FT. LONG STEEL POSTS THAT MEET, AT A MINIMUM, THE FOLLOWING PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS. 1.1.WEIGH 1.25 POUNDS PER FOOT 1.2.1-3/8-IN. WIDE MEASURED PARALLEL TO THE FENCE 2.POSTS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH PROJECTIONS TO AID IN FASTENING OF FILTER FABRIC. 3.STEEL POSTS MAY NEED TO HAVE A METAL SOIL STABILIZATION PLATE WELDED NEAR THE BOTTOM WHEN INSTALLED ALONG STEEP SLOPES OR INSTALLED IN LOOSE SOILS. THE PLATE SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM CROSS SECTION OF 14-SQUARE -IN. AND BE COMPOSED OF 15 GAUGE STEEL, AT A MINIMUM. THE METAL SOIL STABILIZATION PLATE SHOULD BE COMPLETELY BURIED. 4.INSTALL POSTS TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 24-IN. A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 1-IN. TO 2-IN. ABOVE THE FABRIC SHALL BE MAINTAINED, AND A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3-FT. SHALL BE MAINTAINED ABOVE THE GROUND. 5.POST SPACING SHALL BE AT A MAXIMUM OF 6-FT. ON CENTER. 6.UTILITY LOCATES SHOULD BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO SILT FENCE INSTALLATION. 7.WOODEN POSTS ARE ALLOWED WHEN CROSSING UTILITIES. OWNER'S DESIGNATED ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHALL APPROVE LOCATIONS WHERE WOODEN POST ARE TO BE USED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. FABRIC REQUIREMENTS 1.SILT FENCE MUST BE COMPOSED OF WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC THAT CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: 1.1.USE A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC OF AT LEAST 95% BY WEIGHT OF POLYOLEFINS OR POLYESTER, WHICH IS CERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER AS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM D 6461; 1.2.SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT A TEMPERATURE OF 0 TO 120° F; 1.3.FREE OF ANY TREATMENT OR COATING WHICH MIGHT ADVERSELY ALTER ITS PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AFTER INSTALLATION; 1.4.FREE OF ANY DEFECTS OR FLAWS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT ITS PHYSICAL AND/OR FILTERING PROPERTIES; AND, 1.5.HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 36-IN. 2.12-IN. OF THE FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED WITHIN EXCAVATED TRENCH AND SECURED WHEN THE TRENCH IS BACKFILLED. 3.FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PURCHASED IN CONTINUOUS ROLLS AND CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO AVOID JOINTS. 4.FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A MINIMUM OF 24-IN. ABOVE THE GROUND. MAINTENANCE NOTES 1.THE KEY TO FUNCTIONAL SILT FENCE IS INSPECTIONS, ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, AND REGULAR SEDIMENT REMOVAL. 2.INSPECT AT LEAST ONCE PER SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF A RAIN EVENT GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.0-IN. IN 24 HOURS. 3.ATTENTION TO SEDIMENT ACCUMULATIONS ALONG THE SILT FENCE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHOULD BE CONTINUALLY MONITORED AND REMOVED WHEN NECESSARY. 4.REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT WHEN IT REACHES 1/2 THE HEIGHT OF THE SILT FENCE. 5.REMOVED SEDIMENT SHALL BE PLACED IN STOCKPILE STORAGE AREAS OR SPREAD THINLY ACROSS DISTURBED AREA. STABILIZE THE REMOVED SEDIMENT AFTER IT IS RELOCATED. 6.CHECK FOR AREAS WHERE STORMWATER RUNOFF HAS ERODED A CHANNEL BENEATH THE SILT FENCE, OR WHERE THE FENCE HAS SAGGED OR COLLAPSED DUE TO RUNOFF OVERTOPPING THE SILT FENCE. INSTALL CHECKS/TIE-BACKS AND/OR REINSTALL SILT FENCE, AS NECESSARY. 7.CHECK FOR TEARS WITHIN THE SILT FENCE, AREAS WHERE SILT FENCE HAS BEGUN TO DECOMPOSE, AND FOR ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MAY RENDER THE SILT FENCE INEFFECTIVE. REMOVE DAMAGED SILT FENCE AND REINSTALL NEW SILT FENCE IMMEDIATELY. 8.SILT FENCE SHOULD BE REMOVED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED AND ONCE IT IS REMOVED, THE RESULTING DISTURBED AREA SHALL BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. REFERENCE: DETAIL BASED ON NCDEQ EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL, CHAPTERS 6 AND 8 REVISED, MAY 2013. SECTION VIEW 5-FT. STEEL POST FLOW COMPACTED BACKFILL FILTER FABRIC (REFER TO TABLE) PLASTIC OR WIRE TIE PROFILE VIEW 5-FT. STEEL POST PLASTIC OR WIRE TIEFILTER FABRIC (REFER TO TABLE) COMPACTED BACKFILL BURY FILTER FABRIC CHK APPREVISION DESCRIPTIONDATENO. 4-IN. 24-IN. MIN. 24-IN. MIN. 36-IN. 6-FT. MAXIMUM 8-IN. TABLE: EXTRA STRENGTH WOVEN FILTER FABRIC PROPERTY TEST VALUE GRAB TENSILE STRENGTH ASTM D4632 125-LBS. MARV GRAB TENSILE ELONGATION ASTM D4632 100-LBS. MARV PERMITTIVITY ASTM D4491 0.05 (SEC-1) MARV APPARENT OPENING SIZE ASTM D4751 US SIEVE #30 ULTRAVIOLET STABILITY AT 500 HR OF EXPOSURE ASTM D4355 70% TYPICAL BURY FILTER FABRIC FIGURE NO. Dr a w i n g p a t h : t: \ c h a r l o t t e - 1 3 5 0 \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 0 2 3 \ 2 3 3 5 0 4 7 4 _ d e n c _ o l d m i l b u r n i e r o a d w a s h o u t _ r a l e i g h n c \ c i v i l - g e o - e n v \ C A D \ D W G \ s t r e a m - w e t l a n d i m p a c t s \ D E T A I L S \ 1 - S I L T F E N C E . d w g PROJECT NUMBER DATE: SCALE: US A C E - P C N A P P L I C A T I O N OL D M I L B U R N I E R O A D G A S L I N E E X P O S U R E R E P A I R WA K E C O U N T Y , NO R T H C A R O L I N A 4 10/17/2023 SI L T F E N C E N.T.S. 23350474 4 4 SILT FENCE SCALE: N.T.S. REVISION DESCRIPTIONNO.DATE CHK APPNO. SINGLE SOCK SECTION VIEW SINGLE SOCK PLAN VIEW FLOW WOODEN STAKE (NOTE 4) 10-FT. O.C. COMPOST FILTER SOCK (NOTE 1) LOOSE COMPOST OR WOOD CHIPS (NOTE 9) CLOSED END LOOSE COMPOST OR WOOD CHIPS (NOTE 9) WOODEN STAKE (NOTE 4) 10-FT. O.C.COMPOST FILTER SOCK (NOTE 1) 12-IN. MIN. 3-IN. MIN. 10-FT. MAX. 18-IN. MIN. OVERLAP FL O W FL O W GENERAL NOTES 1.USE MINIMUM 18-IN. DIAMETER FILTREXX® SILTSOXX™ ORIGINAL OR ENGINEER APPROVED ALTERNATIVE. COMPOST FILTER SOCK DIAMETER VARIES, REFER TO PLAN VIEW DRAWINGS FOR DIAMETER. 2.COMPOST FILTER SOCKS SHOULD BE LOCATED AS SHOWN ON PLANS AND AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S DESIGNATED ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3.PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, CLEAR ALL OBSTRUCTIONS INCLUDING ROCKS, CLODS, AND OTHER DEBRIS GREATER THAN 1-IN. THAT MAY INTERFERE WITH PROPER FUNCTION OF THE COMPOST FILTER SOCK. 4.OAK OR OTHER DURABLE HARDWOOD STAKES 2-IN. BY 2-IN. IN CROSS SECTION SHOULD BE DRIVEN VERTICALLY PLUMB, THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE COMPOST FILTER SOCK. STAKES SHOULD BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM INTERVAL OF 10-FT. O.C. STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12-IN., WITH A MINIMUM OF 3-IN. PROTRUDING ABOVE THE COMPOST FILTER SOCK. 5.WHERE APPLICABLE PLASTIC OR WIRE TIES SHALL HAVE MINIMUM 50-LB. TENSILE STRENGTH. 6.IN THE EVENT STAKING IS NOT POSSIBLE (HIGHLY COMPACTED SOILS OR IMPERVIOUS SURFACES) SAND BAGS OR HEAVY CONCRETE BLOCKS MAY BE USED BEHIND THE SOCK TO HOLD IT IN PLACE DURING RUNOFF EVENTS. 7.STRAIGHTEN OR POSITION THE COMPOST FILTER SOCK AS NEEDED ON THE GROUND, ENSURING THERE IS GOOD GROUND CONTACT AND NO VOID SPACES UNDER THE COMPOST FILTER SOCK. 8.DO NOT DRAG COMPOST FILTER SOCK ACROSS ROUGH SURFACES. IF DRAGGING ACROSS A ROUGH SURFACE IS NECESSARY, PLACE A BARRIER SUCH AS PLASTIC OR A TARP UNDER COMPOST FILTER SOCK TO PREVENT TEARING. 9.BACKFILL LOOSE COMPOST OR FINE WOOD CHIPS TO 1/2 THE HEIGHT OF THE COMPOST FILTER SOCK ALONG THE UPSLOPE SIDE, FILLING THE SEAM BETWEEN THE SOIL SURFACE AND THE COMPOST FILTER SOCK. 10.FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY IN NOTES OR IF ENGINEER APPROVED ALTERNATIVE IS USED. MAINTENANCE NOTES 1.INSPECT AT LEAST ONCE PER SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF A RAIN EVENT GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.0-IN. IN 24 HOURS. 2.MAKE ANY NECESSARY REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY. 3.THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT IS 1/2 THE HEIGHT OF THE COMPOST FILTER SOCK. HOWEVER, ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHOULD BE REMOVED MORE FREQUENTLY. ALTERNATIVELY, A NEW COMPOST FILTER SOCK CAN BE PLACED ON TOP OF AND SLIGHTLY BEHIND THE ORIGINAL ONE CREATING MORE SEDIMENT STORAGE CAPACITY WITHOUT SOIL DISTURBANCE. 4.REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE COMPOST FILTER SOCK DURING CLEANOUT. 5.THE COMPOST SOCK MUST BE REPLACED IF CLOGGED OR TORN. 6.IF PONDING BECOMES EXCESSIVE, THE COMPOST FILTER SOCK MAY NEED TO BE REPLACED WITH ONE OF A LARGER DIAMETER OR A DIFFERENT MEASURE. 7.THE COMPOST FILTER SOCK NEEDS TO BE REINSTALLED IF UNDERMINED OR DISLODGED. 8.THE COMPOST FILTER SOCK SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL DISTURBED AREA ABOVE THE DEVICE HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS CEASED. FIGURE NO. Dr a w i n g p a t h : t: \ c h a r l o t t e - 1 3 5 0 \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 0 2 3 \ 2 3 3 5 0 4 7 4 _ d e n c _ o l d m i l b u r n i e r o a d w a s h o u t _ r a l e i g h n c \ c i v i l - g e o - e n v \ C A D \ D W G \ s t r e a m - w e t l a n d i m p a c t s \ D E T A I L S \ 3 - C O M P O S T F I L T E R S O C K - S I N G L E . d w g PROJECT NUMBER DATE: SCALE: US A C E - P C N A P P L I C A T I O N OL D M I L B U R N I E R O A D G A S L I N E E X P O S U R E R E P A I R WA K E C O U N T Y , NO R T H C A R O L I N A 5 10/17/2023 CO M P O S T F I L T E R S O C K N.T.S. 23350474 5 5 COMPOST FILTER SOCK SCALE: N.T.S. REVISION DESCRIPTIONNO.DATE CHK APPNO. ISOMETRIC VIEW 2-FT. (MAX.) SPACING CROSS SECTION VIEW - VEE - DITCH 2-IN. MIN. SECTION A-A' PLAN VIEW - VEE - DITCH CROSS SECTION VIEW - TRAPEZOIDAL - DITCH PLAN VIEW - TRAPEZOIDAL - DITCH WATTLE (NOTE 1) UP-SL O P E DOW N - S L O P E UP-SLOPE STAKE (NOTE 6) FLOW DOWN-SLOPE STAKE (NOTE 6) UP-SLOPE STAKE (NOTE 6) DOWN-SLOPE STAKE (NOTE 6) FLOW WATTLE SPACING TABLE SLOPE (%) SPACING DISTANCE (FT. O.C.) 1 100 2 50 3 33 4 25 5 20 WATTLE (NOTE 1) A A'A A' APPROXIMATE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE WATTLE (NOTE 1) WATTLE (NOTE 1) WOODEN STAKE (NOTE 5) WOODEN STAKE (NOTE 5) WOODEN STAKE (NOTE 5) WATTLE (NOTE 1) GENERAL NOTES 1.USE MINIMUM 12-IN. DIAMETER EXCELSIOR WATTLE, COIR WATTLE, OR ENGINEER APPROVED ALTERNATIVE. WATTLE DIAMETER VARIES, REFER TO PLAN VIEW DRAWINGS FOR DIAMETER. 2.INSTALL WATTLES IN ROADSIDE SWALES/DITCHES AS INDICATED ON THE PLAN VIEW DRAWINGS. 3.WATTLES SHOULD BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH WATTLE SPACING TABLE, OR ADJUSTED BASED ON CONDITIONS IN THE FIELD. ADDITIONAL WATTLES MAY BE INSTALLED AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S DESIGNATED ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 4.INSTALL WATTLE(S) TO A HEIGHT IN ROADSIDE SWALES/DITCHES SO FLOW WILL NOT WASH AROUND WATTLE AND SCOUR ROADSIDE SWALE/DITCH SLOPES. 5.USE OAK OR OTHER DURABLE HARDWOOD STAKES 2-FT. IN LENGTH WITH A 2-IN. BY 2-IN. NOMINAL CROSS SECTION. 6.INSTALL A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) UPSLOPE STAKES AND FOUR (4) DOWNSLOPE STAKES (2-FT. SPACING) AT AN ANGLE TO WEDGE WATTLE TO BOTTOM OF ROADSIDE SWALES/DITCHES OR AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S DESIGNATED ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 7.FOR TRAPEZOIDAL ROADSIDE SWALES/DITCHES, INSTALL WATTLES ALONG A SINGLE CONTOUR LINE IN BASE OF ROADSIDE SWALES/DITCHES. 8.FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY IN NOTES OR IF ENGINEER APPROVED ALTERNATIVE IS USED. 9.IF ROADSIDE SWALES/DITCHES ARE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE, THE FOLLOWING WATTLE SPACING WILL BE OBSERVED: 10.FOR ROADSIDE SWALES/DITCHES SLOPES GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT, WATTLES ARE NOT RECOMMENDED, AND COMPOST FILTER SOCKS SHOULD BE USED AT THE SAME SPACING IN TABLE. MAINTENANCE NOTES 1.INSPECT AT LEAST ONCE PER SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF A RAIN EVENT GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.0-IN. IN 24 HOURS. 2.MAKE ANY NECESSARY REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY. 3.THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT IS 1/2 THE HEIGHT OF THE WATTLE. HOWEVER, ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHOULD BE REMOVED MORE FREQUENTLY. 4.REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE WATTLE DURING CLEANOUT. 5.THE WATTLE MUST BE REPLACED IF CLOGGED OR TORN. 6.IF PONDING BECOMES EXCESSIVE, THE WATTLE MAY NEED TO BE REPLACED WITH ONE OF A LARGER DIAMETER OR A DIFFERENT MEASURE. 7.THE WATTLE NEEDS TO BE REINSTALLED IF UNDERMINED OR DISLODGED. 8.THE WATTLE SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL DISTURBED AREA ABOVE THE DEVICE HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS CEASED. ROADSIDE SWALE/DITCH SLOPE FIGURE NO. Dr a w i n g p a t h : t: \ c h a r l o t t e - 1 3 5 0 \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 0 2 3 \ 2 3 3 5 0 4 7 4 _ d e n c _ o l d m i l b u r n i e r o a d w a s h o u t _ r a l e i g h n c \ c i v i l - g e o - e n v \ C A D \ D W G \ s t r e a m - w e t l a n d i m p a c t s \ D E T A I L S \ 1 5 - W A T T L E . d w g PROJECT NUMBER DATE: SCALE: US A C E - P C N A P P L I C A T I O N OL D M I L B U R N I E R O A D G A S L I N E E X P O S U R E R E P A I R WA K E C O U N T Y , NO R T H C A R O L I N A 6 10/17/2023 WA T T L E N.T.S. 23350474 6 6 WATTLE SCALE: N.T.S. Appendix VI General Restoration Plan 1 General Restoration Plan Old Milburnie Road Gasline Exposure Repair Wake County, North Carolina The proposed project has been designed to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts where practicable. As part of mitigation for unavoidable impacts, the following plan shall be implemented to restore the temporarily-affected portions of the stream. This plan entails restoration of temporarily-disturbed streambanks to their original contours and conditions to the degree practicable upon project completion. Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate permits, no fills or spoils of any kind will be permanently placed within wetlands or along streambanks. Further, disturbed streambanks will be permanently stabilized using coir matting (with no plastic or nylon) and native vegetative cover. The native seed mix identified in Table 1 below will be utilized at temporarily-disturbed streambanks and wetland areas. Table 1: Native North Carolina Piedmont Riparian Seed Mix Scientific Name Common Name Percentage of Mix Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass 29.9 Elymus virginicus Virginia Wildrye 20.0 Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 20.0 Panicum anceps Beaked Panicgrass 10.0 Chasmanthium latifolium River Oats 5.0 Panicum rigidulum Redtop Panicgrass 5.0 Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea 3.0 Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge 2.0 Coreopsis lanceolata Lanceleaf Coreopsis 2.0 Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed Susan 2.0 Juncus effusus Soft Rush 0.5 Vernonia noveboracensis New York Ironweed 0.4 Helenium autumnale Common Sneezeweed 0.2 TOTAL 100 Native seed mix is to be applied to the disturbed wetland areas and along streambanks. The recommended application rate is 20 pounds per acre. To provide quicker cover, the mix specified in Table 1 should also be augmented with the appropriate cover/companion species, as identified in Table 2. Table 2: Cover/Companion Species Scientific Name Common Name Season to Plant Mix Comments Secale cereale Grain Rye September 1 to April 30 30 lbs. / acre Grows 3-4' tall, but not a strong a competitor. Echinochloa esculenta Japanese Millet May 1 to August 31 10 lbs. / acre Extremely tolerant of wet soils; has cold-climate tolerance; helps reduce weed growth; increases biomass production. 2 Substitutions to the native seed mix identified in this restoration plan may be made with prior approval. Any substitutions shall continue to consist of appropriate native species. Additional information related to restoration activities is included on the Typical Construction Details & Drawings. The native seed mix (ERNMX-307) can be obtained from: Ernst Seeds 8884 Mercer Pike Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335 1-800-873-3321 814-336-2404 sales@ernstseed.com Appendix VII NCNHP and USFWS IPaC Reports; Three Oaks Engineering Aquatic Species Survey Report 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 1/16 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 aected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of eects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specic (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specic (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 oce(s) with jurisdiction in the dened 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 Local oce Raleigh Ecological Services Field Oce  (919) 856-4520  (919) 856-4556 MAILING ADDRESS Post Oce Box 33726 U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaC 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 2/16 Post Oce Box 33726 Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 PHYSICAL ADDRESS 551 Pylon Drive, Suite F Raleigh, NC 27606-1487 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 3/16 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 inuence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly aected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a sh population even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow 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 eects to species, additional site-specic and project-specic 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 oce and a species list which fullls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an ocial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld oce directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an ocial 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. Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries 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). 1 2 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 4/16 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an oce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially aected by activities in this location: Mammals Birds Amphibians Fishes Clams NAME STATUS Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subavus Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515 Proposed Endangered NAME STATUS Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614 Endangered NAME STATUS Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi Wherever found There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772 Threatened NAME STATUS Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus Wherever found There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528 Endangered NAME STATUS 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 5/16 Insects Flowering Plants Critical habitats Potential eects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. There are no critical habitats at this location. You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have eects on all above listed species. Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Wherever found There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164 Threatened Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784 Endangered NAME STATUS Monarch Buttery Danaus plexippus Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate NAME STATUS Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217 Endangered 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 6/16 Bald & Golden Eagles There are bald and/or golden eagles in your project area. 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. BREEDING SEASON Probability of Presence Summary 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 () Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats, should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Managment https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/les/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation- measures.pdf NAME Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 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 oshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Breeds Sep 1 to Jul 31 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 7/16 no data survey eort breeding season 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 eort (see below) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if the corresponding survey eort 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 Eort () 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 eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () 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 o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 8/16 SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specied location? The potential for eagle presence 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 ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specied 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. 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 ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied 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 oshore 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 Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. 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. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Oce if you have questions. Migratory birds Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . 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 2 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 9/16 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 nd 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 o 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. 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. BREEDING SEASON 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 https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/les/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation- measures.pdf NAME Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 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 oshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Breeds Sep 1 to Jul 31 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25 Eastern Whip-poor-will Antrostomus vociferus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 1 to Aug 20 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 10/16 Probability of Presence Summary 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 eort (see below) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if the corresponding survey eort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 20 Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31 Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds elsewhere Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 10 to Aug 31 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 11/16 no data survey eort breeding season probability of presence 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 Eort () 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 eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () 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 o 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 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Chimney Swift BCC Rangewide (CON) 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 12/16 Eastern Whip- poor-will BCC Rangewide (CON) Kentucky Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Prairie Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Prothonotary Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Red-headed Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) Rusty Blackbird BCC - BCR Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. 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. What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specied 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. 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 ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied 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 oshore activities or development. 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 13/16 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 Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied 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 or migrating in my 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 query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the proles provided for each bird in your results. 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 specied. 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 Pacic Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 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 oshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. oshore energy development or longline shing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, eorts 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 aected by oshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also oers 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 les 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. 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 14/16 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 specied 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 eort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey eort is the key component. If the survey eort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey eort 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 conrm 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 conrmed. 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 National Wildlife Refuge lands 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. There are no refuge lands at this location. 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 15/16 Fish hatcheries There are no sh hatcheries at this location. Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 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 identied 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 classication established through image analysis. 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 verication 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 eld work. There may be occasional dierences in polygon boundaries or classications 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 tubercid worm reefs) have also 7/28/23, 7:24 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4NXL4YMXKJEKVJU32DZ6DGWQ6E/resources 16/16 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 dene and describe wetlands in a dierent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to dene 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 modications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specied agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may aect such activities. NCNHDE-22804 July 28, 2023 Ashley Bentz S&ME, Inc. 3201 Spring Forest Road Raleigh, NC 27616 RE: Old Milburnie Rd Exposure; 23350474 Dear Ashley Bentz: The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above. Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our records. 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 found within the project area or is indicated within a one-mile radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here: https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37. Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission. The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federally- listed species are 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 rodney.butler@ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603. Sincerely, NC Natural Heritage Program Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area Old Milburnie Rd Exposure Project No. 23350474 July 28, 2023 NCNHDE-22804 Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area Taxonomic Group EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Observation Date Element Occurrence Rank Accuracy Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Dragonfly or Damselfly 32043 Coryphaeschna ingens Regal Darner 2004-Pre H?5-Very Low ---Significantly Rare G5 S2? Vascular Plant 1676 Portulaca smallii Small's Portulaca 2002-08-29 A 2-High ---Threatened G3 S2 Natural Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area Site Name Representational Rating Collective Rating Lake Mirl Granitic Flatrocks R4 (Moderate)C5 (General) Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type City of Raleigh Open Space - Hodges Mill Creek Property City of Raleigh Local Government City of Raleigh Open Space - Planned Neighborhood Park NPS-16 City of Raleigh Local Government City of Raleigh Open Space - Watkins Road Community Park City of Raleigh Local Government Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on July 28, 2023; source: NCNHP, Spring (April) 2023. 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 3 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Page 3 of 3 Aquatic Species Survey Report Old Milburnie Road Pipeline Emergency Repair Project Wake County, North Carolina Hodges Mill Creek in surveyed reach Prepared For: S&ME, Inc. 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28273 August 30, 2023 Prepared by: 324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200 Durham, NC 27701 Contact Person: Tom Dickinson tom.dickinson@threeoaksengineering.com 919-732-1300 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Target Species Descriptions ................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) ............................................................... 2 2.1.1 Species Characteristics .............................................................................................. 2 2.1.2 Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status ........................................................ 2 2.1.3 Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 6 2.1.4 Designated Critical Habitat ....................................................................................... 7 2.2 Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) ................................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Species Characteristics .............................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status ........................................................ 8 2.2.3 Threats to Species ................................................................................................... 10 2.2.4 Designated Critical Habitat ..................................................................................... 11 2.3 Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi) ....................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Species Characteristics ............................................................................................ 12 2.3.2 Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status ...................................................... 13 2.3.3 Threats to Species ................................................................................................... 14 2.3.4 Designated Critical Habitat ..................................................................................... 14 2.4 Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus) ............................................................................. 15 2.4.1 Species Characteristics ............................................................................................ 15 2.4.2 Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status ...................................................... 16 2.4.3 Threats to Species ................................................................................................... 17 2.4.4 Designated Critical Habitat ..................................................................................... 17 3.0 Survey Efforts .................................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Survey Methodology ...................................................................................................... 18 3.1.1 Mussels ................................................................................................................... 18 3.1.2 Carolina Madtom .................................................................................................... 19 3.1.3 Neuse River Waterdog ............................................................................................ 19 4.0 Results ................................................................................................................................ 20 4.1 Hodges Mill Creek Conditions ....................................................................................... 20 4.2 Aquatic Species Survey Results ..................................................................................... 20 4.2.1 Mussels ................................................................................................................... 20 4.2.2 Carolina Madtom .................................................................................................... 20 4.2.3 Neuse River Waterdog ............................................................................................ 21 5.0 Discussion/Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 21 6.0 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................. 22 Appendix A: Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach Figures 2-1 to 2-4: NCNHP Element Occurrences and Designated Critical Habitats S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Dominion Energy North Carolina (DENC) Old Milburnie Road project is an emergency repair to an exposed gasline within an unnamed tributary (UT) to Hodges Mill Creek near the Old Milburnie Road (SR 2217) crossing in Wake County, North Carolina (Appendix A, Figure 1). The repair area is approximately 20 feet upstream of its confluence with Hodges Mill Creek. Hodges Mill Creek is in the Upper Neuse Subbasin (HUC# 03020201) of the Neuse River Basin. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Consultation (IPaC) system lists the Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon, DWM), Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni, AP), Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi, NRWD), and Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus, CMT) as federally protected aquatic species that could potentially be affected by activities in this location, as accessed in August 2023 (USFWS 2023). Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) in approximate river miles (RM) for these species relative to the Project. Data is according to the NC Natural Heritage Program database (NCNHP 2023) accessed in August 2023 and most recently updated in July 2023 (Appendix A, Figures 2-1 through 2-4). Table 1. Nearby Element Occurrences Species Name EO ID EO Waterbody Distance from crossing (RM) First Observed Last Observed EO Status* Figure Dwarf Wedgemussel 7699 Neuse River 8.0 1951 1951 H 2-1 13799 Swift Creek/ Middle Creek 40.9 March 1991 October 2021 C Atlantic Pigtoe 11071 Walnut Creek 10.8 1951 1951 H 2-2 14599 Crabtree Creek 24.6 October 1993 May 2003 C Neuse River Waterdog 446 Neuse River 4.1 July 1980 July 1980 H 2-3 40669 Crabtree Creek 15.7 March 2021 December 2022 C Carolina Madtom 10676 Neuse River 3.1 August 1888 August 1902 H 2-4 3858 Little River <50 June 1961 July 2005 C *: C – NCNHP Current; H –NCNHP Historic As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project-related effects to federally protected species, Three Oaks was contracted to update the survey baseline and conduct surveys targeting DWM, AP, NRWD and CMT. S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 2 2.0 TARGET SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS 2.1 Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) 2.1.1 Species Characteristics The Dwarf Wedgemussel (DWM) was originally described as Unio heterodon (Lea 1829). Simpson (1914) subsequently placed it in the genus Alasmidonta. Ortmann (1919) placed it in a monotypic subgenus Prolasmidonta, based on the unique soft-tissue anatomy and conchology. Fuller (1977) believed the characteristics of Prolasmidonta warranted elevation to full generic rank and renamed the species Prolasmidonta heterodon. Clarke (1981) retained the genus name Alasmidonta and considered Prolasmidonta to be a subjective synonym of the subgenus Pressodonta (Simpson 1900). The specific epithet heterodon refers to the chief distinguishing characteristic of this species, which is the only North American freshwater mussel that consistently has two lateral teeth on the right valve and only one on the left (Fuller 1977). All other laterally dentate freshwater mussels in North America normally have two lateral teeth on the left valve and one on the right. The DWM is generally small, with a shell length ranging between 25 millimeters (mm) (1.0 inch) and 38 mm (1.5 inches). The largest specimen reported by Clarke (1981) was 56.5 mm (2.2 inches) long, taken from the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire. The periostracum is generally olive green to dark brown; nacre bluish to silvery white, turning to cream or salmon colored towards the umbonal cavities. Sexual dimorphism occurs in DWM, with the females having a swollen region on the posterior slope, and the males are generally flattened. Clarke (1981) provides a detailed description of the species. Nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies; a larval stage (glochidium) becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel species have specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. Based upon laboratory infestation experiments, Michaelson and Neves (1995) determined that potential fish hosts for the DWM in North Carolina include the Tessellated Darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) and the Johnny Darter (E. nigrum). McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology. 2.1.2 Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status The historic range of the DWM is confined to Atlantic slope drainages from the Peticodiac River in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the Neuse River, North Carolina. Occurrence records exist from at least 70 locations, encompassing 15 major drainages, in 11 states and one Canadian Province (USFWS 1993). When the recovery plan for this species was written, the DWM was believed to have been extirpated from all but 36 localities, 14 of them in North Carolina (USFWS 1993). The most recent assessment (USFWS 2019b) indicates that the DWM is currently found in 16 major drainages, comprising approximately 75 "sites" (one site may have S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 3 multiple occurrences). At least 45 of these sites are based on less than five individuals or solely on relict shells. It appears that the populations in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland are declining as evidenced by low densities, lack of reproduction, or inability to relocate any individuals in follow-up surveys. Populations in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut appear to be stable, while the status of populations in the Delaware River watershed affected by the multiple flood events between 2004 and 2006 are still being studied (USFWS 2019b). Strayer et al. (1996) conducted range-wide assessments of remaining DWM populations and assigned a population status to each of the populations. The status rating is based on range size, number of individuals and evidence of reproduction. Seven of the 20 populations assessed were considered “poor,” and two others were considered “poor to fair” and “fair to poor,” respectively. Based on the most recent status assessment (USFWS 2019b), many of these populations have declined even further to the point that many of them are considered no longer viable, or even extirpated. In North Carolina, populations are found in portions of the Neuse and Tar River basins; however, they are believed to have been extirpated from the main stem of the Neuse River. The DWM inhabits creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down to approximately two meters wide), with slow to moderate flow. A variety of preferred substrates have been described that range from coarse sand, to firm muddy sand, to gravel (USFWS 1993). In North Carolina, DWM often occurs within submerged root mats along stable streambanks. The wide range of substrate types used by this species suggests that the stability of the substrate is likely as important as the composition. The most recent 5-year review (USFWS 2019b) for the DWM lists the currently known populations of the species from Vermont to North Carolina. Each population is evaluated based on its viability. Below is a list of these populations, with details added for the Neuse River subpopulation that the Project is in closest proximity to: Upper/Middle Connecticut River Basin (Viability: Yes): • Main Stem Upper Connecticut River, New Hampshire/Vermont. Viability: Yes • Main Stem Middle Connecticut River, Massachusetts. Viability: No, historical and presumed extirpated • Mill River, Massachusetts. Viability: Yes • Fort River, Massachusetts. Viability: Yes • Ashuelot River, New Hampshire/Vermont. Viability: Yes Lower Connecticut River Basin (Viability: Unknown): • Muddy Brook, Connecticut. Viability: Yes • Stony Brook, Connecticut. Viability: Yes • Farmington River, Connecticut. Viability: Unknown • Podunk River, Connecticut. Viability: Unknown S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 4 • Philo Brook, Connecticut. Viability: Yes Upper Delaware River Basin (Viability: Yes): • Delaware River Main Stem, New York. Viability: Yes • Neversink River, New York. Viability: Unknown Middle Delaware River Basin (Viability: Unknown): • Middle Delaware River Main Stem, New Jersey. Viability: Unknown • Big/Little Flat Brook, New Jersey. Viability: Yes • Paulins Kill, New Jersey, Viability: Yes • Pequest River, Lake Aeroflex, New Jersey. Viability: Unknown Housatonic River Basin (Viability: No, Likely Extirpated): • Webatuk Creek, New York. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated Tuckahoe River Basin (Viability: No, Likely Extirpated): • Norwich Creek, Maryland. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Long Marsh Ditch (Mason Branch), Maryland. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated Chopank River Basin (Viability: No, Likely Extirpated): • Herring Run, Maryland. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated Lower Potomac River Basin (Viability: Unknown): • Nanjemoy Creek, Maryland. Viability: Yes • McIntosh Run, Maryland. Viability: Unknown Upper Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin (Viability: Unknown): • Granny Finley Branch, Maryland. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Tributary to Southeast Creek, Maryland. Viability: Yes • Three Bridges Branch, Maryland. Viability: Unknown Middle Potomac River Basin (Viability: No, Likely Extirpated): • Aquia Creek, Virginia. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated Middle Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin (Viability: Unknown): S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 5 • Rappahannock River, Virginia. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Mountain Run, Virginia. Viability: Unknown • Blue Run, Virginia. Viability: Unknown York River Basin (Viability: No): • Ni River, Virginia. Viability: No • Po River, Virginia. Viability: Yes • South Anna River, Virginia. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated Chowan River Basin (Viability: No, Likely Extirpated): • Nottoway River, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated. Roanoke River Basin (Viability: Unknown): • Tomahawk Creek, Virginia. Viability: Unknown Upper Tar River Basin (Viability: No): • Cub Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No • Shelton Creek/Fox Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No • North Fork, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Ruin Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Tabbs Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Norris Creek, North Carolina. Viability: Unknown • Fox Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Crooked Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Red Bud Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Cedar Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Stony Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated Lower Tar River Basin (Viability: No, Likely Extirpated): • Chicod Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated Upper Fishing Creek Subbasin, Tar River Basin (Viability: Unknown): • Long Branch, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Shocco Creek, North Carolina. Viability: Unknown • Little Shocco Creek, North Carolina. Viability: Yes • Isinglass Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No • Maple Branch, North Carolina. Viability: Yes • Rocky Swamp, North Carolina. Viability: Unknown S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 6 • Little Fishing Creek (Unnamed Tributary), North Carolina. Viability: Unknown • Ben’s Creek, Tributary to Little Fishing Creek, North Carolina. Viability: Unknown Neuse River Basin (Viability: No): • Neuse River Main Stem, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Buffalo Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • White Oak, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Middle Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Eno River, North Carolina. Viability: No, Likely Extirpated • Little River, North Carolina. Viability: Likely Extirpated • Swift Creek, North Carolina. Viability: No • Turkey Creek, North Carolina. Viability: Likely Extirpated All populations in the Neuse River Basin are likely to have been extirpated with the exception of the remaining Swift Creek Population. In 2015, a DWM augmentation proposal was approved for the Swift Creek population (USFWS 2019b). The DWM has not been observed in the mainstem Neuse River since 1951 downstream of the former Milburnie Dam (NCNHP 2023). 2.1.3 Threats to Species The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non-point discharge, stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.) have contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range. Except for the Neversink River population in New York, which has an estimated population of over 80,000 DWM individuals, all the other populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic events may consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human influenced events such as toxic spills associated with highways, railroads, or industrial-municipal complexes. Siltation resulting from substandard land-use practices associated with activities such as agriculture, forestry, and land development has been recognized as a major contributing factor to degradation of mussel populations. Siltation has been documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants, and direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of less than one inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a population of the DWM because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981). Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that recovery of mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage effluent. S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 7 The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well documented (USFWS 1992a, Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats, which results in changes in aquatic community composition. The changes associated with inundation adversely affect both adult and juvenile mussels, as well as fish community structure, which could eliminate possible fish hosts for upstream transport of glochidia. Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in northern Alabama, once the richest site for naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of Wilson Reservoir and covered with 19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b). Large portions of all the river basins within the DWM’s range have been impounded; this is believed to be a major factor contributing to the decline of the species (Master 1986). The introduction of exotic species such as the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats to native freshwater mussels. The Asian Clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the United States (Fuller and Powell 1973), including those streams still supporting surviving populations of the DWM. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for space, food and oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1995). The Zebra Mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black, Caspian, and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes in the 1980s and has rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those of the South Atlantic slope (O’Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food resources and space with native mussels and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least 20 freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United States (USFWS 1992b). The Zebra Mussel is not currently known to be present in any river supporting DWM populations. 2.1.4 Designated Critical Habitat There is currently no Designated Critical Habitat for the DWM. 2.2 Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) 2.2.1 Species Characteristics The Atlantic Pigtoe (AP) was described by Conrad (1834) from the Savannah River in Augusta, Georgia. Although larger specimens exist, the AP seldom exceeds 50 mm (2 inches) in length. This species is tall relative to its length, except in headwater stream reaches where specimens may be elongated. The hinge ligament is relatively short and prominent. The periostracum is normally brownish, has a parchment texture, and young individuals may have greenish rays across the entire shell surface. The posterior ridge is biangulate. The interdentum in the left valve is broad and flat. The anterior half of the valve is thickened compared with the posterior half, and, when fresh, nacre in the anterior half of the shell tends to be salmon colored, while nacre in the posterior half tends to be more iridescent. The shell has S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 8 full dentation. In addition to simple papillae, branched and arborescent papillae are often seen on the incurrent aperture. In females, salmon colored demibranchs are often seen during the spawning season. When fully gravid, females use all four demibranchs to brood glochidia (VDGIF 2014). The AP is a tachytictic (short-term) breeder, brooding young in early spring and releasing glochidia in early summer. The Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and Shield Darter (Percina peltata) have been identified as potential fish hosts for this species (O’Dee and Waters 2000). Additional research has found Rosefin Shiner (Lythrurus ardens), Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), and Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) are also suitable hosts (Wolf 2012). Eads and Levine (2012) found White Shiner (Luxilus albeolus), Satinfin Shiner (Cyprinella analostana), Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Rosyside Dace (Clinostomus funduloides), Pinewoods Shiner (Lythrurus matutinus), Swallowtail Shiner (Notropis procne), and Mountain Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus oreas) to also be suitable hosts for AP. 2.2.2 Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status Johnson (1970) reported the range of the AP extended from the Ogeechee River Basin in Georgia north to the James River Basin in Virginia; however, recent curation of the H. D. Athearn collection uncovered valid specimens from the Altamaha River in Georgia (USFWS 2021a). In addition, USFWS (2021c) citing Alderman and Alderman (2014) reported two shells from the 1880’s that also documented the historical occurrence in the Altamaha River Basin. It is presumed extirpated from the Catawba River Basin in North and South Carolina south to the Altamaha River Basin (USFWS 2021a, USFWS 2021c). The general pattern of its current distribution indicates that the species is currently limited to headwater areas of drainages and most populations are represented by few individuals. In North Carolina, aside from the Waccamaw River, it was once found in every Atlantic Slope River Basin, and except for the Tar River, it is no longer found in the main stem of the rivers within its historic range (Savidge et al. 2011). It is listed as Endangered in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and as Threatened in Virginia. It has a NatureServe rank of G1 (Critically Imperiled) (Natureserve, 2018). The AP has been found in multiple physiographic provinces, from the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, through the Piedmont and into the Coastal Plain, in streams less than one meter wide to large rivers. The preferred habitat is a substrate composed of gravel and coarse sand, usually at the base of riffles; however, it can be found in a variety of other substrates and lotic habitat conditions. The 2021 species status assessment outlines the overall health of the currently known populations of AP in terms of population and habitat factors. Population factors include Management Unit (MU) Occupancy, Approximate Abundance, and Reproduction. Habitat Factors include Water Quality, Water Quantity, Connectivity, and Instream Habitat (Substrate). Each factor is evaluated on a scale ranging from High-Moderate-Low-Very Low- Ø. Categories labeled Ø indicate either likely extirpation or a lack of data. The list below outlines the resiliency of the overall river basin and AP MU’s, where the evaluated factors are listed by Combined S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 9 Population, Combined Habitat, and Overall Resiliency, respectively. The project area is within MU 16 and is italicized below (USFWS 2021c): James River Basin (Low, Moderate, Low): 1. Craig Creek Subbasin – Craig/ Giles counties, VA (Moderate, High, Moderate) 2. Mill Creek – Bath/ Highland counties, VA (Ø, Moderate, Ø) 3. Rivanna – Albemarle /Fluvanna counties, VA (Ø, Low, Ø) 4. Upper James – Amhurst/Bedford/Botetourt/Lexington counties, VA (Ø, Moderate, Ø) 5. Middle James – Buckingham/ Chesterfield/ Cumberland/ Goochland/ Henrico/ Powhatan counties, VA (Ø, Low, Ø) 6. Appomattox – Appomattox/ Buckingham/ Cumberland/ Prince Edward counties, VA (Ø, Moderate, Ø) Chowan River Basin (Low, Moderate, Low): 7. Nottoway –Brunswick/ Dinwiddie/ Greensville/ Appomattox/ Buckingham/ Cumberland/ Prince Edward counties, VA (Moderate, Low, Moderate) 8. Meherrin – Brunswick/ Charlotte/ Halifax/ Lunenburg/ Mecklenburg counties, VA (Low, Moderate, Low) Roanoke River Basin (Low, Moderate, Low): 9. Dan River Subbasin – Halifax/ Pittsylvania counties, VA and Caswell/ Granville/ Person/ Rockingham counties, NC (Low, Moderate, Low) 10. Roanoke – Halifax/ Northampton counties, NC (Ø, Moderate, Ø) Tar River Basin (High, Moderate, High): 11. Upper/Middle Tar –Granville/ Franklin/ Nash/ Person/ Vance counties, NC (High, Moderate, High) 12. Lower Tar- Beaufort/Edgecombe/Pitt counties, NC (Low, Moderate, Low) 13. Fishing Creek Subbasin – Franklin/Halifax/Nash/Warren counties, NC (High, Moderate, High) 14. Sandy Swift Creek – Edgecombe/Franklin/Nash counties, NC (High, Moderate, High) Neuse River Basin (Moderate, Low, Moderate): 15. Upper Neuse – Durham/Orange/Person counties, NC (Moderate, Low, Moderate) 16. Middle Neuse – Durham/Franklin/Johnson/Wake/Wayne/Wilson counties, NC (Moderate, Low, Moderate) Cape Fear River Basin (Low, Low, Low): S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 10 17. New Hope – Chatham/Durham/Orange/Wake counties, NC (Moderate, Low, Moderate) 18. Deep River Subbasin – Alamance/Chatham/Moore/Randolph counties, NC (Low, Low, Low) 19. Cape Fear Mainstream – Cumberland/Harnett/Wake counties, NC (Ø, Low, Ø) 20. Black – Bladen/Pender/Sampson counties, NC (Ø, High, Ø) Pee Dee River Basin (Low, Low, Low): 21. Muddy Creek – Davidson/Forsyth/Stokes counties, NC (Ø, Low, Ø) 22. Uwharrie/Little – Davidson/Montgomery/Randolph counties, NC (Low, Moderate, Low) 23. Goose/Lanes – Anson/Union counties, NC (Ø, Low, Ø) Catawba River Basin (Ø, Low, Ø): One shell was observed in the 1800s in Long Creek, Gaston County, NC Edisto River Basin (Ø, Moderate, Ø): Five shells were discovered in a European collection, dating back to the 1800s, no individuals have been observed since. Precise location of where shells originated is not known. Savannah River Basin (Ø, Low, Ø): Type specimen collected from this MU in 1834 (Richmond County, GA). Dive surveys in 2006 collected individuals that were later identified as Elliptios, not AP Ogeechee River Basin (Ø, Moderate, Ø): Live individuals found in 1970s in Williamson Swamp Creek (Johnson/Washington counties, GA), however it is presumed extirpated due to a failure to locate AP despite extensive surveys. Altamaha River Basin (Ø, Moderate, Ø): Two shells were located in the 1800s within this MU but have not been recorded since. 2.2.3 Threats to Species Stressors to the AP are very similar to that of the DWM discussed in Section 3.1.3. The AP appears to be particularly sensitive to pollutants and requires clean, oxygen-rich water for all stages of life. All the remaining AP populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event. S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 11 2.2.4 Designated Critical Habitat As mentioned in Section 1.0, the AP is listed as a Federally Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Designation. In accordance with Section 4 of the ESA, Critical Habitat for listed species consists of: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, in which are found those physical or biological features (constituent elements) that are: a. essential to the conservation of the species, and b. which may require special management considerations or protection (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are “essential for the conservation of the species.” On November 16, 2021, USFWS listed the AP as a Threatened species under the ESA. Critical habitat was revised with the listing (86 FR 64000) and consists of the following (USFWS 2021a): • Unit 1 (JR1) - 29 river mi (46.7 river km) of Craig Creek in Craig and Botetourt Counties, Virginia • Unit 2 (JR2) - 1 mile (1.6-km) of Mill Creek in Bath County, Virginia • Unit 3 (CR1) - 4 miles (6.6 km) of Sappony Creek in the Chowan River Basin in Dinwiddie County, Virginia • Unit 4 (CR2) - 64 river miles (103 river km) of the Nottoway River and a portion of Sturgeon Creek in Nottoway, Lunenburg, Brunswick, Dinwiddie, and Greenville Counties, Virginia • Unit 5 (CR3) - 5 miles (8 km) of the Meherrin River in Brunswick County, Virginia • Unit 6 (RR1) - 14 miles (22.5 km) of the Dan River in Pittsylvania County, Virginia and Rockingham County, North Carolina • Unit 7 (RR2) - 12 miles (19.3 km) of Aarons Creek in Granville County, North Carolina and along the Mecklenburg County-Halifax County line in Virginia and North Carolina • Unit 8 (RR3) –3 miles (4.8 km) of Little Grassy Creek in the Roanoke River Basin in Granville County, North Carolina • Unit 9 (TR1) - 91 miles (146.5 km) of the main stem of the upper and middle Tar River as well as several tributaries (Bear Swamp Creek, Crooked Creek, Cub Creek, and Shelton Creek), in Granville, Vance, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina. • Unit 10 (TR2) - 50 miles (80.5km) of Sandy/Swift Creek in Granville, Vance, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 12 • Unit 11 (TR3) - 85 miles (136.8 km) in Fishing Creek, Little Fishing Creek, Shocco Creek, and Maple Branch located in Warren, Halifax, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina • Unit 12 (TR4) - 30 miles (48.3 km) of the Lower Tar River, lower Swift Creek and lower Fishing Creek in Edgecombe County, North Carolina • Unit 13 (NR1) - 60 river miles (95 river km) in four subunits including Flat River, Little River, Eno River, and the Upper Eno River in Person, Durham, and Orange Counties, North Carolina • Unit 14 (NR2) - 61 river miles (98.2 river km) in five subunits including Swift Creek, Middle Creek, Upper Little River, Middle Little River, and Contentnea Creek in Wake, Johnston, and Wilson Counties, North Carolina • Unit 15 (CF1) - 4 miles (6.4 km) of habitat in New Hope Creek in Orange County, North Carolina • Unit 16 (CF2) - 10 river miles (16.1 river km) of Deep River in Randolph County, North Carolina, including the main stem as well as Richland Creek and Brush Creek • Unit 17 (YR1) - 40 miles (64.4 km) of Little River in Randolph and Montgomery Counties, North Carolina *JR, CR, RR, TR, NR, CF and YR denote James River, Chowan River, Roanoke River, Tar River, Neuse River, Cape Fear River and Yadkin River Basins, respectively. Critical Habitat Unit 14 occurs closest to the corridor; the unit is 41 RM from the Project located in Swift Creek (Appendix A, Figure 2-2). 2.3 Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi) 2.3.1 Species Characteristics The Neuse River Waterdog (NRWD) is a fully aquatic salamander and was first described by C.S. Brimley in 1924 as a subspecies of the Common Mudpuppy (N. maculosus); it was elevated to species status in 1937 by Percy Viosca, Jr. The NRWD generally ranges in size from 6-9 inches (15.24 – 22.86 cm) in length; with a maximum length of 11 inches (27.94 cm). It has a somewhat stocky, cylindrical body with smooth skin, a rather flattened, elongate head with a squared-off nose, and small limbs. The tail is vertically flattened with fins on both the top and bottom. Distinct from most salamanders, the NRWD and other Necturus species, have four toes on each foot. The NRWD is a rusty brown color on the dorsal side and dull brown or slate colored on the ventral side. Both dorsal and ventral sides are strongly spotted but the ventral side tends to have fewer and smaller markings; spots are dark bluish to black. They also have a dark S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 13 line running through the eye. Adults are neotenous and retain three bushy, dark red external gills usually seen in larval amphibians. Both male and female are similar in appearance and can be distinguished only through differences in the shape and structure of the cloaca (Beane and Newman 1996; Conant and Collins 1998; EDGE of Existence 2016). Individuals become sexually mature at approximately 5-6 years of age. Breeding normally occurs in the spring. The male deposits a gelatinous spermatophore that is picked up by the female and used to fertilize between 30-50 eggs. The fertilized eggs are attached to the underside of flat rocks or other submerged objects and guarded by the female until they hatch in June or July (Conant and Collins 1998; EDGE of Existence 2016). The longevity of the NRWD is unknown. However, its close relative, Necturus maculosus, may live for over 30 years (USFWS 2021d). 2.3.2 Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status The NRWD is found only in the Neuse and Tar River basins of North Carolina (AmphibiaWeb 2006; Beane and Newman 1996; Frost 2016). NRWD’s inhabit rivers and larger streams, where they prefer leaf beds in quiet waters. They need high levels of dissolved oxygen and good water quality. The 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. They are active during the night, leaving these retreats to feed. NRWD’s are carnivorous, feeding on invertebrates, small vertebrates, and carrion. NRWD’s are most active during winter months even when temperatures are below freezing. During summer months, they will burrow into deep leaf beds and are rarely found. It has been suggested that this inactivity in summer may be an adaptation to avoid fish predators, which are more active at these times. In addition, NRWD’s produce a defensive, toxic skin secretion that is assumed to be distasteful to predators (AmphibiaWeb 2006; Beane and Newman 1996; Conant and Collins 1998; EDGE of Existence 2016; NatureServe Explorer 2016). The 2021 species status assessment outlines the overall health of the currently known populations of NRWD in terms of population and habitat factors. Population factors include Management Unit (MU) Occupancy and Site Occupancy. Habitat Factors include Water Quality, Water Quantity, Connectivity, and Instream Habitat (Substrate). Each factor is evaluated on a scale ranging from High-Moderate-Low-Very Low- Ø. Categories labeled Ø indicate total loss. The list below outlines the resiliency of the overall river basin and NRWD MU’s, where the evaluated factors are listed by Combined Population, Combined Habitat, and Overall Resiliency, respectively. The project is located in MU 7 and is italicized below (USFWS 2021d): Tar River Basin (Moderate): 1. Upper Tar – Franklin/Granville/ Person/ Vance counties, NC (Very Low, Moderate, Very Low) 2. Middle Tar- Edgecombe/Nash/ Wilson counties, NC (Moderate, Moderate, Moderate) S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 14 3. Lower Tar – Edgecombe/ Beaufort/ Pitt/ Lenoir/ Greene counties, NC (High, Moderate, High) 4. Sandy-Swift – Edgecombe/Franklin/ Halifax/ Nash counties, NC (High, Moderate, High) 5. Fishing Creek Subbasin – Edgecombe/ Halifax/ Nash counties, NC (Low, Moderate, Low) Neuse River Basin (Low): 6. Upper Neuse – Durham/ Granville/ Orange counties, NC (Low, Moderate, Low) 7. Middle Neuse –Johnston/Wake/Wayne/Wilson counties, NC (Low, Low, Low) 8. Lower Neuse – Craven/ Greene/ Lenoir/ Pitt/ Wayne counties, NC (Moderate, Low, Moderate) Trent River Basin (Very Low): 9. Trent – Jones/ Lenoir counties, NC (Very Low, Moderate, Very Low) 2.3.3 Threats to Species Any factors that reduce water quality are threats to the NRWD. These can include changes that result in siltation and pollution that impact habitat quality (e.g. channelization, agricultural runoff, and industrial and urban development). Impoundments are also a threat to the dispersal of the species as it is unable to cross upland habitat; NRWD’s do not climb and are unlikely to use fish passages (NatureServe Explorer 2016). 2.3.4 Designated Critical Habitat The NRWD is listed under the ESA as a Threatened Species with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Designation. Critical habitat designation (CFR Vol. 86 No. 109) consists of the following (USFWS 2021b): • Unit 1 - 12.3 river mi (13.8 river km) of the Upper Tar River in Granville County • Unit 2 - 10.5 river mi (16.9 river km) of Upper Fishing Creek in Warren County • Unit 3 – 2 river mi (3.2 river km) of Bens Creek in Warren County • Unit 4 - 82.8 river mi (133 river km) of lower Little Fishing Creek in Halifax, Nash, Warren and Edgecombe Counties. • Unit 5 – 72.5-river-mi (116.8-river-km) segment of Sandy Creek and Red Bud Creek in Franklin, and Nash Counties • Unit 6 - 111-river-mi (179-river-km) segment of the Middle Tar River in Franklin, Nash, and Edgecombe Counties • Unit 7 - 59.9 river mi (96.3 river km) in the Lower Tar River Subbasin including portions of Town Creek, Otter Creek, and Tyson Creek in Edgecombe and Pitt Counties S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 15 • Unit 8 - 43.9 river mi (70.6 river km) of the Eno River in Orange and Durham Counties • Unit 9 - 15.2-river-mi (24.5-river-km) segment of the Flat River in Person and Durham Counties • Unit 10 - 30.8-river-mi (49.6-river-km) stretch of Middle Creek in Wake and Johnston Counties • Unit 11 - 24-river-mi (38.6-river-km) stretch of Swift Creek in Johnston County • Unit 12 - 90.8-river-mi (146.1-river-km) segment of the Little River including Buffalo Creek in Franklin, Wake, Johnston, and Wayne Counties • Unit 13 - 20.8-river-mi (33.5-river-km) segment of Mill Creek in Johnston and Wayne Counties • Unit 14 – 43.2 river-mi (69.5 river-km) segment of Middle Neuse River in Wayne County • Unit 15 – 114.8 river-mi (184.8 river-km) segments of Contentnea Creek, Nahunta Swamp and the Neuse River in Craven, Green, Lenoir, Pitt, Wayne, and Wilson Counties • Unit 16 – 10.3 river-mi (16.5 river-km) segment of Swift Creek in Craven County • Unit 17 – 32.5 river-mi (52.4 river-km) segments of Beaver Creek and Trent River in Jones County • Unit 18 – 2 river-mi (3.2 km) segment of Tuckahoe Swamp in Jones County Critical Habitat Units 10 and 11 occur closest to the survey site; the units are 41 RM from the Project located at the confluence of Swift and Middle creeks (Appendix A, Figure 2-3). 2.4 Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus) 2.4.1 Species Characteristics The Carolina Madtom (CMT) was described as “a small catfish” at Milburnie, near Raleigh, NC in the Neuse River by Jordan and Meek (Jordan 1889). The CMT reaches a maximum size of 132 mm (5.2 inches). Compared to other madtoms within its range, it has a relatively short stout body and a distinctive color pattern of three to four dark saddles along its back that connect a long black stripe on the side running from the snout to the tail. The adipose fin is mostly dark, making it appear that the fish has a fourth saddle. The Madtom is tan on the rest of its body and yellow to tan between the saddles. The adipose fin and caudal fin are fused together, a distinguishing characteristic from other members of the catfish family (Ictaluridae). There are no speckles on the Madtom’s belly, and the tail has two brown bands that follow the curve of the tail. The CMT, like other catfishes, has serrae on its S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 16 pectoral fins and is thought to have the most potent venom of any of the catfish species (NCWRC 2010). 2.4.2 Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status The CMT is endemic to the Piedmont/Inner Coastal Plain portion of the Tar/Pamlico and Neuse River basins. It occurs in creeks and small rivers in habitats generally consisting of shallow riffles with little current over coarse sand and gravel substrate (Lee et al. 1980). Burr et al. (1989) found most records came from medium to large streams, i.e., mainstem Neuse and Tar Rivers and their major tributaries. The population in the Trent River system (part of the Neuse River Basin) is isolated from the rest of the Neuse River Basin by salinity levels, so it is therefore considered a separate population, though it had not been detected in the Trent River in the five years prior to the formal listing (USFWS 2021e). In the lower portions of these rivers, CMT is usually found over debris piles in sandy areas. During nesting season, which is from May to July, individuals prefer areas with plenty of cover to build their nests with shells, rocks, sticks, bottles, and cans, being suitable cover types. Males guard the nests, in which females may lay between 80 and 300 eggs. The CMT is found in water that ranges from clear to tannin-rich, which is usually free-flowing. It is generally rare throughout its range and is apparently in decline. The Tar River population has historically been more robust than the Neuse River population (Burr et al. 1989), which has shown declines in recent years (Midway 2008). The Little River of the Neuse River Basin has the largest population of the CMT in the Neuse River Basin, with records from 2016 indicating continued presence (USFWS 2021e). A few specimens have been collected from Swift Creek of the Neuse River Basin. Fishing Creek and Swift Creek of the Tar River Basin are also productive systems in regard to CMT populations, with around 14 specimens collected in the mid-1980s from Swift Creek (water levels in Fishing Creek prevented sampling during that study). In 2016, a total of 17 individuals was recorded in Swift Creek, and a total of four individuals was recorded in Fishing Creek (USFWS 2021e). The CMT has been observed in at least 36 localities (Burr et al. 1989). The CMT has a lifespan of about four years, with sexual maturity being reached around two years in females and three years in males. Sampling for CMT is most effective at dawn and dusk when they are most active and feeding (Mayden and Burr 1981). Their diet consists mostly of benthic macroinvertebrates, which they collect by scavenging for food on the bottom of the stream. The 2021 species status assessment outlines the overall health of the currently known populations of CMT in terms of population and habitat factors. Population factors include Management Unit (MU) Occupancy, Approximate Abundance, and Reproduction. Habitat Factors include Water Quality, Water Quantity, Connectivity, and Instream Habitat (Substrate). Each factor is evaluated on a scale ranging from High-Moderate-Low-Very Low- Ø. Categories labeled Ø indicate either likely extirpation or a lack of data. The list below outlines the resiliency of the overall river basin and CMT MU’s, where the evaluated factors are listed by Combined S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 17 Population, Combined Habitat, and Overall Resiliency, respectively. The project is located within MU 7 and is italicized below (USFWS 2021e): Tar River Basin (Moderate, Moderate, Moderate): 1. Upper Tar –Granville/ Franklin/ Vance counties, NC (Low, Moderate, Low) 2. Middle Tar - Edgecombe/ Franklin/ Nash counties, NC (Ø, Moderate, Ø) 3. Lower Tar – Edgecombe/ Wilson counties, NC (Ø, Moderate, Ø) 4. Fishing Creek Subbasin – Edgecombe/ Halifax/ Nash/ Warren counties, NC (Moderate, Moderate, Moderate) 5. Sandy-Swift – Edgecombe/ Franklin/ Halifax/ Nash/ Vance/ Warren counties, NC (High, Moderate, High) Neuse River Basin (Very Low, Low, Very Low): 6. Upper Neuse – Durham/Orange counties, NC (Ø, Low, Ø) 7. Middle Neuse –Johnston/Wake/Wayne counties, NC (Ø, Low, Ø) 8. Lower Neuse – Craven/ Greene/ Jones/ Lenoir/ Wayne counties, NC (Ø, Low, Ø) 9. Little River – Franklin/ Johnston/ Wake/ Wayne counties, NC (Low, Moderate, Low) 10. Contentnea – Greene/ Lenoir/Wilson counties, NC (Low, Low, Low) Trent River Basin (Ø, Moderate, Ø): 11. Trent – Jones/Lenoir/ Onslow counties, NC (Ø, Moderate, Ø) 2.4.3 Threats to Species Identified threats to the species include water pollution and construction of impoundments (Burr et al. 1989). The CMT is susceptible to threats due to its limited range and low population densities (Angermeier 1995, Burr and Stoekel 1999). As a bottom-dwelling fish, the CMT is susceptible to habitat loss when stream bottoms are impacted by urbanization, impoundments, deforestation, etc. In addition to development and pollution, agricultural practices, forest conversion and management, and hydrologic modification (dams and barriers), the USFWS (2021e) identified the Flathead Catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), an invasive predator in Atlantic Slope drainages, as a major factor influencing the viability of the CMT, particularly in the Neuse River Basin. 2.4.4 Designated Critical Habitat The CMT is listed under the ESA as an Endangered Species with Critical Habitat Designation. Critical habitat designation (CFR Vol. 86 No. 109) consists of the following (USFWS 2021b): • Unit 1 – 26 river miles [42 river kilometers (km)] of Tar River in Franklin, Granville, and Vance Counties S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 18 • Unit 2 – 66 river miles (106 km) of Sandy/Swift Creek in Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Nash, and Warren Counties • Unit 3 – 86 river miles (138 km) of the Fishing Creek Subbasin in Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Nash, and Warren Counties • Unit 4 – 20 river miles (32 km) of the Upper Neuse River Subbasin (Eno River) in Durham and Orange Counties • Unit 5 – 28 river miles (45 km) of the Little River in Johnston County • Unit 6 – 15 river miles (24 km) of Contentnea Creek in Wilson County • Unit 7 – 15 river miles (24 km) of the Trent River in Jones County The Study Area is located more than 50 RM from Critical Habitat Unit 5 in the Little River (Appendix A, Figure 2-4). 3.0 SURVEY EFFORTS Surveys for target species were conducted by Three Oaks personnel Tom Dickinson (Permit 23- ES00343) and Nathan Howell on August 17, 2023. 3.1 Survey Methodology Surveys for mussels, CMT, and NRWD were conducted within Hodges Mill Creek as shown in the reach in Appendix A, Figure 1. Methodologies utilized during the survey efforts are described below. 3.1.1 Mussels Areas of appropriate habitat were searched, concentrating on the stable habitats preferred by the target species. The survey team spread out across the creek into survey lanes, focusing on the banks where habitat was most accessible. Visual surveys were conducted using viewscopes. Tactile methods were employed, particularly in streambanks under submerged rootmats. All freshwater bivalves were recorded and returned to the substrate. Timed survey efforts provided Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data for each species. Relative abundance for freshwater snails and freshwater clam species were estimated using the following criteria: S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 19  (VA) Very abundant > 30 per square meter  (A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter  (C) Common 6-15 per square meter  (U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter  (R) Rare 1-2 per square meter  (P-) Ancillary adjective “Patchy” indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the sampled site. 3.1.2 Carolina Madtom During the mussel survey effort for the project, the presence of preferred habitats for the Carolina Madtom were assessed and targeted visual surveys were conducted by overturning rocks and debris in these areas. To supplement these efforts, an electrofishing survey was completed to evaluate the fish community. The survey efforts utilized one Smith-Root LR-24 backpack electro-fishing unit and dip-nets. Fish captured were identified, counted, and returned to the water shortly after recovering. All habitat types in the survey reach (riffle, run, pool, slack- water, etc.) were sampled. Any collected fish were placed into buckets and identified, counted, assigned a relative abundance, and released live onsite. Relative abundance reported was estimated using the following criteria:  (VA) Very abundant: > 30 collected at survey reach  (A) Abundant: 16-30 collected at survey reach  (C) Common: 6-15 collected at survey reach  (U) Uncommon: 3-5 collected at survey reach  (R) Rare: 1-2 collected at survey reach It should be noted that relative abundances of certain species can be affected by survey methodologies and site conditions. Thus, some species, particularly those that are found in deeper pools and runs and those that can seek cover quickly, may be under-represented, or not detected within the survey reach. 3.1.3 Neuse River Waterdog Neuse River Waterdog habitat was evaluated as part of the mussel and Carolina Madtom surveys for this project. When present in robust populations, the Neuse River Waterdog can readily be observed by turning over cover objects, which was conducted throughout the survey reach during mussel surveys or can be captured while electroshocking. Additional dip net sweeps through leaf packs and underneath submerged rootmats were conducted to supplement these efforts. S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 20 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Hodges Mill Creek Conditions This portion of Hodges Mill Creek ranges from five to eight meters wide, with banks ranging from one to two meters high that generally exhibited some erosion and undercutting. Habitat in the majority of the reach consisted of shallow run, with occasional riffles and pools below woody debris and rock outcrops. Flow was low and clear during the efforts and the stream was very shallow, rarely exceeding 0.5 meters deep, even in pools. Substrates in the stream were dominated by shifting unconsolidated sand, with small patches of gravel and pebble in faster moving areas. Many of the pools were filled with sand. Patches of clay were present along the banks, rootmats were common, and occasional bedrock and saprolite outcrops were present. There were several logjams and woody debris was common. A moderately wide forested buffer was present along the reach, with surrounding land use typical of the suburban Raleigh area consisting of mixed density residential development. 4.2 Aquatic Species Survey Results 4.2.1 Mussels A total of 3.17 person hours of mussel survey time were spent in the reach during which the Eastern Elliptio was located (Table 4). Other mollusk species located included the invasive Asian Clam. Table 4. Freshwater Mollusks in Hodges Mill Creek Scientific Name Common Name # live Abundance/ CPUE Freshwater Mussels CPUE Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 17 5.36/hr Freshwater Snails and Clams Relative Abundance Corbicula fluminea Asian Clam ~ A 4.2.2 Carolina Madtom A total of 20 fish species were observed during the 1,040 seconds of intermittent shocking time (Table 5). The Carolina Madtom was not observed. The Northern Two-lined Salamander (Eurycea bisliniata), a semi aquatic salamander was common in the stream. S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 21 Table 5. Fish Survey Results: Hodges Mill Creek Scientific Name Common Name Relative Abundance Ameiurus brunneus Snail Bullhead R Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead U Anguilla rostrata American Eel C Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate Perch C Cyprinella analostana Satinfin Shiner C Esox americanus Redfin Pickerel R Etheostoma sp. cf. olmstedi Tessellated Darter A Gambusia holbrooki Eastern Mosquitofish C Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish C Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish U Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill A Luxilus albeolus White Shiner C Nocomis leptocephalus Bluehead Chub C Notropis hudsonius Spottail Shiner U Notropis procne Swallowtail Shiner A Noturus insignis Margined Madtom C Percina nevisense Chainback Darter R Percina roanoka Roanoke Darter R Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow R Semotilus atromaculatus Creek Chub U 4.2.3 Neuse River Waterdog Potentially suitable habitat for the species is present in the surveyed portion of Hodges Mill Creek; however, it was not detected during these efforts. Other salamander species (Northern Two-lined Salamander) were consistently observed. Habitats that contain large numbers of this and other streamside salamander species generally do not support the NRWD (Hall, 2020 Personal Communication). 5.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS The surveyed portion of Hodges Mill Creek contains physical habitat attributes that could support the targeted aquatic species; however, none were found during these efforts. Due to their cryptic nature, the presence of these species in Hodges Mill Creek cannot be altogether ruled out, however, the smaller size of the stream, and heavy sand deposition may be limiting colonization of this reach. Given the results of these efforts and the lack of known records in the stream, the presence of targeted protected aquatic species is unlikely in the evaluated reach. S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 22 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Alderman, J. M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community. Unpublished report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC. AmphibiaWeb: Information on amphibian biology and conservation [web application]. 2006. Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. Accessed: March 22, 2016. http://amphibiaweb.org/index.html. Angermeier, P. L. 1995. Ecological attributes of extinction-prone species: loss of freshwater fishes of Virginia. Conservation Biology 9:143–158. Beane, J. and Newman, J. T. 1996. North Carolina Wildlife Profiles – Neuse River Waterdog. Division of Conservation Education, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Brimley, C. S. 1924. The waterdogs (Necturus) of North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 40: 166–168. Burr, B. M., B.R. Kuhajda, W.W. Dimmick and J.M. Grady. 1989. Distribution, biology, and conservation status of the Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus, an endemic North Carolina catfish. Brimleyana 15:57-86. Burr, B. M., and J. N. Stoeckel. 1999. The natural history of madtoms (genus Noturus), North America’s diminutive catfishes. Pages 51–101 in E. R. Irwin, W. A. Hubert, C. F. Rabeni, H. L. J. Schramm, and T. Coon, editors. Catfish 2000: Proceedings of the International Ictalurid Symposium. Symposium 24. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Clarke, A. H. 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias, Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 326. 101 pp. Conant, R. and Collins, J.T. 1998. A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Third Edition, Expanded. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts. Conrad, T.A. 1834. New freshwater shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations; and a monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. J. Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1–76, 8 pls. Eads, C.B. and J.F. Levine. 2012. Refinement of Growout Techniques for Four Freshwater Mussel Species. Final Report submitted to NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 15pp. S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 23 EDGE of Existence website. "165. Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi)". Accessed: March 22, 2016. http://www.edgeofexistence.org/amphibians/species_info.php?id=1361. Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42. Frost, Darrel R. 2016. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.0 (March 22, 2016). Electronic Database accessible at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. Fuller, S. L. H. 1977. Freshwater and terrestrial mollusks. In: John E. Cooper, Sarah S.Robinson, John B. Fundeburg (eds.) Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59. Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents on Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS: 128 pp. Hall, J. 2020. Personal Communication regarding salamander communities. Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. 140: 263-449. Jordan, D.S. 1889. Descriptions of fourteen species of freshwater fishes collected by the U.S. Fish Commission in the summer of 1888. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 11:351-362.Lea, I. 1828. Description of six new species of the genus Unio, embracing the anatomy of the oviduct of one of them, together with some anatomical observations on the genus. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 3(N.S.):259-273 + plates iii-vi. Lea, I. 1829. Description of a new genus of the family of naïades, including eight species, four of which are new; also the description of eleven new species of the genus Unio from the rivers of the United States: with observations on some of the characters of the naïades. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 3[New Series]:403–457, pls. 7–14. Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp. S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 24 Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal to list as an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 10 pp. and appendices. Mayden, R.L. and B.M. Burr. 1981. Life history of the slender madtom, Noturus exilis, in southern Illinois (Pisces: Ictaluridae), Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kans. 93:1-64 McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalvia. Pp. 331-429. IN: J.H. Thorpe and A.P. Covich. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. 2ndedition. Academic Press.McRae, Sarah. 2017. Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh, NC. Personal communication regarding target species. Michaelson, D.L. and R.J. Neves. 1995. Life history and habitat of the endangered dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14(2):324-340. Midway, S. R. 2008. Habitat ecology of the Carolina madtom, Noturus furiosus, an imperlied endemic stream fish (MS, North Carolina State University). NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: January 2022). Species Accessed: Necturus lewisi Natureserve. October 2018. Natureserve Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. Natureserve, Arlingon, Virginia. Available https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.1066291/Fusconaia_mas oni. (Accessed January 2022). Species Accessed: Fusconaia masoni NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) – PAWS. (April 2021). Unpublished Aquatic species database. Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 1(5): 1- 7. Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL.189 pp. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2023. Biotics Database. Division of Land and Water Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. July 2023 version. S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 25 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). 2010. NCpedia profile for Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus) [web application]. By Brian Watson, updated by Chris Wood. June 14, 2010. http://ncpedia.org/wildlife/carolina-madtom Accessed November 4, 2016. O’Dee, S.H., and G.T. Waters. 2000. New or confirmed host identification for ten freshwater mussels. Pp. 77-82 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Waters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings Part I. Proceedings of the Conservation, Captive Care and Propagation of Freshwater Mussels Symposium. Ohio Biological Survey Special Publication, Columbus. O’Neill, C. R., Jr., and D. B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): an unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp. Ortmann, A.E. 1919. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III: Systematic account of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1): xvi–384, 21 pls. Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Savidge, T. W., J. M. Alderman, A. E. Bogan, W. G. Cope, T. E. Dickinson, C. B. Eads,S. J. Fraley, J. Fridell, M. M. Gangloff, R. J. Heise, J. F. Levine, S. E. McRae, R.B. Nichols, A. J. Rodgers, A. Van Devender, J. L. Williams and L. L. Zimmerman. 2011. 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks in North Carolina. Unpublished report of the Scientific Council on Freshwater and Teresstrial Mollusks. 177pp. Simpson, C.T. 1900. Synopsis of the naiades, or pearly fresh-water mussels. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 22(1205):501–1044. Simpson, C.T. 1914. A descriptive catalogue of the naiades, or pearly fresh-water mussels. Parts I–III. Bryant Walker, Detroit, Michigan, xii + 1540 pp. Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering, Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp. Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range-wide assessment of populations of Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Special report on the status of freshwater mussels. S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 26 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of the southeast United States (The Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 527 pp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019b. Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/tess/species_nonpublish/2774.pdf United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule and Designation of Critical Habitat for Atlantic Pigtoe. 50 CFR 17:86 FR 64000, 64000-64053. Docket Nos. FWS- R4-ES-2018-0046FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule for Neuse River Waterdog, Endangered Species Status for Carolina Madtom, and Designations of Critical Habitat. 50 CFR 17:86 FR 30688, 30688-30751. Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021c. Species Status Assessment Report for the Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) Version 1.4. https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/201267 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021d. Species Status Assessment Report for the Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi) Version 1.2. https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/195540 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021e. Species status assessment report for the Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus). Version 1.2. https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/195532 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPAC). Accessed August 2023. Viosca, P., Jr. 1937. A tentative revision of the genus Necturus, with descriptions of three new species from the southern Gulf drainage area. Copeia 1937:120-138. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014. Atlantic Pigtoe Conservation Plan. Bureau of Wildlife Resources. VDGIF, Richmond, VA. 31 pp. Wolf, E.D. 2012. Propagation, Culture, and Recovery of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe. Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute, Project No. 11-108. 55pp. S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 27 Appendix A Figures S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 28 S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 29 S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 30 S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 31 S&ME DENC Old Milburnie Rd Repair Aquatic Species Survey Report August 2023 Job# 23-332 Page 32