Southern Oaks Sewer Aquatic TE Species Survey Report_Final.pdf

Aquatic Species Survey Report
Southern Oaks Sewer Project
Wake County,North Carolina
_- , ,
UT Kenneth Creek Habitat Survey Reach I
Prepared For:
No WClorPethersopte.Your mss_ ! TA , LOVING
Prepared by:
#hEE fte
� �
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham,NC 27701
March 25, 2024

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Target Species Descriptions................................................................................................. 1
2.1. Cape Fear Shiner(Notropis mekistocholas)..................................................................... 1
2.1.1. Characteristics........................................................................................................... 1
2.1.2. Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status........................................................ 2
2.1.3. Threats to Species.....................................................................................................4
2.1.4. Designated Critical Habitat....................................................................................... 4
2.2. Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)................................................................................. 5
2.2.1. Characteristics........................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2. Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status........................................................ 6
2.2.3. Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 8
2.2.4. Designated Critical Habitat....................................................................................... 9
3.0 Survey Efforts.................................................................................................................... 11
3.1. Stream Conditions at Time of Surveys .......................................................................... 11
3.1.1. Reach I.................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.2. Reach 2.................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.3. Reach 3.................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.4. Reach 4.................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.5. Reach 5.................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.6. Reach 6.................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.7. Reach 7.................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.8. Reach 8.................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.9. Reach 9.................................................................................................................... 14
3.1.10. Fish Assemblage Reach.......................................................................................... 14
3.2. Methodology.................................................................................................................. 14
3.2.1. Fish Surveys............................................................................................................ 14
3.2.2. Mussel Surveys....................................................................................................... 14
4.0 Results................................................................................................................................ 15
4.1. Reach 1 ........................................................................................................................... 15
4.2. Reach 2........................................................................................................................... 15
4.3. Reach 3........................................................................................................................... 16
4.4. Reach 4........................................................................................................................... 16
4.5. Reach 5........................................................................................................................... 16
4.6. Reach 6........................................................................................................................... 16
4.7. Reach 7........................................................................................................................... 16
4.8. Reach 8........................................................................................................................... 17
4.9. Reach 9........................................................................................................................... 17
4.10. Fish Assemblage Reach ................................................................................................. 18
5.0 Discussion/Conclusions..................................................................................................... 19
5.1. Cape Fear Shiner............................................................................................................ 19
5.2. Atlantic Pigtoe................................................................................................................ 19
6.0 Literature Cited.................................................................................................................. 20

Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1-1: Project Vicinity& Survey Reaches: March 05, 2024
Figure 1-2: Survey Reaches: March 20, 2024
Figure 2-1 and 2-2: NCNHP Element Occurrences and Designated Critical Habitat
Appendix B. Select Photographs

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Southern Oaks Sewer project (the Project) consists of an approximately 3-mile corridor
following an Unnamed Tributary(UT) to Kenneth Creek near Fuquay-Varina,NC (Appendix A,
Figure 1). Kenneth Creek is a tributary in the Cape Fear River Basin. The Cape Fear River Basin
in Wake County is known to support rare aquatic species, including some that are currently
protected under the Endangered Species Act. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Information, Planning, and Consultation (IPaQ system lists the Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia
masoni, AP) and Cape Fear Shiner(Notropis mekistocholas, CFS) as a species that could
potentially be affected by activities in these locations as accessed March 14, 2024 (USFWS IPaC
2024)
Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrences (EOs) for Cape Fear Shiner and Atlantic Pigtoe to
the Project in approximate stream miles (SM). Data is according to the NC Natural Heritage
Program database (NCNHP 2024) most recently updated in January 2024. Measurements are
taken from the downstream-most potential impact area, or surveyed reach(Site 1)within the
project area(Appendix A, Figures 2-1 and 2-2).
Table 1—Element Occurrences
Distance from First Last EO
Target Species EO ID EO Waterbody Site(SM) Observed Observed Status* Figure
Kenneth Creek/ August October
Cape Fear Shiner 23981 Neills Creek 2.3 1962 2022 C 2-1
3997 Cape Fear River 12.1 1969 July 1990 H
Atlantic Pigtoe 22292 Fork Creek >50 June 2002 June 2002 C 2-2
*: C—NCNHP Current;H NCNHP Historic
As part of the permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project-related effects to
federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) was contracted to conduct
surveys targeting Cape Fear Shiner and Atlantic Pigtoe.
2.0 TARGET SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
2.1.Cape Fear Shiner(Notropis mekistocholas)
2.1.1. Characteristics
The Cape Fear Shiner is a small, moderately stocky Cyprinid
- !►� described by Snelson 1971 The fish's body is flushed pale
silvery yellow,with a black band running along the side. The
i'• fins are yellowish and somewhat pointed. The upper lip is
A ,yes black, and the lower lip bears a thin black bar along its
;�r. .� °' margin.
;A. The Cape Fear Shiner is distinguished from all other Notropis
species by having an elongated alimentary tract with two convolutions crossing the intestinal
bulb. This is believed to be an adaptation for herbivorous feeding, although the species is known
to be omnivorous based on gut content analysis (Snelson 1971, USFWS 1988). The Cape Fear
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 1

Shiner's diet consists of diatoms,periphyton, detritus, and macroinvertebrates. Therefore, this
adaptation is believed to be useful in that when insectivorous fish populations are high and
animal material is correspondingly low, the Cape Fear Shiner is able to thrive by shifting to
herbivorous feeding habits (USFWS 2022a citing Groves 2000). Wild Cape Fear Shiner are
believed to live roughly three years but may reach up to nine years in captivity(USFWS 2022a).
The Cape Fear Shiner is usually found in low numbers in schools with other shiner species such
as Highfin Shiner(Notropis altipinnis), Swallowtail Shiner(Notropis procne), White Shiner
(Luxilus albeolus), Sandbar Shiner(Notropis scepticus), Spottail Shiner(Notropis hudsonius),
Comely Shiner(Notropis amoenus), Satinfin Shiner(Cyprinella analostana), and Whitefin
Shiner(Cyprinella nivea) (Pottern 2009).
2.1.2. Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status
The Cape Fear Shiner is most often found in rocky pools, runs, and riffles with substrates
containing gravel, cobble, and/or boulder components. These areas are typical of streams in the
Carolina Slate Belt and Raleigh Belt with wide, shallow sections, an open forest canopy, and
abundant American Water Willow(Justicia americana), Riverweed(Podostemum sp.), stream
mosses (Fontinalis sp.), and filamentous algae. The species may be found in lower-gradient
sections of rivers with sand dominated substrate,but usually only in low numbers,presumably as
they move between more rocky sections (USFWS 2022a citing Pottern 2009). Gravel substrate
has been shown to be important for Cape Fear Shiner in feeding and spawning (USFWS 2011).
In comparing shiner density with substrate type, Howard (2003) found low shiner density in
areas with less gravel availability.
Endemic to the upper Cape Fear River Basin in the Central Piedmont region of North Carolina,
the Cape Fear Shiner occupies the tributaries and mainstems of the Cape Fear, Deep, Haw, and
Rocky Rivers in Chatham, Harnett, Lee, Moore, and Randolph counties. Specifically, the current
known range extends from SR 1545 (Chicken Bridge Rd) of the Haw River in Chatham County
and from Coleridge Dam on the Deep River in Randolph County downstream to Erwin on the
mainstem Cape Fear River. Including major tributaries such as the Rocky River, this is a range of
approximately 135 RM (Pottern 2009); however, there are significant gaps in occupancy within
this range, due to a number of factors, most notably large, impounded sections such as Jordan
Lake on the Haw River and High Falls Dam on the Deep River. The lower five miles of the
Rocky River as well as the section of Deep River between High Falls and Coleridge area are
known to have the highest densities of the minnow. The species is known to occupy a few
tributaries to these mainstem rivers but is typically only found within two miles of the respective
confluences (Pottern 2009).
An extensive effort was conducted in 2020 to evaluate current Cape Fear Shiner populations
throughout their range. These efforts confirmed presence in the Rocky and Deep River
drainages,while being unable to find individuals in the Haw River or Cape Fear River below the
Rocky River confluence. However,presence was confirmed in 2021 in Neills Creek by a private
consultant (USFWS 2022a). Additionally, in 2023, several hundred Cape Fear Shiner individuals
were released into the Cape Fear River near Lillington in a large riffle complex at approximately
35.398, -78.7792 (Kathy Matthews USFWS,personal communication).
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 2

The 2022 Cape Fear Shiner species status assessment focuses on the health and distribution of
the currently known populations of Cape Fear Shiner by HUC 10 Management Units (MUs), of
which there are eight. Status is evaluated by three factors: resiliency, redundancy, and
representation. Resiliency reflects the ability of the species to react to a given stochastic event.
Cape Fear Shiners currently only have one subpopulation(encompassing 38% of its range)that
exhibits moderate to high resiliency,the remaining population rating as low (USFWS 2022a).
Redundancy is a measure of the ability of the species to survive a localized catastrophic event by
having several healthy subpopulations to spread the potential risk. In this case, only one of the
three subpopulations (the Rocky and Deep rivers) contains multiple healthy occupied HUC 10
MUs, while the Haw and Cape Fear subpopulations are represented only by four unhealthy MUs
collectively. Lastly, representation categorizes the species' genetic diversity and adaptive
capacity. Due to the narrow endemism and population density of the Cape Fear Shiner, the
species scores low to moderate on all 12 of the "core attributes"used in evaluating
representation. The only attribute the Cape Shiner scores high in is diet breadth, due to its
omnivorous adaptations mentioned in section 3.1.1 (USFWS 2022a).
To establish overall current condition, MUs are rated and assigned relative scores in terms of
population and habitat factors. Population factors in the current condition rating include
approximate abundance and reproduction/recruitment along with the habitat factor of percent
occupied accessible habitat. The cumulative score determines overall resiliency rating ranging
from Healthy-Moderately Healthy-Unhealthy-Very Unhealthy. The list below outlines the
overall resiliency of the eight Cape Fear Shiner MU's (USFWS 2022a). The project occurs in the
italicized Buies Creek—Cape Fear River/Cape Fear 2 MU (2).
Haw River Subbasin (HUC8 03030002)
1. Cane Creek—Haw River/Haw 1 (HUC10 0303000205)—(Very Unhealthy)
2. Robeson Creek—Haw River/Haw 2 (HUC10 0303000207)—(Unhealthy)
Rocky-Deep River Subbasin (HUC8 03030003)
3. Rocky River(HUC10 0303000305)—(Moderately Healthy)
4. Upper Deep River/Deep 1 (HUC10 03 03 0003 02)—(Unhealthy)
5. Middle Deep River/Deep 2 (HUC10 03 03 0003 04)—(Healthy)
6. McLendons-Lower Deep River/Deep 3 (HUC10 03 03 0003 03)—(Healthy)
Upper Cape Fear River Subbasin (HUC8 03030004)
7. Buckhorn Creek-Cape Fear River/Cape Fear 1 (HUC10 0303000401)—(Very
Unhealthy)
8. Buies Creek— Cape Fear River/Cape Fear 2 (HUC10 0303000404) — (Very
Unhealthy)
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 3

2.1.3. Threats to Species
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission(NCWRC)highlights three metrics as being
most detrimental (listed high in the Conservation Concern Score) to the Cape Fear Shiner in the
2020 North Carolina State Wildlife Action Plan(SWAP) (NCWRC 2020). The three metrics
include Natural System Modifications, Development, and Agriculture and Forestry.Natural
System Modifications are believed to be the most severe and pervasive, due to the number of
barriers and impoundments present in the current Cape Fear Shiner range. There are three
additional factors that score in the medium range for Conservation Concern Score:
energy/mining, invasive species, and pollution. Additionally, the restricted range and small
population sizes make this species vulnerable to catastrophic events (USFWS 1988).
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.
Habitat alteration resulting from multiple dam construction projects in the Cape Fear system is
likely the most significant factor that contributed to the decline of the species (USFWS 2022a).
Upper Cape Fear River Basin dams alter flows and sediment transport and impound key habitat
elements critical to the Cape Fear Shiner. These impoundments fragment the species' population
and limit genetic exchange, which can increase vulnerability to catastrophic events (USFWS
2011). Hydroelectric dams are threatening the Cape Fear Shiner through habitat alteration and fit
into the category of mining/energy SWAP metric. The removal of the Hoosier Dam on the
Rocky River is believed to expand access of the upper Rocky River for the extant Cape Fear
Shiner population in that river drainage (USFWS 2022b).
Development and Agriculture and Forestry are identified as significant factors in the decline of
the species as well, due to the influx of pollutants and sedimentation that can result from these
operations (USFWS 2022a;NCWRC 2020). Sedimentation resulting from poor agricultural
practices or construction projects threatens habitat by smothering key rocky substrates or
submerged aquatic vegetation areas, in addition to altering water quality in surrounding
waterways. Water quality has been identified by Howard(2003) to be a limiting factor for Cape
Fear Shiner. Caged shiners in the Haw River saw significant reduction in survival and growth,
which was associated with higher concentrations of metals (cadmium, cooper, zinc,mercury,
lead) and organic contaminants (PAH, PCB, DDT, chlordane) in tested tissues as well as in Haw
River water and sediments. Sedimentation may also be accelerated by gravel/sand mining
operations present in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin(NCWRC 2020).
Introductions of non-native predator species could also negatively affect the Cape Fear Shiner.
Introductions of the Spotted Bass (Micropterus punctulatus), Flathead Catfish (Pylodictis
olivaris), and Blue Catfish(Ictalurus furcatus) in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin could result
in a decline of the Cape Fear Shiner within its range (NCWRC 2020).
2.1.4. Designated Critical Habitat
In accordance with Section 4 of the ESA, Critical Habitat for listed species consists of:
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 4

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 September 25, 1987,the USFWS listed the Cape Fear Shiner as an endangered species under
the Endangered Species Act. Critical habitat designation provided at that time (CFR Vol. 52 No.
186) consists of the following (USFWS 1987):
• Unit 1 -Approximately 4.1 RM (6.6 River Kilometers (RKM)) of the Rocky River in
Chatham County,North Carolina
• Unit 2 -Approximately 7.3 RM (11.8 RKM) of Bear Creek, Rocky River, and Deep
River in Chatham County,North Carolina
• Unit 3 -Approximately 5.6 RM (9.0 RKM) of Fork Creek and Deep River in Randolph
and Moore counties,North Carolina.
Since the listing of the species, the area of known occupied habitat for the Cape Fear Shiner has
significantly expanded through restoration activities such as the removal of the Carbonton Dam
on the Deep River, the more recent removal of the Hoosier Dam on the Rocky River, and
updated survey efforts.
Critical Habitat Unit 2 is the closest Critical Habitat unit, located more than 50 SM on the Deep
River, Rocky River, and Bear Creek(Appendix A, Figure 2-1).
2.2. Atlantic Pigtoe(Fusconaia masoni)
2.2.1. Characteristics
The Atlantic Pigtoe was described by Conrad(1834) from the
Savannah River in Augusta, Georgia. Although larger
specimens exist, the Atlantic Pigtoe seldom exceeds 50 mm
(2 inches) in length. This species is tall relative to its length,
except in headwater stream reaches where specimens may be
elongated. The hinge ligament is relatively short and
r�r prominent. The periostracum is normally brownish, has a
parchment texture, and young individuals may have greenish
rays across the entire shell surface. The posterior ridge is
biangulate. The interdentum in the left valve is broad and flat.
The anterior half of the valve is thickened compared with the
posterior half, and, when fresh, nacre in the anterior half of the shell tends to be salmon colored,
while nacre in the posterior half tends to be more iridescent. The shell has full dentation. In
addition to simple papillae, branched and arborescent papillae are often seen on the incurrent
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 5

aperture. In females, salmon colored demibranchs are often seen during the spawning season.
When fully gravid, females use all four demibranchs to brood glochidia (VDGIF 2014).
The Atlantic Pigtoe is a tachytictic (short-term)breeder, brooding young in early spring and
releasing glochidia in early summer. The Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and Shield Darter
(Percina peltata) have been identified as potential fish hosts for this species (O'Dee and Waters
2000). Additional research has found Rosefin Shiner(Lythrurus ardens), Creek Chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and Longnose Dace (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 Atlantic Pigtoe.
2.2.2. Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status
Johnson(1970) reported the range of the Atlantic Pigtoe extended from the Ogeechee River
Basin in Georgia north to the James River Basin in Virginia; however,recent curation of the H.
D. Athearn collection uncovered valid specimens from the Altamaha River in Georgia(USFWS
2021b). In addition, USFWS (2021a) 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). The general pattern of its current distribution indicates
that the species is currently limited to headwater areas of drainages and most populations are
represented by few individuals. In North Carolina, aside from the Waccamaw River, it was once
found in every Atlantic Slope River basin. Except for the Tar River, it is no longer found in the
mainstem of the rivers within its historic range within North Carolina(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 Atlantic Pigtoe has been found in multiple physiographic provinces, from the foothills of the
Appalachian Mountains, through the Piedmont and into the Coastal Plain, in streams less than
one meter wide to large rivers. The preferred habitat is a substrate composed of gravel and coarse
sand,usually at the base of riffles; however, it can be found in a variety of other substrates and
lotic habitat conditions.
The 2021 species status assessment outlines the overall health of the currently known
populations of Atlantic Pigtoe 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- O.
Categories labeled 0 indicate either likely extirpation or a lack of data. The list below outlines
the resiliency of the overall river basin and Atlantic Pigtoe MU's,where the evaluated factors are
listed by Combined Population, Combined Habitat, and Overall Resiliency, respectively
(USFWS 2021b):
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 6

James River Basin: (Low, Moderate, Low)
1. Craig Creek Subbasin—Craig/Giles counties, VA (Moderate, High, Moderate)
2. Mill Creek—Bath/Highland counties, VA (O, Moderate, O)
3. Rivanna—Albemarle/Fluvanna counties, VA(0, Low, 0)
4. Upper James—Amhurst/Bedford/Botetourt/Lexington counties, VA (O, Moderate, 0)
5. Middle James—Buckingham/Chesterfield/Cumberland/Goochland/Henrico/
Powhatan counties, VA (O, Low, 0)
6. Appomattox—Appomattox/Buckingham/Cumberland/Prince Edward counties, VA
(0, Moderate, 0)
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 (O, Moderate, O)
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)
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)
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 7

19. Cape Fear Mainstream—Cumberland/Harnett/Wake counties,NC (0, Low, 0)
20. Black—Bladen/Pender/Sampson counties,NC (0, High, 0)
Pee Dee River Basin: (Low,Low, Low)
21. Muddy Creek—Davidson/Forsyth/Stokes counties,NC (0, Low, O)
22. Uwharrie/Little—Davidson/Montgomery/Randolph counties,NC (Low, Moderate,
Low)
23. Goose/Lanes—Anson/Union counties,NC (0, Low, 0)
Catawba River Basin: (O, Low, O) One shell was observed in the 1800s in Long Creek,
Gaston County,NC
Edisto River Basin: (O,Moderate, O)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: (O, Low, O) Type specimen collected from this MU in 1834
(Richmond County, GA). Dive surveys in 2006 collected individuals that were later
identified as Elliptios, not Atlantic Pigtoe.
Ogeechee River Basin: (O, Moderate, O) Live individuals found in 1970s in
Williamson Swamp Creek(Johnson/Washington counties, GA), however it is presumed
extirpated due to a failure to locate Atlantic Pigtoe despite extensive surveys.
Altamaha River Basin: (O,Moderate, O) Two shells were located in the 1800s within
this MU but have not been recorded since.
2.2.3. Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation,point and non-point
discharge, stream modification(e.g., impoundment, channelization), coupled with the apparent
restricted range, are believed to have contributed to the decline of this species throughout its
range (USFWS 2021a). When mussel populations are reduced to a small number of individuals
and are restricted to short reaches of isolated streams, they are 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.
Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various land usage, including agriculture,
silviculture, and development activities, has been recognized as a major contributing factor to
degradation of mussel populations (McLaughlin and Cope 2017). Siltation has been documented
to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality,
increasing potential exposure to other pollutants, and by directly smothering mussels (Ellis 1936,
Marking and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of less than 1 inch have been shown to cause
high mortality in most mussel species (Ellis 1936).
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 8

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 might not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage
effluent. The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well-documented
(USFWS 1992,Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats,
which results in changes with aquatic community composition. These changes associated with
inundation adversely affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as fish community structure,
which could eliminate possible fish hosts for glochidia(Fuller 1974).
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 Atlantic Pigtoe. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for
space, food, and oxygen between this species and native mussels,possibly at the juvenile stages
(Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1997). 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 1992). This species has not been recorded in the Cape Fear River Basin.
Atlantic Pigtoe appears to be particularly sensitive to pollutants and requires clean, oxygen-rich
water for all stages of life. All the remaining Atlantic Pigtoe populations are generally small in
numbers and restricted to short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and
the restricted range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to
extirpation from a single catastrophic event.
2.2.4. Designated Critical Habitat
The Atlantic Pigtoe 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."
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 9

On November 16, 2021, USFWS listed the Atlantic Pigtoe 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 RM (46.7 RKM) of Craig Creek in Craig and Botetourt counties,
Virginia
• Unit 2 (JR2) - 1 RM (1.6 RKM) of Mill Creek in Bath County, Virginia
• Unit 3 (CR1) - 4 RM (6.6 RKM) of Sappony Creek in the Chowan River Basin in
Dinwiddie County,Virginia
• Unit 4 (CR2) - 64 RM (103 RKM) of the Nottoway River and a portion of Sturgeon
Creek in Nottoway, Lunenburg, Brunswick, Dinwiddie, and Greenville counties, Virginia
• Unit 5 (CR3)—5 RM (8 RKM) of the Meherrin River in Brunswick County, Virginia
• Unit 6 (RR1) - 14 RM (22.5 RKM) of the Dan River in Pittsylvania County, Virginia and
Rockingham County,North Carolina
• Unit 7 (RR2) - 12 RM (19.3 RKM) 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 RM (4.8 RKM) of Little Grassy Creek in the Roanoke River Basin in
Granville County,North Carolina
• Unit 9 (TR1) - 91 RM (146.5 RKM) of the mainstem of the upper and middle Tar River
as well as several tributaries (Bear Swamp Creek, Crooked Creek, Cub Creek, and
Shelton Creek), in Granville,Vance, Franklin, and Nash counties,North Carolina.
• Unit 10 (TR2)—50 RM (80.5 RKM) of Sandy/Swift Creek in Granville,Vance, Franklin,
and Nash counties,North Carolina
• Unit 11 (TR3) - 85 RM (136.8 RKM) 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 RM (48.3 RKM) of the Lower Tar River, lower Swift Creek and
lower Fishing Creek in Edgecombe County,North Carolina
• Unit 13 (NR1) - 60 RM (95 RKM) in four subunits including the Flat, Little, Eno, and
Upper Eno rivers in Person, Durham, and Orange counties,North Carolina
• Unit 14 (NR2) - 61 RM (98.2 RKM) in five subunits including Swift Creek, Middle
Creek, the Upper and Middle Little rivers, and Contentnea Creek in Wake, Johnston, and
Wilson counties,North Carolina
• Unit 15 (CF 1) -4 RM (6.4 RKM) of habitat in New Hope Creek in Orange County,
North Carolina
• Unit 16 (CF2) - 10 RM (16.1 RKM) of the Deep River in Randolph County,North
Carolina, including the mainstem as well as Richland Creek and Brush Creek
• Unit 17 (YR1)—40 RM (64.4 RKM) of the Little River in Randolph and Montgomery
counties,North Carolina
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 10

*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 16 is the closest Critical Habitat Unit, occurring more than 50 SM from the
project located on the Deep River(Appendix A, Figure 2-2).
3.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Field efforts were conducted by Three Oaks personnel Tom Dickinson(Permit#ES00343) and
Trevor Hall on March 5, 2024, and Tom Dickinson and Nathan Howell on March 20, 2024.
Figure 1-1 shows the reaches surveyed on March 5, 2024, while Figure 1-2 shows the survey
reaches surveyed on March 20, 2024 (Appendix A).
3.1. Stream Conditions at Time of Surveys
Mussel surveys were conducted in nine stream segments (Reaches 1-9) and fish community
surveys were conducted in one Fish Assemblage Reach,which encompassed portions of Reach 1
and Reach 8. General descriptions of habitat conditions in these reaches are provided below.
Additional details are provided in the results section.
3.1.1. Reach 1
This reach consisted of approximately 950 meters (m) of UT Kenneth Creek beginning at the
confluence with Kenneth Creek to the base of the dam, which was approximately 20 feet tall and
200 feet wide, and located between reaches one and two near GPS coordinates 35.555170, -
78.806292. The dam is currently mostly intact, except for a portion that has been breached. The
dam's presence does not allow for passage of aquatic wildlife as there is a steep drop between
the impoundment and creek downstream.
Within the downstream 75-100 m of the reach, the channel ranged from five to eight m wide
with stable to moderately eroded banks that averaged 1.5 to two m in height. Substrate in this
section of the reach was dominated by shifting sand, with gravel, pebble, and small cobble
present only in the swift flowing areas. Water was clear with moderate to fast flow throughout
the section. Long pools were also present between faster riffle-run sections. The remainder of the
reach exhibited similar bank conditions and stream width, however,the substrate composition
varied highly from the downstream section. Most of the reach was dominated by a mixture of
gravel, cobble, pebble, and boulder substrates,with sand and silt in slower moving areas (pools,
depositional areas). Bedrock outcrops were also present. High quality freshwater mussel habitat
was present throughout the reach. While evidence of beaver activity was present in the form of
gnawed sticks in the stream and cut trees in the floodplain, there were no beaver dams present in
the stream that inhibited flow. There was a moderate to wide wooded buffer present, flanked by
agricultural and rural residential land uses.
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 11

3.1.2. Reach 2
This reach consisted of approximately 250 m of UT Kenneth Creek beginning at a point
upstream of the impoundment where the stream has re-channelized(approximately 500 m
upstream of the dam).
The channel in this reach ranged from four to six m in width, with steep/undercut banks that
ranged from two to 2.5 m in height that exhibited severe erosion and were mowed up to the bank.
The substrate in this reach was dominated by sand, with gravel and pebble in fast-moving
shallow areas of the stream. The stream was mostly clear and with moderate flow throughout this
reach. Freshwater mussel density dropped considerably upstream of the impounded section of
UT Kenneth Creek. The riparian buffer surrounding this reach consisted of a mowed field with
narrow strips of woody vegetation present. Land use surrounding the stream consisted mainly of
suburban residential use.
3.1.3. Reach 3
This reach consisted of approximately 500 m of UT Kenneth Creek within the Carroll Howard
Johnson Environmental Park.
The channel ranged from five to eight m in width, with mostly stable to slightly eroded banks
that averaged one to 1.5 m in height. Stream access for recreational purposes was apparent in
several areas, consisting of sand and gravel bars. The substrate in this reach consisted of a mix of
gravel and sand interspersed with cobble,pebble, and bedrock. The section was generally
shallow (averaging approximately 0.25 to 0.5 m),with moderate to fast flow. A pedestrian dirt
trail followed the stream; however a majority of the reach had a wide wooded buffer, with the
exception of a utility corridor that ran through the park. Land use surrounding the park consisted
mainly of suburban housing development, as is the case for the remainder of the upstream
surveyed reaches.
3.1.4. Reach 4
This reach consisted of approximately 125 m of a tributary to UT Kenneth Creek, located
between the crossings of Wagstaff Road and Brindlemine Drive.
Just upstream of the Wagstaff Road crossing of UT Kenneth Creek, a smaller tributary reaches
its confluence with UT Kenneth Creek. The remaining survey reaches (4-6) are located on this
smaller tributary. The channel ranged from five to seven m wide,with banks ranging from 0.5 to
1.5 m in height that exhibited minor to moderate erosion. Most of the section consisted of run
habitat, with a short riffle break near the midpoint of the reach. The substrate consisted of cobble
and boulder,with gravel and sand between. The stream was mostly clear with moderate flow,
averaging 0.5 m in depth, apart from a deeper bridge pool at the upstream extent that was 1.5 to
two m in depth. A wooded buffer was present for approximately half of the reach that averaged
50 to 60 feet, with the remainder cleared nearly to the bank.
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 12

3.1.S. Reach 5
This reach consisted of approximately 725 m of the tributary to UT Kenneth Creek, located
between the Brindlemine Drive crossing and the railroad crossing.
The channel ranged from two to four m wide,with minorly eroded banks averaging one m in
height. The substrate was dominated by sand and gravel,with pockets of cobble and boulder
interspersed in fast-flowing areas. The reach consisted mainly of riffle-run habitat,with pools
and depositional areas spread throughout. Sand/gravel bars were abundant, making the wetted
width of the stream considerably smaller than the channel width. In slower-moving sections,
unconsolidated sand and silt was dominant. Stream depths ranged from 0.2 m in riffle areas and
up to one m in pools. The stream flowed through a floodplain averaging approximately 75 to 100
m wide, flanked on either side by housing developments.
3.1.6. Reach 6
This reach consisted of approximately 750 m of a tributary to UT Kenneth Creek. This reach was
located upstream of the Fleming Loop Road, ending on the upstream side of a railroad crossing
with a mostly blocked pipe that impounds the stream upstream.
The channel narrowed, ranging from 1.5 to three m wide, with moderately eroded banks that
exhibited some minor undercutting. Substrates and flow conditions were similar to Survey Reach
5, with sand and gravel bars dominating the reach. Upstream of West Academy Street, the stream
flowed through residential lawns. In this area of the stream, much of the tree canopy has been
removed, leaving a riparian area that is either mowed or has grown back to dense shrub/sapling.
Rip-rap stabilization is present in this reach, especially in the area upstream of West Academy
Street.
3.1.7. Reach 7
This reach was located in Kenneth Creek from the confluence with UT Kenneth Creek to a point
approximately 400 m downstream.
The channel downstream of the UT Kenneth Creek confluence was five to eight m wide, with
sections of eroded and failing banks. Substrates were dominated by unconsolidated sand and silt,
with a minor component of gravel and cobble present. Flow was moderate throughout the reach,
with short riffles interspersed in longer deep run/pool habitat with accumulated silt and sand.
Depths ranged from less than 0.5 m in the shallow riffles to one m in pools. With the exception
of an access road and utility ROW, a wide forested buffer was present along the creek, flanked
by rural residential and agricultural land uses.
3.1.8. Reach 8
This reach consisted of approximately 200 m of UT Kenneth Creek. This reach overlapped with
Reach 1 and therefore had very similar habitat composition. See Section 3.1.1 for Reach 1
habitat conditions.
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 13

3.1.9. Reach 9
This reach consisted of approximately 250 m of UT Kenneth Creek, starting about 300 m
upstream of Reach 8. This reach similarly overlapped with Reach 1 with similar habitat
composition. See Section 3.1.1 for Reach 1 habitat conditions.
3.1.10. Fish Assemblage Reach
The fish assemblage reach consisted of approximately 400 m of UT Kenneth Creek downstream
of the dam, overlapping with reaches 1 and 8. See Section 3.1.1 for Reach 1 habitat conditions.
3.2. Methodology
The reaches depicted in Appendix A, Figures 1-1 and 1-2 were surveyed with methodologies
described below to evaluate habitat and conduct select survey reaches for Cape Fear Shiner and
Atlantic Pigtoe. Additionally, habitat assessments were completed in the evaluated areas of
Kenneth Creek, UT Kenneth Creek, and the tributary to UT Kenneth Creek. Habitat condition is
addressed in Section 3.1.
3.2.1. Fish Surveys
Electro-fishing and dip net surveys were conducted in the reach depicted. All habitat types in the
survey reach(riffle, run,pool, slack-water, etc.) were sampled, with special attention given to
transition areas between habitat types where fish congregate and are confined in response to the
instream sampling efforts. The survey efforts utilized one Smith-Root LR-24 backpack electro-
fishing units and dip-nets. Fish captured were identified, counted, and returned to the water
shortly after recovering.
Relative abundance reported was estimated using the following criteria:
➢ (VA) Very abundant> 30 collected at survey station
➢ (A) Abundant: 16-30 collected at survey station
➢ (C) Common: 6-15 collected at survey station
➢ (U) Uncommon: 3-5 collected at survey station
➢ (R) Rare: 1-2 collected at survey station
It should be noted that the numbers of particular species captured 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 at a
sample site.
3.2.2. Mussel Surveys
Areas of appropriate habitat were searched, concentrating on the stable habitats preferred by the
target species. The survey team spread out across the site into survey lanes. Visual surveys were
conducted using glass bottom view buckets (bathyscopes). Tactile methods were employed,
particularly in streambanks and under submerged rootmats. All freshwater bivalves were
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 14

recorded and returned to the substrate. Timed survey efforts provided Catch Per Unit Effort
(CPUE) data for each species. Relative abundance for freshwater snails and freshwater clam
species were estimated using the following criteria:
➢ (VA) Very abundant> 30 per square meter
➢ (A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter
➢ (C) Common 6-15 per square meter
➢ (U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter
➢ (R) Rare 1-2 per square meter
➢ (P-)Ancillary adjective "Patchy" indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the
sampled site.
4.0 RESULTS
Results of the surveys are described below. Sections 4.1 to 4.9 were focused primarily on
freshwater mussels, while the survey in Section 4.10 focused on providing a fish assemblage in
the lower section of UT Kenneth Creek.
4.1. Reach I
A total of 3.2 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, during which evidence of
three freshwater mussel species was observed. The Asian Clam was abundant throughout the
reach(Table 2).
Table 2. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Reach 1
Abundance/
Scientific Name Common Name #live CPUE
Freshwater Mussels CPUE
lliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 943 294/hr
lliptio sp cf icterina Variable Spike 2 0.6/hr
Uniomerus carolinianus Eastern Pondhorn 2 shell
Relative
Freshwater Snails and Clams Abundance
Corbicula fluminea Sian Clam A
4.2. Reach 2
A total of 0.6 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, during which one live species
of freshwater mussel was located. The Asian Clam was present in patchy abundance in this
reach(Table 3).
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 15

Table 3. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Reach 2
Abundance/
Scientific Name Common Name #live CPUE
Freshwater Mussels CPUE
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 2 3.3/hr
Relative
Freshwater Snails and Clams Abundance
Corbicula fluminea Sian Clam — PU
4.3. Reach 3
A total of 0.7 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, during which one species of
freshwater mussel was observed. The Asian Clam was observed in low abundance in this
reach(Table 4).
Table 4. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Reach 3
Abundance/
Scientific Name Common Name #live CPUE
Freshwater Mussels CPUE
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 3 4.3/hr
Relative
Freshwater Snails and Clams Abundance
Corbicula fluminea Sian Clam — R
4.4. Reach 4
A total of 0.5 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, during which no evidence of
mollusks was observed.
4.5. Reach 5
A total of 1 person hour of survey time was spent in the reach, during which no evidence of
mollusks was observed.
4.6. Reach 6
A total of 1.25 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, during which no evidence of
mollusks was observed.
4.7. Reach 7
A total of 1.33 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, during which evidence of
two freshwater mussel species was observed(Table 5). The Asian Clam was common
throughout the reach.
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 16

Table 5. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Reach 7
Abundance/
Scientific Name Common Name #live CPUE
Freshwater Mussels CPUE
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 14 10.5/hr
Elliptio sp cf icterina Variable Spike 1 0.8/hr
Relative
Freshwater Snails and Clams Abundance
Corbicula fluminea Sian Clam C
4.8. Reach 8
A total of 1.5 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, during which two freshwater
mussel species were observed(Table 6). The Asian Clam was abundant throughout the reach.
Table 6. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Reach 8
Abundance/
Scientific Name Common Name #live CPUE
Freshwater Mussels CPUE
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 470 313.3/hr
Elliptio sp cf icterina ariable Spike 6 4.0/hr
Relative
Freshwater Snails and Clams Abundance
Corbicula fluminea sian Clam — A
4.9. Reach 9
A total of 1.5 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, during which two
freshwater mussel species were observed(Table 7). The Asian Clam was abundant
throughout the reach.
Table 7. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Reach 9
Abundance/
Scientific Name Common Name #live CPUE
Freshwater Mussels CPUE
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio 483 322.0/hr
Elliptio sp cf icterina ariable Spike 13 8.7/hr
Relative
Freshwater Snails and Clams Abundance
Corbicula fluminea sian Clam — A
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 17

4.10. Fish Assemblage Reach
A total of 1,083 electroshocking seconds were spent during which the species listed in Table 8
were located.
Table 8.Fish survey results
Scientific Name Common Name Relative Abundance
Ameiurus platycephalus Flat Bullhead U
A hredoderus sa anus Pirate Perch U
Etheostoma maculatice s Southern Tessellated Darter A
Gambusia holbrookii Eastern Mos uitofish C
Le omis auritus Redbreast Sunfish C
Le omis gulosus Warmouth R
Le omis macrochirus Blue ill C
Luxilus albeolus White Shiner C
Micro terus salmoides Largemouth Bass R
Nocomis le toce halus Bluehead chub C
Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub C
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 18

5.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The Cape Fear Shiner and Atlantic Pigtoe were not observed during these efforts; however,
suitable habitat and associate species were found. The two target species are discussed below.
5.1. Cape Fear Shiner
Since 1962,the Upper Cape Fear River(HUC 03030004) subpopulation has consistently been
represented by lower numbers of individuals than the two other subbasins (USFWS 2022b) and
from a current resiliency standpoint is considered"Very Unhealthy" (USFWS 2022b). Reasons
for the historically low numbers are unclear and could be related in part to sampling difficulty
(USFWS 2022b); however, several factors including habitat modification and increasing
development pressures have been identified as potentially jeopardizing the continued persistence
of the species within this subpopulation (USFWS 2022b).
Based on the surveys conducted for this project,which documented a typical headwater fish
assemblage for the habitat and location, the Cape Fear Shiner is unlikely to occur within the
project area; however, given the presence of suitable habitat, associate species, and connectivity
to occupied habitats, the potential presence of Cape Fear Shiner cannot be totally discounted.
5.2. Atlantic Pigtoe
Although the Atlantic Pigtoe has been recorded from the mainstem Cape Fear River, it has not
been found since 1990 (Table 1). There are generally few records of the Atlantic Pigtoe within
the entire Cape Fear River Basin compared to other basins within the species range (Johnson
1970,NCWRC Unpublished database, Three Oaks personal observations). The reasons for the
limited number of records from the basin and in particular the mainstem of the Cape Fear River
are unclear.
The surveys conducted for this project indicate the section of UT Kenneth Creek below the dam
supports a dense population of Eastern Elliptio. Relatively low numbers of Variable Spike and
shell evidence of Eastern Pondhorn were also present. While the Atlantic Pigtoe and other
species were not detected during these surveys and Atlantic Pigtoe has not been observed in this
portion of the stream, its presence cannot be entirely discounted. Given the paucity of recent
records, adverse effects to the species are unlikely to occur as a result of project construction.
Strict adherence to erosion control standards should minimize the potential for any adverse
impacts to occur.
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 19

6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J. M. 1997. 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.
Alderman, J.M., Alderman, J.D. 2014. Draft 2014 Atlantic Pigtoe Conservation Plan. Prepared
for Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Richmond, VA.
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.
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42.
Fuller, S.L.H. 1974. Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). In: Pollution ecology of freshwater
invertebrates, ed. C.W. Hart and S.L.H. Fuller, 215-73. New York: Academic Press.
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.
Groves, J. 2000. Progress Report for Cape Fear Shiner at the NC Zoological Park. 3 pp.
Howard, A.K. 2003. Influence of instream physical habitat and water quality on the
survival and occurrence of the endangered Cape Fear shiner. M.S. Thesis. North
Carolina State University, Raleigh,NC. 133 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
140: 263-449.
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.
McLaughlin, R.A., Cope, G.W. 2017. Erosion, Sediment, and Turbidity Control and Monitoring
Research to Meet Water Quality Goals. North Carolina Department of Transportation.
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/54537/dot-54537—DSI.pdf
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 20

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.
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.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2024. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Data Explorer. https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/. January 2024 version.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission(NCWRC). 2020. North Carolina State Wildlife
Action Plan. Addendum 1. https://www.ncwildlife.org/plan#67182254-2020-addendum-
1-document-downloads
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.
Pottern, G.B. 2009. 2007 Status update of the Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas. Report
to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 27 pp.
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.
Snelson, F.F., Jr. 1971. Notropis mekistocholas, a new herbivorous cyprinid fish
endemic to the Cape Fear River Basin,North Carolina. Copeia 1971(3): 449-462.
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.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Determination of Endangered Species Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for Cape
Fear Shiner. 50 CFR 17 FR . Docket No. 87-22200
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 21

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Cape Fear Shiner Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 18 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1992. Special report on the status of freshwater
mussels.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2011. Draft Cape Fear Shiner(Notropis mekistocholas)
Strategic Habitat Conservation Framework, Raleigh,NC, 27 pp.
U.S. 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 FXES 1111090FEDR 223.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021b. Species Status Assessment Report for the
Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)Version 1.4.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. Species Status Assessment Report for the Cape
Fear Shiner(Notropis mekistocholas) Version 1.0
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022b. Species Profile for the Cape Fear Shiner.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6063
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC). Accessed March 2024. https:Hipac.ecosphere.fws. og_v/
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 Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 22

APPENDIX A
Figures
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 0

•
� f EfAs r��s qa i
_ 1
Reach 6 „ , -
r�•
TrCOUN7- ,
loom
V!,/
' Reach5 ' '
i 3
" Z
•��� o Reach 4 a ► . i fs,.
s
Reach 3
y
i
Reach 2
' r :
ry) '
Approximate Sewer Alignment
03/05/2024 Survey Reaches
LCounty Boundary •� Reach 1
NHD Streams
Road
r�
Prepared Far Date:
�y�R1 �R/ March 2024
N�; Aquatic Species Survey Figure
- �` `S Southern Oaks withersRavene� Scale 0 250 500 Feet
°•° � Sewer Project u
March 05, 2024 Surveys Job No 24-313 1 1
S� TA LOVING Project Vicinity& Survey Reaches
Wake County, North Carolina awn e L TDH
checkenTYED

f
�� r �� Hully5prings
0 y
Energy.' Wq
F C,O�
cN!w
Leh 03
RNErTC0
0N7-y,
Reach 9 4`
r
' J4
Reach 8
V Reach 7
Fish Assemblage Reach
Am
Approximate Sewer Alignment 1
03/20/2024 Mussel Survey Reaches
03/20/2024 Fish Assemblage Survey Reach r`�'k
County Boundary
NHD Streams
Road
�XhEEfte. Prepared For Aquatic Species Survey Date: March 2024 Figure
l :S WII:h8f5i7BVB11�4 Southern Oaks Scale_ 0 100 200 Feet
Awl Sewer Project u
Esc March 20, 2024 Surveys Job N0 24-313 1
�S TA LOVING Project Vicinity& Survey Reaches
1 Wake County, North Carolina Drawn e TDH checked TED

EO I D�3910
or nr
P
x:
EO ID 3224
T8 /
ke e
/ I Nu
SR 1466 �-
f
ze` Fuquay-Va rira
✓ t
NC.12
I us
1
/ � I
I
/ I
"'d' EO ID 23691
rl wa
i
Raven Rork EO ID 23981
Broadw 5ra[r anrk
I
I
us jai
ae
INC:
LJlmgton
Approximate Sewer Alignment
- NCNHP EO: CFS
Critical Habitat Unit 2: CFS
Cape Fear Basin Named Streams
Prepared For Date:
EEN�yC Aquatic Species Survey March 2024 Figure
�o ;� WithersRavenei Southern Oaks scale o 2 Miles
ik Sewer Project
Jab Na.: 2- 1
r TA LOVING Cape Fear Shiner EOs 24-313
and Critical Habitat Drawn Bv: Checked By
Wake County, North Carolina TDH TED

Ch pel I
- l:ptl'v
Ar y P r
EO ID.22278
EO ID 18327
11C
EO ID-22274 EO�ID 19023
1,
EO ID 22292
CEO ID 7388
5 n r
l
rna
EO ID 3997
` J
— Approximate Sewer Alignment
- NCNHP EO: AP P EO ID'247,70
Critical Habitat Unit 16: AP F The • �
Cape Fear Basin Named Streams
Prepared For
Aquatic Species Survey Date: March 2024G!FEfte Figure
WithersRavenet
Southern Oaks scale o 2 4 Miles
Sewer Project
2-2
Atlantic Pigtoe EOs, yob No.. 24-313
33 � TAILOVING and Critical Habitat
Drawn BY Checked Sy:
Wake County, North Carolina TDH TED

APPENDIX B
Select Photographs
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 5

+• Wit. `�5,�.�.-. ..�::. .
it
,r t
-
+ 4.
P,A g ?

14
3Z...
14
. ...............

a� g .,.:_ .. ��?�}F';'4 jam;•E r � ��",. _
�-P `: .tip �'� j�' � �, i.•�. �''
. t
Photo 5. Typical habitat in Survey Reach 5�.}
1 �
iY i`Y
Photo 6. Typical habitat in Survey Reach 6.
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 3

-
»j�\P
,\ ,
�2< 2
Photo 7. Impounded section of UT Kenneth Creek upstreamjust ofd m.
�. .
-
(�
\ ^ ? � \NW, \ \ y y\w
Photo 8. Des mussel bed kec ƒ
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
kb 2 a S Page 4

3
r
Photo 9. Eastern Elliptio
S Oaks Sewer Aquatic Species Survey Report March 2024
Job#24-313 Page 5