The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20231365 Ver 2_TRC Beaverdam Creek Rehab Mussel Survey Report_20240216Freshwater Mussel Survey Report Beaverdam Creek Rehabilitation Project Johnston County, North Carolina Beaverdam Creek in Survey Reach Prepared For: TRC Prepared by: EEfte o E 324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200 Durham, NC 27701 April 10, 2024 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Target Species Description.................................................................................................. 2 2.1. Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)................................................................................. 2 2.1.1. Characteristics...........................................................................................................2 2.1.2. Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Status........................................................ 2 2.1.3. Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 5 2.1.4. Designated Critical Habitat....................................................................................... 6 3.0 Survey Efforts...................................................................................................................... 7 3.1. Stream Conditions at Time of Surveys............................................................................ 7 3.2. Mussel Survey Methodology........................................................................................... 8 4.0 Results: Beaverdam Creek Survey Reach............................................................................ 8 5.0 Discussion/Conclusions....................................................................................................... 8 6.0 Literature Cited.................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix A. Figures: Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences and Designated Critical Habitat Appendix B. Select Photographs 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Beaverdam Creek Rehabilitation Project (the Project) consists of stream restoration activities in Beaverdam Creek of the Neuse River Basin, near the Town of Princeton, in Johnston County, North Carolina. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Consultation (IPaQ system lists the Federally Threatened Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni, AP) and Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi, NRWD) and the Federally Endangered Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus, CMT) as protected aquatic species that could potentially be affected by activities in this location, as accessed in February 2024. Based on the provided information from TRC, the primarily environmental consultant for the project, and their correspondence with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), there is potential habitat in the project area, and the USACE is only requesting surveys for Atlantic Pigtoe. Presence/absence surveys targeting Atlantic Pigtoe were requested to assess potential effects on the species resulting from the proposed Project. Based on the provided drawings, the Project will include approximately 500 meters of sediment excavation and removal (project area) from upper Beaverdam Creek. In addition to the project area, USACE has requested a 100-meter upstream and 400-meter downstream buffer be included for a total survey reach of approximately 1,000 meters (Appendix A, Figure 1). Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrences (EOs) for 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 portion of the surveyed reach (Appendix A, Figure 2). Table 1—Element Occurrences Distance from First Last EO Target Species EO ID EO Waterbody Site (SM) Observed Observed Status* Atlantic Pigtoe 15611 Neuse River 35.02 July 1985 July 1985 H Atlantic Pigtoe 31093 Little River 40.42 July 1983 July 1983 H March Atlantic Pigtoe 11695 Swift Creek 48.45 July 2022 C 1991 *: 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 by TRC to conduct surveys targeting Atlantic Pigtoe. Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 1 2.0 TARGET SPECIES DESCRIPTION 2.1. Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) 2.1.1. 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 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 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 peliata) 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. 2.1.2. 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 Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 2 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- 0. 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): James River Basin: (Low, Moderate, Low) I. Craig Creek Subbasin — Craig/ Giles counties, VA (Moderate, High, Moderate) 2. Mill Creek — Bath/ Highland counties, VA (0, Moderate, 0) 3. Rivanna — Albemarle /Fluvanna counties, VA (0, Low, 0) 4. Upper James — Amhurst/Bedford/Botetourt/Lexington counties, VA (0, Moderate, 0) 5. Middle James — Buckingham/ Chesterfield/ Cumberland/ Goochland/ Henrico/ Powhatan counties, VA (0, 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 (0, Moderate, 0) Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 3 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) 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, 0) 22. Uwharrie/Little — Davidson/Montgomery/Randolph counties, NC (Low, Moderate, Low) 23. Goose/Lanes — Anson/Union counties, NC (0, Low, O) 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. Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 4 Altamaha River Basin: (0, Moderate, 0) Two shells were located in the 1800s within this MU but have not been recorded since. 2.1.3. 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). 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 Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 5 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. 2.1.4. 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." 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 QR1) - 29 RM (46.7 RKM) of Craig Creek in Craig and Botetourt counties, Virginia • Unit 2 QR2) - 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 Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 6 • 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 (CFI) - 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 *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 is the closest Critical Habitat Unit with the Swift Creek portion 47.2 SM from the Project and the Little River portion 30.2 SM from the Project (Appendix A, Figure 2). 3.0 SURVEY EFFORTS Field surveys were conducted by Three Oaks personnel Tom Dickinson (Permit # ES00343) and Nathan Howell on March 20, 2024. Figure 1 shows the reach surveyed (Appendix A). 3.1. Stream Conditions at Time of Surveys The survey reach consisted of approximately 1,000 meters (m) of Beaverdam Creek. The channel ranged from two to four meters wide, with banks one to two meters high that generally exhibited some signs of erosion and scour, ranging from relatively minor to actively failing. The substrate was dominated by fine sand and silt, interspersed with pebbles in a few areas. Significant accumulations of unconsolidated sand and silt accumulations were generally pervasive. Sand bars were common, making the wetted width of the stream considerably smaller than the channel width in some areas. Stream depths ranged up to 0.5 meters deep and the stream was flowing clear during the efforts. In the upper reaches, the stream contained a significant amount of construction aggregate and trash. The stream flowed through a generally narrow shrub and forested buffer, flanked on either side by agricultural fields, residential areas, and active housing development. Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 7 3.2. Mussel Survey Methodology The reach depicted in Figure 1 was surveyed with methods described below for mussels, targeting Atlantic Pigtoe. 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. 4.0 RESULTS: BEAVERDAM CREEK SURVEY REACH A total of 4 person -hours of survey time were spent in the reach, during which no evidence of freshwater mussels was observed. 5.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS While suitable habitat was present, the Atlantic Pigtoe was not observed during these efforts; Given the lack of nearby records and results of these surveys, adverse effects to the species are very 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. Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 8 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. 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 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. Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 9 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. hllps://ncnhde.natureserve.org/. January 2024 version. 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. 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 Tereestrial Mollusks. 177pp. 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) 1992. Special report on the status of freshwater mussels. 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). 2024. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Accessed February 2024. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014. Atlantic Pigtoe Conservation Plan. Bureau of Wildlife Resources. VDGIF, Richmond, VA. 31 pp. Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 10 Wolf, E.D. 2012. Propagation, Culture, and Recovery of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe. Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute, Project No. 11-108. 55pp. Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 11 APPENDIX A Figures Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 12 Q 1T LIM" f � "4r - ' D• -��'a PlneLwd Y lib / J l,1 2 C �j �./ `J�itlbN4Lc z o aka ✓ohm _ .' h 'I oD SA� a ``,'�� ,tea .• �\Sti North Pearl 5t,'E�'�. • �► � I YY J P� Fri o�+dRdti rp f `� a�lStyt �'� Ra }"�;,�•_��`� - gig „"" •� , C . HoltlRdP'' Approximate Survey Reach NHD Stream Roads .' County Boundary ' �5��61NEER�y�� Prepared For: TRCa y19, + Aquatic Species Survey Beaverdam Creek Rehabilitation Project Vicinity Map & Survey Reach Johnston County, North Carolina Toler Rd Date Apri12024 Scale 500 1,000 Feet Job No.: 24-320 Drawn Ey. Chucked By KEMS TED Figure O ID: 11071 EO ID: 3081 wandell r , �nMr<Idle (v� (Historical) (Current) i rzn 2`z o � aP'�aipa r m9MA Pn j EO ID: 382 (Historical) i ro EO I D: 11695 (Current) °9 Unit 14 try +Wllson's __ Mills ew ' SmtlMFdd. e'rr EO ID: 4770 `Rd (Current) Unit 14 Faur 0A EO I D: 4370 (Historical) i —71 EO ID: 4771 (Historical) �Nk. Unit 14 t EO ID: 5261 (Current) p Unit 14TZ wlraoa EOID:32187 (Current) Blaek Creak .V" M �I� $taflt011 ".yll i ON i� WVLSON _ _ ✓% � ------- WAYNE /� Fren,an[ Eureka EO ID:31093 d N ri9"° YT�E (Historical) A , Pikeville �5 � _ o 2',/�?��a'``r'Rw.-_ ram, ¢•�: _ =f a n n a,reb � k�' Goldsboro _z ~JOHNSTON y SAMPSON / edam Grove \ \ e M P I 41, 4 W o+r a i. Ry Approximate Survey Reach o NCNHP Element Occurrences - Designated Critical Habitat — County Boundary 5�*6\41EE%e Prepared For W ' TrC V. UFO 1 w w w X 0 ; Ia Walnut Creak 4 f -wJ EO(HD: 15l1)1 sto c6 r Q BP�ry o-° i - sna onsnr.nv. RA view In SPr iny: Mt Dilve v+PYv,an' C.n,arN4 a�p.°'i talypso I Y lava Faison Alhertsr 4 I I Aquatic Species Survey Beaverdam Creek Rehabilitation Project NCNHP Element Occurrences & Designated Critical Habitat Johnston County, North Carolina Date. Apri12024 Scale_ 0 2 4 Mlles I r l Job No.: 24-320 Drawn Ey. —liecked By KEMS TED Figure APPENDIX B Select Photographs Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 15 Typical Lower Survey Reach habitat Beaverdam Creek Rehab Project Survey Report April 2024 Job# 24-320 Page 16 -W A.'