20170938 Ver 1_Appendix J - Protected Species Biological Assessment_20170731

Appendix J
CSX CCX Intermodal Rail Terminal & Second Mainline
Edgecombe and Nash Counties, North Carolina
Project No. 643009004
APPENDIX J
PROTECTED SPECIES BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Appendix J
CSX CCX Intermodal Rail Terminal & Second Mainline
Edgecombe and Nash Counties, North Carolina
Project No. 643009004
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

July 12, 2017
Mr. John Ellis
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
amec
foster
wheeler
Subject: CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Rail Terminal and Second
Mainline Improvements — Biological Assessment
CSX Transportation, Inc.
Edgecombe and Nash Counties, North Carolina
Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 64300-9004
Mr. John Ellis,
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) is pleased to
submit this report regarding the protected species Biological Assessment for the proposed
construction of the Carolina Connector Intermodal Rail Terminal [CCX] and the associated
reconstruction of former second mainline track (Rocky Mount to Bricks Second Mainline
Improvements [Second Mainline]) north of the City of Rocky Mount in Edgecombe County, North
Carolina.
The Project is comprised of the two components, CCX and Second Mainline, and these
components make up the Project Site (Figure 1). The Proposed Action is comprised of two
components representing two different types of railroad infrastructure: the CCX Intermodal Rail
Terminal; and the Rocky Mount to Bricks Second Mainline reconstruction. The CCX Intermodal
Rail Terminal component is further subdivided into two elements: the intermodal terminal facility
and the lead tracks that will connect the terminal to the Rocky Mount to Bricks Second Mainline.
The Second Mainline component consists of the reconstruction of former second mainline track
from Milepost A117.5 (southern Milepost) to A104.9 (northern Milepost). The reconstruction
generally will be within the existing CSXT right-of-way (ROW). However, some limited additional
right-of-way will be acquired to allow this second mainline to be constructed to today's industry
standards. The new track will require a slightly larger footprint than the track cross section that
was removed from service in the early 1980's.
Introduction
Certain plant and animal species are protected by federal regulations [Federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976-1982,
1984, and 1988)], which is administered and enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Environment & Infrastructure Americas
720 Gracern Road, Suite 132
Columbia, South Carolina 29210
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.amecfw.com

Biological Assessment — CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Terminal July 12, 2017
Edgecombe and Nash County, North Carolina
Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 64300-9004
(USFWS) Region 4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual Permits (IP) require that
projects authorized by the USACE do not adversely affect federally protected species. USACE
IP applications undergo a full agency review under Section 7 of the ESA. Should a finding of
adverse effect be presumed by the USACE, coordination with the USFWS is typically required to
avoid impacts or minimize impacts to the practicable extent; i.e., Section 7 Consultation. Through
this process, the USFWS seeks to ensure that impacts to plant and animal resources are
adequately described and necessary mitigation is provided.
This biological assessment presents the methods, results, and discussion of the investigation of
habitats and potential for occurrence of threatened and endangered plant and animal species on
the site. The investigation included a database records search and field reconnaissance.
Freshwater mussel surveys were conducted on the CCX component on October 26 and 27, 2016,
and the Second Mainline area on November 15 and 16, 2016 (Three Oaks Engineering 2016 and
2016a).
Species to be Considered
A current list of federally endangered and threatened species for Edgecombe and Nash Counties
was compiled from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (NCNHP
2017x), USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) (USFWS 2017b), and the
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office website (USFWS 2017c). Table 1 presents the results
of the records search for Edgecombe and Nash Counties. Three queries of elemental occurrences
each encompassed a one -mile radius of the CCX and Second Mainline sites for the NCNHP
database search.
Table 1. Current List of Federally Endangered, Threatened, and Protected Species in
Edgecombe and Nash Counties, North Carolina (USFWS 2017) and their Habitat Types
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Status
General Habitat Type
County
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus
BGEPA
Forested habitats for nesting and roosting,
Edgecombe,
leucocephalus
and expanses of shallow fresh or salt
Nash
water for foraging. Nesting habitat
generally consists of densely forested
areas of mature trees that are isolated
from human disturbance.
Red -cockaded
Picoides
E
Mature pine forests, specifically those with
Edgecombe,
woodpecker
borealis
longleaf pines averaging 80 to 120 years
Nash
old and loblolly pines averaging 70 to 100
years old. Pine trees with red -heart
disease are preferred for cavity nesting.
Suitable foraging habitat typically exhibits
sparse understory (minimal hardwood
regeneration). Fire (control burning) is
important in maintaining suitable foraging
and nesting habitat.
Page 2 of 11

Biological Assessment — CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Terminal
Edgecombe and Nash County, North Carolina
Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 64300-9004
July 12, 2017
Dwarf
Alasmidonta
E
Creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down
Nash
wedgemussel
heterodon
to approximately six feet wide), with slow
to moderate flow. Preferred substrates
range from coarse sand, to firm muddy
sand to gravel. Often occurs within
submerged root mats along stable
streambanks
Tar River
Elliptio
E
Relatively fast flowing, well -oxygenated,
Edgecombe,
spinymussel
steinstansana
circumneutral pH water in sites prone to
Nash
significant swings in water velocity, with a
substrate comprised of relatively silt -free
loose gravel and/or coarse sand.
Michaux's
Rhus
E
Sandy or rocky open woods in association
Nash
sumac
michauxii
with basic soils. Species survives best in
areas where some form of disturbance
has provided an open area. Several
populations in North Carolina are on
highway rights -of way, roadsides, or on
the edges of artificially maintained
clearings.
E Federally endangered
BGEPA Federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Methodolocl
Amec Foster Wheeler conducted a literature search, desktop habitat assessment, and on-site
observations to determine the likelihood of the presence or absence of each of the above listed
species. The above list was used as the baseline for the on-site habitat assessment and survey.
A general field reconnaissance was performed of the CCX component in September and October
2016, and the Second Mainline component in December 2016 and January and February of 2017.
Project related site visits were conducted on the CCX component and the Second Mainline
component from March through June 2017, which included occasional field reconnaissance. The
purpose of the reconnaissance was to evaluate the plant communities within the sites with respect
to the quantity and quality of habitat and the potential for occurrence by threatened and
endangered species.
Wetland plant communities within the delineated areas of the project site include headwater forest,
basin wetland, floodplain pool, hardwood flat, bottomland hardwood forest, and riverine swamp
forest. The canopy and shrub strata of the headwater forest community are comprised of yellow
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red maple (Acerrubrum), and
swamp gum (Nyssa biflora). The canopy and shrub strata of the basin wetland and floodplain
pool communities include sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple, yellow poplar, swamp
tupelo, and smooth highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). The hardwood flat community
consists of sweetgum, red maple, yellow poplar, sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), and water oak
Page 3 of 11

Biological Assessment — CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Terminal July 12, 2017
Edgecombe and Nash County, North Carolina
Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 64300-9004
(Quercus nigra). The canopy and shrub strata of the bottomland hardwood forest community are
comprised of red maple, green ash, yellow poplar, river birch (Betula nigra), swamp cottonwood
(Populus heterophylla), swamp tupelo, sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), and elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis). The canopy and shrub strata of the riverine swamp forest community include red
maple, sweetgum, black willow (Salix nigra). Common plant species occurring in the groundstory
stratum of these wetland communities include muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), common greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), coastal white -alder (Clethra alnifolia),
switchcane (Arundinaria tecta), false -nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica) and, in the riverine swamp
forest, smartweed (Persicaria sp). Fern species included a mix of Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia
virginica), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), cinnamon fern (Osmundastrum
cinnamomeum), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), and southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides).
Upland plant communities within the site include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) plantation, oak hickory
forest, mixed hardwood forest, agricultural fields, and maintained habitats (yards, roads, right-of-
ways). These communities are found throughout the site. Loblolly pine is the dominant species in
the canopy and shrub strata of the loblolly pine plantation. The shrub and groundstory strata
include wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), sweetgum, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), muscadine,
common greenbrier, Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), bracken fern (Pteridium
aquilinum), and panicgrass (Panicum sp.). The canopy stratum of the oak hickory forest includes
a moderate assemblage of hardwood species, including southern red oak (Quercus falcata), post
oak (Quercus stellata), water oak, mockernut hickory (Carya alba), yellow poplar, sweetgum, red
maple, sugarberry, American elm (Ulmus americana), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). Plant
species present in the shrub and groundstory strata include saplings and seedlings of the
hardwood species, sourwood, black cherry (Prunus serotina), American holly (Ilex opaca),
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), devil's walking stick (Aralia
spinosa), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), common greenbrier, muscadine, Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Virginia -creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and poison ivy. Japanese
stilt -grass and Chinese privet are also present in this upland plant community, in dense pockets
or as scattered occurrences. The mixed hardwood forest habitat includes many of the plant
species that were common to the oak hickory forest habitat, with the addition of loblolly pine as a
canopy and subcanopy associate.
Old field upland areas are also present within the site. These ruderal areas often occurred
adjacent to agricultural fields and consist of opportunistic plant species. The largest old field area
occurrs in the northwest corner of the CCX component. The vegetation includes goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), sericea
lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), panicgrass, winged sumac (Rhus copallinum), and seedlings of
sweetgum and loblolly pine. Narrow vegetated strands are present along many of the agricultural
drainage ditches within the CCX component. The vegetation included a mix of shrubs, forbs,
vines, and grasses. Grasses included panic grass (Panicum sp.), bahia grass (Paspalum
notatum), fescue (Festuca sp.), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), crab grass (Digitaria sp.),
and witch grass (Dichanthelium sp.).
Page 4 of 11

Biological Assessment — CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Terminal July 12, 2017
Edgecombe and Nash County, North Carolina
Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 64300-9004
Literature Search and On-site Survey Results
Bald eagle
The bald eagle was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 (USFWS 1967). The species was
reclassified from endangered to threatened throughout the lower 48 states on July 12, 1995
(USFWS 1995). It was proposed to be removed from the federal endangered species list on July
6, 1999 (USFWS 1999a). On July 9, 2007, the bald eagle was removed from the endangered
species list (USFWS 2007). The bald eagle is still federally protected under the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The bald eagle, with a wingspread of about seven feet, is mainly dark brown and adults have a
pure white head and tail. The bald eagle feeds primarily on fish but also takes a variety of bird,
mammals, and turtles when fish are not readily available (USFWS 1992a). It nests in large, sturdy
trees with open canopies typically near large open water bodies. Many nests are used annually.
It has been documented that egg laying for the bald eagle peaks in late December in the South.
The nesting season in the Southeast extends from October to May 15.
The four farm ponds on the site are presumed to be insufficient in size to provide suitable foraging
habitat for eagles; i.e., the ponds are not a significant fishery source. No eagle nests are known
to occur within the site. Furthermore, no bald eagles or their nests were observed during site
reconnaissance conducted from September 2016 to February 2017.
Red -cockaded woodpecker
In 1970, the red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) was officially listed as endangered (USFWS 2003).
With passage of the ESA in 1973, the RCW received the protection afforded listed species under
the ESA. The endangered status of the RCW primarily is due to four environmental factors that
have been shown to limit its numbers: (1) hardwood encroachment; (2) a shortage of suitable
cavity trees; (3) loss and fragmentation of habitat, and (4) demographic isolation (Conner and
Rudolph 1991, Walters 1991, Rudolph and Conner 1994).
The RCW is endemic to pine forests of the southeast (Ligon 1970). RCWs are territorial, non -
migratory, cooperative breeders (Lennartz et al. 1987). RCWs are unique in that they excavate
cavities for roosting and nesting in living pines (USFWS 2003) and use living pines almost
exclusively for foraging substrate, preferring longleaf pine when available (Walters 1991). RCWs
require open pine woodlands and savannahs with large old pines for nesting and roosting habitat
(i.e., cavity trees). Cavity trees must be in open pine stands with little or no hardwood midstory
and few or no over -story hardwoods. For purposes of surveying, suitable nesting habitat consists
of pine, pine/hardwood, and hardwood/pine stands that contain pines 60 years in age or older and
that are within 0.5 mile of suitable foraging habitat. For the purposes of surveying, suitable
foraging habitat consists of a pine or pine/hardwood stand in which 50 percent or more of the
Page 5 of 11

Biological Assessment — CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Terminal July 12, 2017
Edgecombe and Nash County, North Carolina
Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 64300-9004
dominant trees are pines and the dominant pine trees are generally 30 years in age or older.
(USFWS 2003).
The quality of existing habitat on the project site was presumed to be less than suitable, or not
present in many areas, for the red -cockaded woodpecker. The hardwood dominant stands on the
project site do not constitute red -cockaded woodpecker habitat. The pine component in the mixed
pine -hardwood stands is generally less than 60 years in age. Hardwoods dominate the understory
in many of these stands. As such, the suitability of the habitat (foraging or cavity -nesting habitat)
within these areas is very low. The pine dominant stands are generally less than 30 to 40 years
old. Very few large pines (i.e., older age) are present and pine saplings are common in the
understory. The suitability of the habitat (foraging or cavity -nesting habitat) within the pine stands
is also very low.
Dwarf wedgemussel
The specific epithet heterodon refers to the chief distinguishing characteristic of this species, which
is the only North American freshwater mussel that consistently has two lateral teeth on the right
valve and only one on the left (Fuller 1977). All other laterally dentate freshwater mussels in North
America normally have two lateral teeth on the left valve and one on the right. The Dwarf
wedgemussel (DWM) is generally small, with a shell length ranging between 25 mm (1.0 inch [in])
and 38 mm (1.5 in). The largest specimen reported by Clarke (1981) was 56.5 mm (2.2 in) long,
taken from the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire. The periostracum is generally olive green to
dark brown; nacre bluish to silvery white, turning to cream or salmon colored towards the umbonal
cavities. Sexual dimorphism occurs in DWM, with the females having a swollen region on the
posterior slope, and the males are generally flattened. Clarke (1981) provides a detailed
description of the species.
The historic range of the DWM is confined to Atlantic slope drainages from the Peticodiac River
in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the Neuse River, North Carolina. Occurrence records exist
from at least 70 locations, encompassing 15 major drainages, in 11 states and 1 Canadian
Province (USFWS 1993). When the recovery plan for this species was written, the DWM was
believed to have been extirpated from all but 36 localities, 14 of them in North Carolina (USFWS
1993). The most recent assessment (2013 5 -Year Review) indicates that the DWM is currently
found in 16 major drainages, comprising approximately 75 "sites" (one site may have multiple
occurrences). At least 45 of these sites are based on less than five individuals or solely on relict
shells. It appears that the populations in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland are declining as
evidenced by low densities, lack of reproduction, or inability to relocate any individuals in follow-
up surveys. Populations in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut appear to be stable,
while the status of populations in the Delaware River watershed affected by the recent floods of
2005 are still being studied (USFWS 2013).
Strayer et al. (1996) conducted range -wide assessments of remaining DWM populations, and
assigned a population status to each of the populations. The status rating is based on range size,
Page 6 of 11

Biological Assessment — CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Terminal July 12, 2017
Edgecombe and Nash County, North Carolina
Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 64300-9004
number of individuals and evidence of reproduction. Seven of the 20 populations assessed were
considered "poor," and two others are considered "poor to fair" and "fair to poor," respectively. In
North Carolina, populations are found in portions of the Neuse and Tar River basins; however,
they are believed to have been extirpated from the main -stem of the Neuse River.
The DWM inhabits creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down to approximately two meters wide),
with slow to moderate flow. A variety of preferred substrates have been described that range from
coarse sand, to firm muddy sand to gravel (USFWS 1993). In North Carolina, DWM often occur
within submerged root mats along stable streambanks. The wide range of substrate types used
by this species suggests that the stability of the substrate is likely as important as the composition.
Surveys were conducted by Three Oaks Engineering personnel on the CCX component on
October 26 and 27, 2016, and the Second Mainline area on November 15 and 16, 2016 (Three
Oaks Engineering 2016 and 2016a). No DWM individuals were located within the project area
during this survey. Strict adherence to erosion control standards should minimize the potential for
any adverse impacts to occur.
Tar River spinymussel
The Tar River spinymussel (TSM) grows to a maximum length of 60 mm (2.36 in). Short spines
are arranged in a radial row anterior to the posterior ridge on one valve and symmetrical to the
other valve. The shell is generally smooth in texture with as many as 12 spines that project
perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly ventrally. However, adult specimens tend to
lose their spines as they mature (USFWS 1992a). The smooth, orange -brown to dark brown
periostracum may be rayed in younger individuals. The shell is significantly thicker toward the
anterior end and the nacre is usually pink in this area. The posterior end of the shell is thinner
with an iridescent bluish white color. Two or more linear ridges, originating within the beak cavity
and extending to the ventral margin, can be found on the interior surface of the shell. The distance
between these ridges widens toward the ventral margin. Johnson and Clarke (1983) provide
additional descriptive material.
Previously this mussel was believed to be endemic to the Tar -Pamlico River basin and probably
ranged throughout most of the basin before the area was settled during the 1700s (NC Scientific
Council on Mollusks 2011). Historically, the TSM was collected in the Tar River from near
Louisburg in Franklin County to Falkland in Pitt County (approximately 78 RM). By the mid-1960s,
its known range had been reduced to the main channel of the Tar River from Spring Hope in Nash
County to Falkland in Pitt County (Shelley 1972, Clarke 1983). By the early 1980s, its range in
the Tar River was restricted to only 12 miles of the river in Edgecombe County (Clarke 1983). It
was last observed (2 individuals) in the river in 2001 within an extensive sandbar habitat in
Edgecombe County (unpublished data, NCWRC Aquatics Database). It is currently found in three
streams, Shocco, Sandy/Swift, and Fishing/Little Fishing creeks in the Tar -Pamlico River basin
(unpublished data, NCWRC Aquatics Database). In 1998, the species was found in Johnston
Page 7 of 11

Biological Assessment — CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Terminal July 12, 2017
Edgecombe and Nash County, North Carolina
Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 64300-9004
County in the Little River, a tributary to the Neuse River. Only a few individuals have been found
in the Little River in subsequent years (unpublished data, NCWRC Aquatics Database).
The preferred habitat of the TSM in the Tar -Pamlico River basin was described as relatively fast
flowing, well -oxygenated, circumneutral pH water in sites prone to significant swings in water
velocity, with a substrate comprised of relatively silt -free loose gravel and/or coarse sand (Adams
et al. 1990). Various species associates, which are good indicators for the presence of the TSM,
include (in decreasing order of association) the Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), Yellow Lance
(Elliptio lanceolate), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), Notched Rainbow (Villosa
constricta), Triangle Floater (Alasmidonta undulata), and Creeper (Strophitus undulatus; Adams
et al. 1990). Johnson (1970) stated that the Atlantic Pigtoe appeared to be closely associated with
the James River Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) in the James River basin. This same close
association is true for the TSM and Atlantic Pigtoe. In habitats that have not been significantly
degraded in the Tar -Pamlico River basin, the presence of Atlantic Pigtoe is the best indicator of
the potential presence of TSM (NC Scientific Council on Mollusks 2011).
Surveys were conducted by Three Oaks Engineering personnel on the CCX component on
October 26 and 27, 2016, and the Second Mainline area on November 15 and 16, 2016 (Three
Oaks Engineering 2016 and 2016a). No TSM individuals were located within the project area
during this survey. Strict adherence to erosion control standards should minimize the potential for
any adverse impacts to occur.
Michaux's sumac
Michaux's sumac was listed as endangered in 1989 (USFWS 1989). The five-year status review
conducted in 2014 states there are 43 known populations in Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia
(USFWS 2014). Three sites known from South Carolina (one each in Florence, Kershaw, and
Oconee counties) were considered extirpated before the species was federally listed as
endangered in 1989.
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous shrub with erect stems that grow from 0.2 to 0.4 meters in
height. The entire plant is densely pubescent. Flowering in this dioecious species occurs in June.
The small flowers are borne in a terminal, erect, dense cluster (USFWS 1989). According to the
recovery plan, Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods on sandy or sandy loam
soils with low cation exchange capacities and appears to depend on some form of disturbance to
maintain the open quality of its habitat (USFWS 1993). There is no suitable habitat for Michaux's
sumac on-site.
Determination of Effect
Based on the (1) review of the existing literature and databases for known occurrences of
protected species, (2) field surveys conducted on the CCX component on October 26 and 27,
2016 and the Second Mainline area on November 15 and 16, 2016, (3) freshwater mussel survey
Page 8 of 11

Biological Assessment — CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Terminal
Edgecombe and Nash County, North Carolina
Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 64300-9004
July 12, 2017
conducted on November 15 and November 16, 2016 and (4) implementation of BMPs, we have
determined the proposed construction of the CCX and the associated reconstruction of the Second
Mainline is not likely to disturb the bald eagle, may affect, but not likely to adversely affect the Tar
River spinymussel, or dwarf wedgemussel and will have no effect on the red -cockaded
woodpecker or Michaux's sumac (Table 2).
Table 2. Determination of effect and justification for each species potentially occurring within the
CCX and Second Mainline Project Areas.
Species
Determination of
Justification
Effect
Bald eagle
Not likely to disturb
All impacts will be >1 mile from an active bald
eagle nest; design and location of
structures/lines will minimize adverse effects
from electrocution and collision.
Red -cockaded
No effect
No suitable nesting or foraging habitat
woodpecker
identified on or near the project site.
Dwarf wedgemussel
May affect, not likely
Unsuitable habitat and best management
to adversely affect.
practices (BMPs) will minimize adverse effects
to species by protecting river and creek
systems.
Tar River spinymussel
May affect, not likely
Unsuitable habitat and BMPs will minimize
to adversely affect.
adverse effects to species by protecting river
and creeks stems.
Michaux's sumac
No effect
Unsuitable habitat or the species was not
present.
Closing
Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Brendon Kelly at 803-
798-1200 or [e-mail].
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure, Inc.
/f e
Caitlan Bell
Staff Environmental Scientist
Attachments: References
Richard G. Harmon, PWS
Senior Associate Biologist
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Database Queries
Freshwater Mussel Survey Report CSXT A -Line Nash and Edgecombe Counties,
North Carolina, prepared by Three Oaks Engineering, December 2016
Freshwater Mussel Survey Report CSX Central Intermodal Facility Nash and
Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina, prepared by Three Oaks
Engineering, December 2016
Page 9 of 11

Biological Assessment — CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Terminal July 12, 2017
Edgecombe and Nash County, North Carolina
Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 64300-9004
References
Clarke, A. H. 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 326. 101 pp.
Clarke, A. H. 1983. Status survey of the Tar River spiny mussel. Final Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service with supplement. 63 pp.
Conner, R.N. and D.C. Rudolph. 1991. Forest habitat loss, fragmentation, and red -cockaded
woodpecker populations. Wilson Bull. 103:446-457.
Fuller, S. L. H. 1977. Freshwater and terrestrial mollusks. In: John E. Cooper, Sarah
S.Robinson, John B. Fundeburg (eds.) Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals
of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Johnson, R.I. and A.H. Clarke. 1983. A new spiny mussel, Elliptio (Canthyria) steinstansana
(Bivalvia: Unionidae), from the Tar River, North Carolina. Occasional Papers on
Mollusks, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 4(61): 289-298.
Lennartz, M.R., R.G. Hooper, and R.F. Harlow. 1987. Sociality and cooperative breeding in
red -cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis). Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol. 20:77-78.
Ligon, J.D. 1970. Behavior and breeding biology of the Red -cockaded Woodpecker. Auk
87:255-278.
NCNHP. 2017. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Natural Heritage Program
Data Services. http://ncnhp.org/web/nhp/database-search. Website accessed March 16,
2017.
Rudolph, D.C. and R.N. Conner. 1994. Forest fragmentation and red -cockaded woodpecker
population: an analysis at intermediate scale. J. Field Ornithol. 65(3):365-375.
Shelley, R.M. 1972. In defense of naiades. Wildlife in North Carolina. March: 1-7.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range -wide assessment of populations of
Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N.
Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
Three Oaks Engineering. 2016. Freshwater Mussel Survey Report — CSX Central Intermodal
Facility, Nash and Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina. Three Oaks Engineering.
December 2016. 34 pp.
Three Oaks Engineering. 2016. Freshwater Mussel Survey Report — CSXT A -Line, Nash and
Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina. Three Oaks Engineering. December 2016. 34 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. Determination of Endangered Status for
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's Sumac). 54 FR 39850 39857. USFWS 1989
Page 10 of 11

Biological Assessment — CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Terminal
Edgecombe and Nash County, North Carolina
Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 64300-9004
July 12, 2017
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Special report on the status of
freshwater mussels. USFWS 2003
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 527 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Recovery plan for the red -cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, GA. 296 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) 5 -Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Susi vonOettingen, FWS,
Concord, NH.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii) 5 -
Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services Field
Office.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017c. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh
Ecological Services Field Office. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. Website accessed March
17, 2017.
Walters, J.R. 1991. Application of ecological principles to the management of endangered
species: the case of the red -cockaded woodpecker. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22:505-523.
Page 11 of 11

R O"rrnn
FFi
Rrvl+xviran
r
�'rc�zxenik
CntumAls
AelanU
0 100 200
NM es
Ca. m e c
foster
wheeler
720 Gracern Road, Suite 132
Columbia, SC 29210 USA
(803)-798-1200
Legend
Sources: Esri, HERE, Del_orme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan,
METI, Esn China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community
r—�CSXT Carolina Connector
Intermodal Rail Terminal
r—�Second Mainline
Improvements
0
J
V2
N
O
a -
N
O)
U)
VI
C
d
E
N
Q
f[f
C
E
O
C
W
O
U
C
c
O
U
m
c
0
`m
U
F—
X
rn
U
0
0
0
0
a
0
2
Q-
N
O
N
N
E
C
O
C
a-
-
L
d
EE
0
0
Figure 1. Project Location Map
CSX Carolina Connector Intermodal Rail Terminal
and Second Mainline Improvements
Edgecombe County, North Carolina
Job No. 643009004
Drawn By BWS
Reviewed By: RH
Date: 7/3/2017
The map shown here has been
created with all due and reasonable
care and is strictly for use with Amec
Foster Wheeler project number
643009004. Amec Foster Wheeler
assumes no liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third party or
unintended use.

Appendix J
CSX CCX Intermodal Rail Terminal & Second Mainline
Edgecombe and Nash Counties, North Carolina
Project No. 643009004
APPENDIX J
PROTECTED SPECIES DATABASE QUERIES RESULTS

Appendix J
CSX CCX Intermodal Rail Terminal & Second Mainline
Edgecombe and Nash Counties, North Carolina
Project No. 643009004
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ROY COOPER
�ivtaa�
1C.
SUSI H. HWILTON
I
Natural and
Culturaf Resources
NCNHDE-3143
March 16, 2017
Julia Tillery
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
5710 Oleander Dr., Ste 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
RE: CSX CCX Intermodal Facility T&E Report; 643009004
Dear Julia Tillery:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These
results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Matthew Hebb at matthew.hebb ono ncdcr.gov or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
—5 -`Nothing Compares =
Stats cf North Carolina I department of Natural and cultural Resources I Natura I Heritage Program
121 W. Jones Street I Raleigh, NC 37663
1651 Mall Service Center I Raleigh,NC 27699-1651..
www_ncnhp,org 1919-707-6107

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
CSX CCX Intermodal Facility T&E Report
Project No. 643009004
March 16, 2017
NCNHDE-3143
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the NCNHP database
does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The
use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare
species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Fountain Correctional Center for Women NC Department of Public Safety State
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Natural
Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on March 16, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2017. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 5

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
CSX CCX Intermodal Facility T&E Report
Project No. 643009004
March 16, 2017
NCNHDE-3143
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile
Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name
Common Name
I Last Element Accuracy
Federal
State
Global State
Group
Observation Occurrence
Status
Status
Rank Rank
Date Rank
Amphibian 3793 Necturus lewisi
Neuse River Waterdog 2015-01-13 E
3 -Medium
Species of
Special
G2 S2
Concern
Concern
Animal 32528 Waterbird Colony
--- 2010-04-19 C
5 -Very
---
---
GNR S3
Assemblage
Low
Dragonfly or 35275 Gomphus septima
Septima's Clubtail 2011-04-12 D
4 -Low
Species of
Significantly
G2 S2S3
Damselfly
Concern
Rare
Freshwater 25731 Alasmidonta undulata
Triangle Floater 2006-08-29 E
3 -Medium
Species of
Threatened
G4 S3
Bivalve
Concern
Freshwater 2102 Elliptio roanokensis
Roanoke Slabshell 2009-08-27 E
3 -Medium
Species of
Threatened
G3 S3
Bivalve
Concern
Freshwater 15588 Lampsilis cariosa
Yellow Lampmussel 2001-08-22 E
3 -Medium
Species of
Endangered
G3G4 S3
Bivalve
Concern
Freshwater 1293 Lasmigona subviridis
Green Floater 2005-06-15 E
3 -Medium
Species of
Endangered
G3 S2
Bivalve
Concern
Freshwater 11678 Strophitus undulatus
Creeper 2001-08-22 E
3 -Medium
---
Threatened
G5 S3
Bivalve
Freshwater Fish 19769 Noturus furiosus
Carolina Madtom 1985-05-17 H?
3 -Medium
Species of
Threatened
G2 S2
Concern
Mammal 24389 Corynorhinus rafinesquii
Eastern Big -eared Bat 2006 -Pre E
5 -Very
Species of
Special
G3G4T S3
macrotis
Low
Concern
Concern
3
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name 1W
Representational Rating
Collective Rating
TAR/Lower Tar River Aquatic Habitat
n/a (Not Applicable)
C1 (Exceptional)
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name
Owner
Owner Type
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Easement NC Department of Agriculture, Division of Soil
State
and Water Conservation
Upper Coastal Plain Research Station
NC Department of Agriculture, Research
State
Stations Division
Page 3 of 5

Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Nash County Open Space Nash County: multiple local government Local Government
Edgecombe County Open Space Edgecombe County: multiple local government Local Government
Fountain Correctional Center for Women NC Department of Public Safety State
Fountain Youth Development Center NC Department of Public Safety State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on March 16, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2017. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 4 of 5

NCNHDE-3143: CSX CCX Intermodal Facility T&E Report
1._NC.4
Q
Z
B...
4,
Red 0.,pront
oro /Rd AD
Golf LL
Club
Irront ' '
k. Golf
0 Club
Rd 301
wNorth
CUM rinCarolina
C�' wesloyan
gs Rd
Collmle
I )'.rl, he,
o 0
TYNufthg 4 7
Golf Club
N......
Ave
E
�+ Pa
S R d
March 16, 2017
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
E] NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
Managed Area (MAREA)
Page 5 of 5
13 at I I v b 'ro
P
Benson,,
Cr
Oto -4 egge,,
w
1:75,270
0 0.5 1 2 mi
i ' . I . .1 1 '. , - , - --I
0 1 2 4 km
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
FAO NIPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,
METi, Esri China (Hong Kong), ­sstopo, Mapmylndia, @ OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community

IPaC: Explore Location
IPaC
IPaC resource list
Location
Edgecombe and Nash counties, North Carolina
C. -,itch.,
1S-
1`p'j
".I , IA -,..l ii1
Local office
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
t. [phone]
JEJ [phone]
MAILING ADDRESS
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
PHYSICAL ADDRESS
551 Pylon Drive, Suite F
Raleigh, NC 27606-1487
Page 1 of 10
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RPGBGZKV6NAATCZQ52L3D5427Y/resources 3/17/2017

IPaC: Explore Location Page 2 of 10
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and should not be used for
planning or analyzing project level impacts.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of
the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be
listed maybe present in the area ofsuch proposed action" for any project that is
conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency.
A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement
can only be obtained by requesting an official species list either from the
Regulatory Review section in IPaC or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to
the IPaC website and request an official species list by creating a project and
making a request from the Regulatory Review section.
Listed species
are managed by the Endangered Species Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered;
IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing
status page for more information.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Birds
NAME
STATUS
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RPGBGZKV6NAATCZQ52L3D5427Y/resources 3/17/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Clams
NAME STATUS
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784
Tar River Spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1392
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Critical habitats
Page 3 of 10
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with
the endangered species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
Birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
'- and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act?.
Any activity that results in the take (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of migratory
birds or eagles is prohibited unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3. There are no provisions for allowing the take of migratory birds that are
unintentionally killed or injured.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RPGBGZKV6NAATCZQ52L3D5427Y/resources 3/17/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 4 of 10
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the
take of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations
and implementing appropriate conservation measures.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-
s ep cies/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-
assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Year-round bird occurrence data
http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/default/datasummaries.jsp
The migratory birds species listed below are species of particular conservation
concern (e.g. Birds of Conservation Concern) that may be potentially affected by
activities in this location, not a list of every bird species you may find in this location.
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, special
attention should be made to avoid and minimize impacts to birds of priority concern.
To view available data on other bird species that may occur in your project area,
please visit the AKN Histogram Tools and Other Bird Data Resources.
NAM E SEASON(S)
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Wintering
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6582
American Kestrel Falco sparverius paulus Year-round
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Brown -headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla Year-round
Chuck -will's -widow Caprimulgus carolinensis Breeding
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RPGBGZKV6NAATCZQ52L3D5427Y/resources 3/17/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 5 of 10
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Wintering
Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/speci es/3941
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Breeding
Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6175
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8833
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Wintering
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8831
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeding
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Breeding
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Year-round
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis
Short -eared Owl Asio flammeus
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9295
Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
Worm Eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorum
Wintering
Wintering, Migrating
Wintering
Breeding
Breeding
Breeding
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RPGBGZKV6NAATCZQ52L3D5427Y/resources 3/17/2017

IPaC: Explore Location Page 6 of 10
Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Wintering
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9476
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory bird species potentially occurring in my
specified location?
Landbirds:
Migratory birds that are displayed on the IPaC species list are based on ranges in the latest edition
of the National Geographic Guide, Birds of North America (6th Edition, 2011 by Jon L. Dunn, and
Jonathan Alderfer). Although these ranges are coarse in nature, a number of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service migratory bird biologists agree that these maps are some of the best range maps to date.
These ranges were clipped to a specific Bird Conservation Region (BCR) or USFWS Region/Regions,
if it was indicated in the 2008 list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that a species was a BCC
species only in a particular Region/Regions. Additional modifications have been made to some
ranges based on more local or refined range information and/or information provided by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service biologists with species expertise. All migratory birds that show in areas on land
in IPaC are those that appear in the 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern report.
Atlantic Seabirds:
Ranges in IPaC for birds off the Atlantic coast are derived from species distribution models
developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAH) National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) using the best available seabird survey data for the offshore
Atlantic Coastal region to date. NOAANCCOS assisted USFWS in developing seasonal species
ranges from their models for specific use in IPaC. Some of these birds are not BCC species but
were of interest for inclusion because they may occur in high abundance off the coast at different
times throughout the year, which potentially makes them more susceptible to certain types of
development and activities taking place in that area. For more refined details about the abundance
and richness of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, see the Northeast
Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other types of taxa that may
be helpful in your project review.
About the NOAANCCOS models: the models were developed as part of the NOAANCCOS project:
Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and
Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. The models resulting from this project are
being used in a number of decision-support/mapping products in order to help guide decision-
making on activities off the Atlantic Coast with the goal of reducing impacts to migratory birds. One
such product is the Northeast Ocean Data Portal, which can be used to explore details about the
relative occurrence and abundance of bird species in a particular area off the Atlantic Coast.
All migratory bird range maps within IPaC are continuously being updated as new and better
information becomes available.
Can I get additional information about the levels of occurrence in my project area of specific
birds or groups of birds listed in IPaC?
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RPGBGZKV6NAATCZQ52L3D5427Y/resources 3/17/2017

IPaC: Explore Location Page 7 of 10
Landbirds:
The Avian Knowledge Network (AKN) provides a tool currently called the "Histogram Tool", which
draws from the data within the AKN (latest,survey, point count, citizen science datasets) to create a
view of relative abundance of species within a particular location over the course of the year. The
results of the tool depict the frequency of detection of a species in survey events, averaged
between multiple datasets within AKN in a particular week of the year. You may access the
histogram tools through the Migratory Bird Programs AKN Histogram Tools webpage.
The tool is currently available for 4 regions (California, Northeast U.S., Southeast U.S. and Midwest),
which encompasses the following 32 states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North,
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In the near future, there are plans to expand this tool nationwide within the AKN, and allow the
graphs produced to appear with the list of trust resources generated by IPaC, providing you with
an additional level of detail about the level of occurrence of the species of particular concern
potentially occurring in your project area throughout the course of the year.
Atlantic Seabirds:
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast
Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that
may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results
files underlying the portal maps through the NOAANCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and
Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental
Shelf project webpage.
Facilities
Wildlife refuges
Any activity proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility
Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGES AT THIS LOCATION.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RPGBGZKV6NAATCZQ52L3D5427Y/resources 3/17/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands
Inventory
Page 8 of 10
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
IP3J►1IEFAI
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
PF01A
PF01Ad
PSS1 A
PF01 C
FRESHWATER POND
PUBHh
PUBHx
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands
Inventory website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wetlands/decoder
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RPGBGZKV6NAATCZQ52L3D5427Y/resources 3/17/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Data limitations
Page 9 of 10
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance
level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from
the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible
hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -
the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or
classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the
image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth
verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source
imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work.
There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the
information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the
limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats
include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal
zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or
tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of
their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RPGBGZKV6NAATCZQ52L3D5427Y/resources 3/17/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 10 of 10
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and
describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in
either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any
Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory
programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving
modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal,
state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary
jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RPGBGZKV6NAATCZQ52L3D5427Y/resources 3/17/2017

ROY COOPER
SUSI H. HAMILTON
.S'ecxer�ri:
Nalurud an d
Caalrtrra Resvuries
NCNHDE-3029
February 28, 2017
Julia Tillery
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
5710 Oleander Dr., Ste 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
RE: CSX-LOR Improvements Project - Northern Site Boundary; 643009005.0002
Dear Julia Tillery:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These
results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Matthew Hebb at matthew.hebbfincdcr.gov or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
- " othing Ccrnpares!!-�:_
State of Korth Canalina I Departrneritul` hlatuHI and Cultural Reswrron I Natura-1 Heritage Pragram
121 W..JarMeS5tm_et I Raleigh, NC 27603
1551 await ServiM Cert ter RaIL igh, NC 27 5 99-1651
51
www.n€nh€t_are 19i!3, -7C7-®167

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
CSX-LOR Improvements Project - Northern Site Boundary
Project No. 643009005.0002
February 28, 2017
NCNHDE-3029
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State
Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status
Rank Rank
Date Rank
Natural 30212 Brownwater Levee Forest--- 1985 E 3 -Medium --- ---
G3G4 S3S4
Community (Low Levee Subtype)
Natural 30213 Cypress --Gum Swamp --- 1985 NR 2 -High --- ---
G5? S4
Community (Brownwater Subtype)
Natural Areas Documented Within Project Area
Site Name Representational Rating Collective Rating
Swift Creek Swamp Forest R4 (Moderate) C5 (General)
TAR/Swift Creek Aquatic Habitat n/a (Not Applicable) C1 (Exceptional)
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Easement NC Department of Agriculture, Division of Soil State
and Water Conservation
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Natural
Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https Hncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on February 28, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January2017. Please resubmit
your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 5

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
CSX-LOR Improvements Project - Northern Site Boundary
Project No. 643009005.0002
February 28, 2017
N C N H DE -3029
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
EO ID
Scientific Name
Common Name
Last
Element
Group
Status
Rank
Rank
Observation
Occurrence
Special
G2
S2
Date
Rank
Amphibian
8794
Necturus lewisi
Neuse River Waterdog
2014-02-19
E
Animal
32528
Waterbird Colony
---
2010-04-19
C
Assemblage
Species of
Threatened
G4
S3
Freshwater
29515
Alasmidonta undulata
Triangle Floater
2010-07-28
E
Bivalve
G3
S3
Concern
Freshwater
36793
Elliptio roanokensis
Roanoke Slabshell
2015-06-03
NR
Bivalve
Concern
Freshwater
18739
Fusconaia masoni
Atlantic Pigtoe
2015-08-17
A
Bivalve
3 -Medium
---
Freshwater
10134
Lampsilis cariosa
Yellow Lampmussel
2015-09-16
E
Bivalve
S2
Concern
Freshwater
4173
Lampsilis radiata
Eastern Lampmussel
2011-06-22
E
Bivalve
Concern
Concern
3
3 -Medium
Freshwater Fish
11720
Noturus furiosus
Carolina Madtom
2010-07-25
E
Mammal
24389
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
Eastern Big -eared Bat
2006 -Pre
E
G5?
S4
macrotis
Natural
30212
Brownwater Levee Forest---
1985
E
Community
(Low Levee Subtype)
Natural
30215
Cypress --Gum Swamp
---
2005-03-24
C
Community
(Brownwater Subtype)
Natural
30213
Cypress --Gum Swamp
---
1985
NR
Community (Brownwater Subtype)
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name Representational Rating
Swift Creek Swamp Forest R4 (Moderate)
TAR/Swift Creek Aquatic Habitat n/a (Not Applicable)
TAR/Fishing Creek Aquatic Habitat n/a (Not Applicable)
Swift Creek/Gold Rock Swamp Forest R5 (General)
Page 3 of 5
Accuracy
Federal
State
Global
State
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
3 -Medium
Species of
Special
G2
S2
Concern
Concern
5 -Very
---
---
GNR
S3
Low
3 -Medium
Species of
Threatened
G4
S3
Concern
3 -Medium
Species of
Threatened
G3
S3
Concern
3 -Medium
Species of
Endangered
G2
S3
Concern
3 -Medium
Species of
Endangered
G3G4
S3
Concern
3 -Medium
---
Threatened
G5
S3
3 -Medium
Species of
Threatened
G2
S2
Concern
5 -Very
Species of
Special
G3G4T
S3
Low
Concern
Concern
3
3 -Medium
---
---
G3G4
S3S4
3 -Medium
---
---
G5?
S4
2 -High
---
---
G5?
S4
Collective Rating
C5 (General)
C1 (Exceptional)
C1 (Exceptional)
C5 (General)

Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Easement NC Department of Agriculture, Division of Soil State
and Water Conservation
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Easement NC Department of Agriculture, Division of Soil State
and Water Conservation
Nash County Open Space Nash County: multiple local government Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on February 28, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2017. Please resubmit
your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 4 of 5

NCNHDE-3329: CSX-LOR Improvements Project - Northern Site Boundary
-n lul
�+rt�uran
9u
Ar_ bOk Rd
Jit
�c
B
r Y
'l�xc - Ralllrl*orn �
J
p4' y.;dtic c: o RJ L qij}J%r— �A
f
iV� .�r1
41 _ 4.11
w 41M.CW
Bel
Cwluh
Ti
' �1-smiF
•.1
Skr.
February 28, 2017
❑
Project Boundary
❑
Buffered Project Boundary
NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
Managed Area (MAREA)
Page 5 of 5
1:88,599
0 0.75 1.5 3 mi
0 1 2 4 k
es: Er, -i ERE. L1aL—., Inbarrrep. i� —Grht F Co-, CEBCO. I_ISGS.
FA 0.
NPS, NRCAN. G -B—, IG+4, Kadast , NL, Q.drance Survey, Es;'i Japan,
MEII, Eon (:1'�Ina ;Hung Kur dl. --l—
curl d UpernS'Ilu:llrlay
curl UlLuW'a, aIle J'.- G Zi Lav- , .".u' .

ROY COOPER
SUSI H. HAMiILTOK
.S'ecxer�ri:
14alurud an d
Caalrtrra Resvuries
NCNHDE-3030
February 28, 2017
Julia Tillery
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
5710 Oleander Dr., Ste 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
RE: CSX-LOR Improvements Project - Southern Site Boundary; 643009005.0002
Dear Julia Tillery:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These
results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Matthew Hebb at matthew.hebbfincdcr.gov or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
- " othing Ccrnpares!!-�:_
State of Korth Canalina I Departrneritul` hlatuHI and Cultural Reswrron I Natura-1 Heritage Pragram
121 W..JarMeS5tm_et I Raleigh, NC 27603
1551 await ServiM Cert ter RaIL igh, NC 27 5 99-1651
51
www.n€nh€t_are 19i!3, -7C7-®167

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
CSX-LOR Improvements Project - Southern Site Boundary
Project No. 643009005.0002
February 28, 2017
NCNHDE-3030
No Element Occurrences are Documented within the Project Area
There are no documented element occurrences (of medium to very high accuracy) that intersect with the project area. Please note, however, that although the NCNHP database
does not show records for rare species within the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present; it may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The
use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if needed, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare
species are found, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may update our database.
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Fountain Correctional Center for Women NC Department of Public Safety State
NOTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Natural
Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project.
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https�//ncnhde.natureserve.org/contenVhelp. Data query generated on February 28, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2017. Please resubmit
your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 5

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
CSX-LOR Improvements Project - Southern Site Boundary
Project No. 643009005.0002
February 28, 2017
NCNHDE-3030
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name
Common Name Last
Element Accuracy
Federal
State
Global State
Group
Observation Occurrence
Status
Status
Rank Rank
Date
Rank
Amphibian 3793 Necturus lewisi
Neuse River Waterdog 2015-01-13
E
3 -Medium
Species of
Special
G2 S2
Concern
Concern
Dragonfly or 35275 Gomphus septima
Septima's Clubtail 2011-04-12
D
4 -Low
Species of
Significantly
G2 S2S3
Damselfly
Concern
Rare
Freshwater 25731 Alasmidonta undulata
Triangle Floater 2006-08-29
E
3 -Medium
Species of
Threatened
G4 S3
Bivalve
Concern
Freshwater 2102 Elliptio roanokensis
Roanoke Slabshell 2009-08-27
E
3 -Medium
Species of
Threatened
G3 S3
Bivalve
Concern
Freshwater 15588 Lampsilis cariosa
Yellow Lampmussel 2001-08-22
E
3 -Medium
Species of
Endangered
G3G4 S3
Bivalve
Concern
Freshwater 1293 Lasmigona subviridis
Green Floater 2005-06-15
E
3 -Medium
Species of
Endangered
G3 S2
Bivalve
Concern
Freshwater 11678 Strophitus undulatus
Creeper 2001-08-22
E
3 -Medium
---
Threatened
G5 S3
Bivalve
Freshwater Fish 19769 Noturus furiosus
Carolina Madtom 1985-05-17
H?
3 -Medium
Species of
Threatened
G2 S2
Concern
Mammal 24389 Corynorhinus rafinesquii
Eastern Big -eared Bat 2006 -Pre
E
5 -Very
Species of
Special
G3G4T S3
macrotis
Low
Concern
Concern
3
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name
Representational Rating
Collective Rating
TAR/Lower Tar River Aquatic Habitat
n/a (Not Applicable)
C1 (Exceptional)
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name
Owner
Owner Type
Upper Coastal Plain Research Station
NC Department of Agriculture, Research
State
Stations Division
Nash County Open Space
Nash County: multiple local government
Local Government
Edgecombe County Open Space
Edgecombe County: multiple local government
Local Government
Fountain Correctional Center for Women
NC Department of Public Safety
State
Fountain Youth Development Center
NC Department of Public Safety
State
Page 3 of 5

Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureser)te.org/cQntenVhelp. Data query generated on February 28, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2017. Please resubmit
your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 4 of 5

NCNHDE-3333: CSX-LOR Improvements Project - Southern Site Boundary
February 28, 2017
Project Boundary
(� Buffered Project Boundary
S ;A NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
Managed Area (MAREA)
Page 5 of 5
1:45,200
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 mi
0 0.5 1 2 km
= r, 1ERE. C�eLarme, Ir[ern-aG. increment F Can., GEBCO. IISGS,
FRO, NPS, NRCAN. G -Base, -V, K.J-te' NL, O'Jnanre Survey. E'i J3p3,.
KIEII, E,n U1 - ;Huey K-131, sr-LqY. Klop Whndia�-
-ri ri Lu bu . anc J'- G:; L,— G: -n nu''nh

IPaC: Explore Location
IPaC
IPaC resource list
Location
Edgecombe and Nash counties, North Carolina
irh e.
r H kora
Local office
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
t. [phone]
JEJ [phone]
MAILING ADDRESS
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
PHYSICAL ADDRESS
551 Pylon Drive, Suite F
Raleigh, NC 27606-1487
Page 1 of 9
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/XE6LRJQM2RGJNIENNSJDLWKGIE/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location Page 2 of 9
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and should not be used for
planning or analyzing project level impacts.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of
the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be
listed maybe present in the area ofsuch proposed action" for any project that is
conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency.
A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement
can only be obtained by requesting an official species list either from the
Regulatory Review section in IPaC or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to
the IPaC website and request an official species list by creating a project and
making a request from the Regulatory Review section.
Listed species
are managed by the Endangered Species Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered;
IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing
status page for more information.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Birds
NAME
STATUS
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/XE6LRJQM2RGJNIENNSJDLWKGIE/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Clams
NAME STATUS
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784
Tar River Spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1392
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Critical habitats
Page 3 of 9
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with
the endangered species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
Birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
'- and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act?.
Any activity that results in the take (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of migratory
birds or eagles is prohibited unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3. There are no provisions for allowing the take of migratory birds that are
unintentionally killed or injured.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/XE6LRJQM2RGJNIENNSJDLWKGIE/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 4 of 9
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the
take of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations
and implementing appropriate conservation measures.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-
s ep cies/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-
assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Year-round bird occurrence data
http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/default/datasummaries.jsp
The migratory birds species listed below are species of particular conservation
concern (e.g. Birds of Conservation Concern) that may be potentially affected by
activities in this location, not a list of every bird species you may find in this location.
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, special
attention should be made to avoid and minimize impacts to birds of priority concern.
To view available data on other bird species that may occur in your project area,
please visit the AKN Histogram Tools and Other Bird Data Resources.
NAM E SEASON(S)
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Wintering
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6582
American Kestrel Falco sparverius paulus Year-round
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Brown -headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla Year-round
Chuck -will's -widow Caprimulgus carolinensis Breeding
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/XE6LRJQM2RGJNIENNSJDLWKGIE/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location Page 5 of 9
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Wintering
Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/speci es/3941
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Breeding
Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6175
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8833
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Wintering
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8831
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeding
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Breeding
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Year-round
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Wintering
Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Migrating
Short -eared Owl Asio flammeus Wintering
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9295
Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii Breeding
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeding
Worm Eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorum Breeding
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/XE6LRJQM2RGJNIENNSJDLWKGIE/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 6 of 9
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory bird species potentially occurring in my
specified location?
Landbirds:
Migratory birds that are displayed on the IPaC species list are based on ranges in the latest edition
of the National Geographic Guide, Birds of North America (6th Edition, 2011 by Jon L. Dunn, and
Jonathan Alderfer). Although these ranges are coarse in nature, a number of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service migratory bird biologists agree that these maps are some of the best range maps to date.
These ranges were clipped to a specific Bird Conservation Region (BCR) or USFWS Region/Regions,
if it was indicated in the 2008 list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that a species was a BCC
species only in a particular Region/Regions. Additional modifications have been made to some
ranges based on more local or refined range information and/or information provided by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service biologists with species expertise. All migratory birds that show in areas on land
in IPaC are those that appear in the 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern report.
Atlantic Seabirds:
Ranges in IPaC for birds off the Atlantic coast are derived from species distribution models
developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAH) National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) using the best available seabird survey data for the offshore
Atlantic Coastal region to date. NOAANCCOS assisted USFWS in developing seasonal species
ranges from their models for specific use in IPaC. Some of these birds are not BCC species but
were of interest for inclusion because they may occur in high abundance off the coast at different
times throughout the year, which potentially makes them more susceptible to certain types of
development and activities taking place in that area. For more refined details about the abundance
and richness of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, see the Northeast
Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other types of taxa that may
be helpful in your project review.
About the NOAANCCOS models: the models were developed as part of the NOAANCCOS project:
Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and
Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. The models resulting from this project are
being used in a number of decision-support/mapping products in order to help guide decision-
making on activities off the Atlantic Coast with the goal of reducing impacts to migratory birds. One
such product is the Northeast Ocean Data Portal, which can be used to explore details about the
relative occurrence and abundance of bird species in a particular area off the Atlantic Coast.
All migratory bird range maps within IPaC are continuously being updated as new and better
information becomes available.
Can I get additional information about the levels of occurrence in my project area of specific
birds or groups of birds listed in IPaC?
Landbirds:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/XE6LRJQM2RGJNIENNSJDLWKGIE/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 7 of 9
The Avian Knowledge Network (AKN) provides a tool currently called the "Histogram Tool", which
draws from the data within the AKN (latest,survey, point count, citizen science datasets) to create a
view of relative abundance of species within a particular location over the course of the year. The
results of the tool depict the frequency of detection of a species in survey events, averaged
between multiple datasets within AKN in a particular week of the year. You may access the
histogram tools through the Migratory Bird Programs AKN Histogram Tools webpage.
The tool is currently available for 4 regions (California, Northeast U.S., Southeast U.S. and Midwest),
which encompasses the following 32 states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North,
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In the near future, there are plans to expand this tool nationwide within the AKN, and allow the
graphs produced to appear with the list of trust resources generated by IPaC, providing you with
an additional level of detail about the level of occurrence of the species of particular concern
potentially occurring in your project area throughout the course of the year.
Atlantic Seabirds:
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast
Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that
may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results
files underlying the portal maps through the NOAANCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and
Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental
Shelf project webpage.
Facilities
Wildlife refuges
Any activity proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility
Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGES AT THIS LOCATION.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/XE6LRJQM2RGJNIENNSJDLWKGIE/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands
Inventory
Page 8 of 9
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
WETLAND INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is
unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or
visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location.
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance
level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from
the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible
hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -
the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or
classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the
image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth
verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source
imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work.
There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the
information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/XE6LRJQM2RGJNIENNSJDLWKGIE/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 9 of 9
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the
limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats
include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal
zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or
tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of
their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and
describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in
either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any
Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory
programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving
modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal,
state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary
jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/XE6LRJQM2RGJNIENNSJDLWKGIE/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
IPaC
IPaC resource list
Location
Edgecombe and Nash counties, North Carolina
ROLkl' XaIOUlet
Local office
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
t. [phone]
JEJ [phone]
MAILING ADDRESS
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
PHYSICAL ADDRESS
551 Pylon Drive, Suite F
Raleigh, NC 27606-1487
Page I of 10
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OOZHEYXMIVA2XPU3W343IXNC74/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location Page 2 of 10
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and should not be used for
planning or analyzing project level impacts.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of
the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be
listed maybe present in the area ofsuch proposed action" for any project that is
conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency.
A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement
can only be obtained by requesting an official species list either from the
Regulatory Review section in IPaC or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to
the IPaC website and request an official species list by creating a project and
making a request from the Regulatory Review section.
Listed species
are managed by the Endangered Species Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered;
IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing
status page for more information.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Birds
NAME
STATUS
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OOZHEYXMIVA2XPU3W343IXNC74/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Clams
NAME STATUS
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784
Tar River Spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1392
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Critical habitats
Page 3 of 10
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with
the endangered species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
Birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
'- and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act?.
Any activity that results in the take (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of migratory
birds or eagles is prohibited unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3. There are no provisions for allowing the take of migratory birds that are
unintentionally killed or injured.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OOZHEYXMIVA2XPU3W343IXNC74/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 4 of 10
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the
take of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations
and implementing appropriate conservation measures.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-
s ep cies/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-
assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Year-round bird occurrence data
http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/default/datasummaries.jsp
The migratory birds species listed below are species of particular conservation
concern (e.g. Birds of Conservation Concern) that may be potentially affected by
activities in this location, not a list of every bird species you may find in this location.
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, special
attention should be made to avoid and minimize impacts to birds of priority concern.
To view available data on other bird species that may occur in your project area,
please visit the AKN Histogram Tools and Other Bird Data Resources.
NAM E SEASON(S)
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Wintering
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6582
American Kestrel Falco sparverius paulus Year-round
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Brown -headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla Year-round
Chuck -will's -widow Caprimulgus carolinensis Breeding
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OOZHEYXMIVA2XPU3W343IXNC74/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 5 of 10
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Wintering
Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/speci es/3941
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Breeding
Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6175
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8833
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Wintering
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8831
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeding
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Breeding
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Year-round
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis
Short -eared Owl Asio flammeus
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9295
Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
Worm Eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorum
Wintering
Wintering, Migrating
Wintering
Breeding
Breeding
Breeding
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OOZHEYXMIVA2XPU3W343IXNC74/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location Page 6 of 10
Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Wintering
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9476
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory bird species potentially occurring in my
specified location?
Landbirds:
Migratory birds that are displayed on the IPaC species list are based on ranges in the latest edition
of the National Geographic Guide, Birds of North America (6th Edition, 2011 by Jon L. Dunn, and
Jonathan Alderfer). Although these ranges are coarse in nature, a number of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service migratory bird biologists agree that these maps are some of the best range maps to date.
These ranges were clipped to a specific Bird Conservation Region (BCR) or USFWS Region/Regions,
if it was indicated in the 2008 list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that a species was a BCC
species only in a particular Region/Regions. Additional modifications have been made to some
ranges based on more local or refined range information and/or information provided by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service biologists with species expertise. All migratory birds that show in areas on land
in IPaC are those that appear in the 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern report.
Atlantic Seabirds:
Ranges in IPaC for birds off the Atlantic coast are derived from species distribution models
developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAH) National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) using the best available seabird survey data for the offshore
Atlantic Coastal region to date. NOAANCCOS assisted USFWS in developing seasonal species
ranges from their models for specific use in IPaC. Some of these birds are not BCC species but
were of interest for inclusion because they may occur in high abundance off the coast at different
times throughout the year, which potentially makes them more susceptible to certain types of
development and activities taking place in that area. For more refined details about the abundance
and richness of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, see the Northeast
Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other types of taxa that may
be helpful in your project review.
About the NOAANCCOS models: the models were developed as part of the NOAANCCOS project:
Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and
Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. The models resulting from this project are
being used in a number of decision-support/mapping products in order to help guide decision-
making on activities off the Atlantic Coast with the goal of reducing impacts to migratory birds. One
such product is the Northeast Ocean Data Portal, which can be used to explore details about the
relative occurrence and abundance of bird species in a particular area off the Atlantic Coast.
All migratory bird range maps within IPaC are continuously being updated as new and better
information becomes available.
Can I get additional information about the levels of occurrence in my project area of specific
birds or groups of birds listed in IPaC?
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OOZHEYXMIVA2XPU3W343IXNC74/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location Page 7 of 10
Landbirds:
The Avian Knowledge Network (AKN) provides a tool currently called the "Histogram Tool", which
draws from the data within the AKN (latest,survey, point count, citizen science datasets) to create a
view of relative abundance of species within a particular location over the course of the year. The
results of the tool depict the frequency of detection of a species in survey events, averaged
between multiple datasets within AKN in a particular week of the year. You may access the
histogram tools through the Migratory Bird Programs AKN Histogram Tools webpage.
The tool is currently available for 4 regions (California, Northeast U.S., Southeast U.S. and Midwest),
which encompasses the following 32 states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North,
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In the near future, there are plans to expand this tool nationwide within the AKN, and allow the
graphs produced to appear with the list of trust resources generated by IPaC, providing you with
an additional level of detail about the level of occurrence of the species of particular concern
potentially occurring in your project area throughout the course of the year.
Atlantic Seabirds:
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast
Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that
may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results
files underlying the portal maps through the NOAANCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and
Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental
Shelf project webpage.
Facilities
Wildlife refuges
Any activity proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility
Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGES AT THIS LOCATION.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OOZHEYXMIVA2XPU3W343IXNC74/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands
Inventory
Page 8 of 10
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
10MAIVA
PSS1 A
PF01 C
FRESHWATER POND
PUBHx
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands
Inventory website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wetlands/decoder
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OOZHEYXMIVA2XPU3W343IXNC74/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Data limitations
Page 9 of 10
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance
level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from
the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible
hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -
the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or
classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the
image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth
verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source
imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work.
There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the
information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the
limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats
include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal
zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or
tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of
their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OOZHEYXMIVA2XPU3W343IXNC74/resources 2/21/2017

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 10 of 10
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and
describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in
either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any
Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory
programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving
modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal,
state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary
jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/OOZHEYXMIVA2XPU3W343IXNC74/resources 2/21/2017

Appendix J
CSX CCX Intermodal Rail Terminal & Second Mainline
Edgecombe and Nash Counties, North Carolina
Project No. 643009004
APPENDIX J
FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEY REPORT
CSXT A -LINE

Appendix J
CSX CCX Intermodal Rail Terminal & Second Mainline
Edgecombe and Nash Counties, North Carolina
Project No. 643009004
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
CSXT A -Line
Nash and Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina
Unnamed Tributary to Swift Creek during the survey efforts
Prepared For:
ame C
fosteF
whee[eF
Amec Foster Wheeler
Durham, North Carolina
Prepared by:
1000 Corporate Drive, Suite 101
Hillsborough, NC 27278

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Waters Impacted..................................................................................................................
1
2.1 303(d) Classification........................................................................................................
2
2.2 NPDES dischargers..........................................................................................................
2
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Descriptions................................................................
2
3.1 Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel)...............................................................
2
3.1.1. Species Characteristics..............................................................................................
2
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements....................................................................
3
3.1.3. Threats to Species.....................................................................................................
3
3.2 Elliptio steinstansana (Tar River Spinymussel)...............................................................
5
3.2.1. Species Characteristics..............................................................................................
5
3.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements....................................................................
5
3.2.3. Threats to Species.....................................................................................................
6
4.0 Survey Efforts......................................................................................................................
6
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey..............................................................................
6
4.2 Methodology....................................................................................................................
6
5.0 Results..................................................................................................................................7
5.1 Compass Creek.................................................................................................................
7
5.2 UTI to Compass Creek....................................................................................................
7
5.3 Hornbeam Branch............................................................................................................
8
5.4 Beech Branch...................................................................................................................
8
5.5 UTI to Beech Branch.......................................................................................................
8
5.6 UT2 to Beech Branch.......................................................................................................
9
5.7 UT3 to Beech Branch.......................................................................................................
9
5.8 Lane Swamp.....................................................................................................................
9
5.9 Swift Creek.......................................................................................................................
9
5.10 UTI to Swift Creek........................................................................................................
10
5.11 UT2 to Swift Creek........................................................................................................
10
5.12 UT3 to Swift Creek........................................................................................................
10
5.13 UT4 to Swift Creek........................................................................................................
10
5.14 UT5 to Swift Creek........................................................................................................
10
5.15 UT6 to Swift Creek........................................................................................................
11
5.16 UTI to Fishing Creek.....................................................................................................
11
5.17 UT2 to Fishing Creek.....................................................................................................
11
5.18 UT to White Oak Swamp...............................................................................................
11
6.0 Discussion/Conclusions.....................................................................................................
11
7.0 Literature Cited..................................................................................................................
12
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reaches
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: 303(d) Listed Streams and NPDES Discharges
Appendix B. Photos.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
CSX Intermodal Transportation, Inc (CSXIT) proposes improvements to the CSXT A -Line from
railroad milepost 105 (Moore Farm Road, Bricks) to milepost 117 (Airport Road, Rocky Mount)
in Rocky Mount, North Carolina on the border of Nash and Edgecombe Counties (Appendix A,
Figure 1). The project will impact Beech Branch, Compass Creek, Hornbeam Branch, Lanes
Swamp, Swift Creek and their associated tributaries along with tributaries of Fishing Creek of
the Tar River Basin. The Federally Endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon,
DWM) and Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana, TSM) are listed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Nash/Edgecombe Counties.
According to the NC Natural Heritage Program database (NCNHP 2016), accessed November
18, 2016, the nearest element occurrence (EO) for DWM (EO ID: 15923) is located in Rocky
Swamp (a tributary to Fishing Creek) approximately 25 river miles (RM) upstream of the study
area (Figure 2). This EO was first observed in August 1993 and last observed in June 2011. The
nearest EO for TSM (EO ID: 21424) is located in Swift Creek approximately 9 RM upstream of
the study area (Figure 2). This was first observed in July 1987 and last observed in August 2005.
There is also an EO of TSM in Swift Creek (EO ID: 21437, first and last seen in June 1991)
approximately 15 RM downstream of the study area, and another EO in the Tar River (EO ID:
21438, first seen in May 1977, last seen in October 200 1) approximately 28 RM downstream of
the study area.
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project -related
impacts to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (3 Oaks) was contracted by Amec
Foster Wheeler (AFW), the primary consultant for the project, to conduct freshwater mussel
surveys targeting DWM and TSM.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
All streams at a CSXT crossing are located in the Upper Tar River subbasin of the Tar River
basin (Hydrologic Unit Code # 03020101).
Unnamed tributary (UT) 1 to Fishing Creek flows 0.02 RM to UT2 to Fishing Creek. UT2 to
Fishing Creek flows 6.0 RM from the rail line to Fishing Creek. Fishing Creek flows 32 RM to
Tar River (Figure 1-4).
UT to White Oak Swamp flows 0.4 RM to White Oak Swamp. White Oak Swamp flows 11.7
RM to Swift Creek (Figure 1-4).
There are several tributaries to Swift Creek in the study area, which have been assigned numbers
arbitrarily for the purposes of this report. UTI to Swift Creek flows 1.0 RM to UT3 to Swift
Creek. UT2 to Swift Creek flows 0.75 RM to UT3 to Swift Creek. UT3 to Swift Creek, which
UT4 to Swift Creek flows into after flowing 0.03 RM from the rail line, flows 1.7 RM to Swift
Creek. UT5 to Swift Creek flows 0.2 RM to UT6 to Swift Creek. UT6 to Swift Creek flows 4.0
RM to Swift Creek. Lane Swamp flows 0.04 RM to Swift Creek. Swift Creek flows 25 RM
from the study area to the Tar River (Figure 1-3).
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 1

UT 1 to Compass Creek flows approximately 1 RM from the study area to Compass Creek.
Compass Creek flows approximately 2.5 RM to Tar River (Figure 1-1).
Hornbeam Branch flows 1.0 RM to Compass Creek.
2.1 303(d) Classification
No CSXT stream crossings that were surveyed are on the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ, formerly NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, NCDENR) - Division of Water Resources 2014 Final 303(d) list of impaired streams.
The closest impaired stream is Stony Creek over 5 RM southwest of the study area (a tributary to
the Tar River that joins Tar River upstream of any study area stream). Stony Creek is listed as
impaired due to fair benthos and low dissolved oxygen levels (Figure 3).
2.2 NPDES dischargers
There are two permitted NPDES discharges upstream of the study area streams: Hospira, Inc.
(NPDES Permit # NC0001589) and The Nash Remediation Site (NPDES Permit #NC0079227)
both on Beech Branch immediately upstream of the study area (USEPA 2016). There are also
several other individual NPDES permitted discharges in the vicinity (Figure 3).
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel)
3.1.1. Species Characteristics
The DWM was originally described as Unio heterodon (Lea 1829). Simpson (1914)
subsequently placed it in the genus Alasmidonta. Ortmann (1919) placed it in a monotypic
subgenus Prolasmidonta, based on the unique soft-tissue anatomy and conchology. Fuller
(1977) believed the characteristics of Prolasmidonta warranted elevation to full generic rank and
renamed the species Prolasmidonta heterodon. Clarke (1981) retained the genus name
Alasmidonta and considered Prolasmidonta to be a subjective synonym of the subgenus
Pressodonta (Simpson 1900).
The specific epithet heterodon refers to the chief distinguishing characteristic of this species,
which is the only North American freshwater mussel that consistently has two lateral teeth on the
right valve and only one on the left (Fuller 1977). All other laterally dentate freshwater mussels
in North America normally have two lateral teeth on the left valve and one on the right. The
DWM is generally small, with a shell length ranging between 25 mm (1.0 inch [in]) and 38 mm
(1.5 in). The largest specimen reported by Clarke (1981) was 56.5 mm (2.2 in) long, taken from
the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire. The periostracum is generally olive green to dark brown;
nacre bluish to silvery white, turning to cream or salmon colored towards the umbonal cavities.
Sexual dimorphism occurs in DWM, with the females having a swollen region on the posterior
slope, and the males are generally flattened. Clarke (1981) provides a detailed description of the
species.
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 2

Nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies; a larval stage
(glochidium) becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel species have
specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. Based upon laboratory
infestation experiments, Michaelson and Neves (1995) determined that potential fish hosts for
the DWM in North Carolina include the Tessellated Darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) and the
Johnny Darter (E. nigrum). McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be consulted
for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The historic range of the DWM is confined to Atlantic slope drainages from the Peticodiac River
in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the Neuse River, North Carolina. Occurrence records exist
from at least 70 locations, encompassing 15 major drainages, in 11 states and 1 Canadian
Province (USFWS 1993). When the recovery plan for this species was written, the DWM was
believed to have been extirpated from all but 36 localities, 14 of them in North Carolina
(USFWS 1993). The most recent assessment (2013 5 -Year Review) indicates that the DWM is
currently found in 16 major drainages, comprising approximately 75 "sites" (one site may have
multiple occurrences). At least 45 of these sites are based on less than five individuals or solely
on relict shells. It appears that the populations in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland are
declining as evidenced by low densities, lack of reproduction, or inability to relocate any
individuals in follow-up surveys. Populations in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and
Connecticut appear to be stable, while the status of populations in the Delaware River watershed
affected by the recent floods of 2005 are still being studied (USFWS 2013).
Strayer et al. (1996) conducted range -wide assessments of remaining DWM populations, and
assigned a population status to each of the populations. The status rating is based on range size,
number of individuals and evidence of reproduction. Seven of the 20 populations assessed were
considered "poor," and two others are considered "poor to fair" and "fair to poor," respectively.
In North Carolina, populations are found in portions of the Neuse and Tar River basins; however,
they are believed to have been extirpated from the main -stem of the Neuse River.
The DWM inhabits creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down to approximately two meters wide),
with slow to moderate flow. A variety of preferred substrates have been described that range
from coarse sand, to firm muddy sand to gravel (USFWS 1993). In North Carolina, DWM often
occur within submerged root mats along stable streambanks. The wide range of substrate types
used by this species suggests that the stability of the substrate is likely as important as the
composition.
3.1.3. Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non -point
discharge, and stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.) have contributed to the
decline of this species throughout its range. With the exception of the Neversink River
population in New York, which has an estimated population of over 80,000 DWM individuals,
all of the other populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short reaches of
isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of the
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 3

surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic
event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic events may consist of natural events such as
flooding or drought, as well as human influenced events such as toxic spills associated with
highways, railroads, or industrial -municipal complexes.
Siltation resulting from substandard land -use practices associated with activities such as
agriculture, forestry, and land development has been recognized as a major contributing factor to
degradation of mussel populations. Siltation has been documented to be extremely detrimental
to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to
other pollutants, and by direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979).
Sediment accumulations of less than one inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most
mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a
population of the DWM because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that recovery
of mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage
effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well documented (USFWS 1992a,
Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats, which results in
changes in aquatic community composition. The changes associated with inundation adversely
affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as fish community structure, which could eliminate
possible fish hosts for upstream transport of glochidia. Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in
northern Alabama, once the richest site for naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of
Wilson Reservoir and covered with 19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b). Large portions of all of
the river basins within the DWM's range have been impounded and this is believed to be a major
factor contributing to the decline of the species (Master 1986).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra
Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats to native
freshwater mussels. The Asian Clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the
United States (Fuller and Powell 1973) including those streams still supporting surviving
populations of the DWM. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for space, food
and oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and
Widlak 1987, Alderman 1995). The Zebra Mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black,
Caspian and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes
in the 1980s and has rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those
of the South Atlantic slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food
resources and space with native mussels, and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least
20 freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United
States (USFWS 1992b). The Zebra Mussel is not currently known from any river supporting
DWM population, nor the Tar River basin.
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 4

3.2 Elliptio steinstansana (Tar River Spinymussel)
3.2.1. Species Characteristics
The TSM grows to a maximum length of 60 mm (2.36 in). Short spines are arranged in a radial
row anterior to the posterior ridge on one valve and symmetrical to the other valve. The shell is
generally smooth in texture with as many as 12 spines that project perpendicularly from the
surface and curve slightly ventrally. However, adult specimens tend to lose their spines as they
mature (USFWS 1992a). The smooth, orange -brown to dark brown periostracum may be rayed
in younger individuals. The shell is significantly thicker toward the anterior end and the nacre is
usually pink in this area. The posterior end of the shell is thinner with an iridescent bluish white
color. Two or more linear ridges, originating within the beak cavity and extending to the ventral
margin, can be found on the interior surface of the shell. The distance between these ridges
widens toward the ventral margin. Johnson and Clarke (1983) provide additional descriptive
material.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the TSM (USFWS 1992c); however, nearly all
freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which involve a larval stage
(glochidium) that becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel species have
specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. The TSM is probably a
tachytictic reproducer with gravid females present at some time from April through August
(Widlak 1987). The glochidia have not been described. Eads and Levine (2008), and Eads et al.
(2008) identified the following fish species as suitable hosts: Bluehead Chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), Pinewoods Shiner (Lythrurus matutinus), Satinfin Shiner (Cyprinella
analostana), and White Shiner (Luxilus albeolus). McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak
(1989) should be consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
3.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Previously this mussel was believed to be endemic to the Tar -Pamlico River basin and probably
ranged throughout most of the basin before the area was settled during the 1700s (NC Scientific
Council on Mollusks 2011). Historically, the TSM was collected in the Tar River from near
Louisburg in Franklin County to Falkland in Pitt County (approximately 78 RM). By the mid-
1960s, its known range had been reduced to the main channel of the Tar River from Spring Hope
in Nash County to Falkland in Pitt County (Shelley 1972, Clarke 1983). By the early 1980s, its
range in the Tar River was restricted to only 12 miles of the river in Edgecombe County (Clarke
1983). It was last observed (2 individuals) in the river in 2001 within an extensive sandbar
habitat in Edgecombe County (unpublished data, NCWRC Aquatics Database). It is currently
found in three streams, Shocco, Sandy/Swift, and Fishing/Little Fishing creeks in the Tar -
Pamlico River basin (unpublished data, NCWRC Aquatics Database). In 1998, the species was
found in Johnston County in the Little River, a tributary to the Neuse River. Only a few
individuals have been found in the Little River in subsequent years (unpublished data, NCWRC
Aquatics Database).
The preferred habitat of the TSM in the Tar -Pamlico River basin was described as relatively fast
flowing, well -oxygenated, circumneutral pH water in sites prone to significant swings in water
velocity, with a substrate comprised of relatively silt -free loose gravel and/or coarse sand
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 5

(Adams et al. 1990). Various species associates, which are good indicators for the presence of
the TSM, include (in decreasing order of association) the Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni),
Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), Notched Rainbow
(Villosa constricta), Triangle Floater (Alasmidonta undulata), and Creeper (Strophitus
undulatus; Adams et al. 1990). Johnson (1970) stated that the Atlantic Pigtoe appeared to be
closely associated with the James River Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) in the James River
basin. This same close association is true for the TSM and Atlantic Pigtoe. In habitats that have
not been significantly degraded in the Tar -Pamlico River basin, the presence of Atlantic Pigtoe is
the best indicator of the potential presence of TSM (NC Scientific Council on Mollusks 2011).
3.2.3. Threats to Species
Threats to the TSM are similar to those described for the DWM and have contributed to the
decline of this species throughout its range. All of the remaining TSM 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.
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Surveys were conducted by 30aks personnel Tim Savidge (Permit # 16-ES00034), Chris Sheats
and Evan Morgan on November 15 and by Tim Savidge and Evan Morgan on November 16,
2016.
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey
Streams were near normal flows and generally clear during these efforts. Leaves covered
substrates in some pool and depositional habitats, but did not preclude effective visual surveys in
all habitat types.
These survey efforts were conducted following historically high stream flows following
Hurricane Matthew in early October. While stream flows had returned to median levels, the
project streams had been significantly impacted as indicated by heavy scour below culverts,
floodplain sediment deposits, and newly eroded and undercut banks and benches in many areas.
4.2 Methodology
Mussel surveys were conducted from approximately 400 meters downstream of the railroad
crossing to 100 meters upstream, or where appropriate habitat existed for the target species. In
streams where areas of appropriate habitat were sparse or did not exist, the surveyed area was
reduced based upon best professional judgement. These areas are noted below in Section 5. The
survey team spread out across the creek into survey lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using
glass bottom view buckets (bathyscopes). Tactile methods were employed, particularly in
streambanks under submerged rootmats. SCUBA was used in Swift Creek to access deeper
habitat. All freshwater bivalves were recorded and returned to the substrate. Timed survey
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 6

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.
5.0 RESULTS
The following details the results for each stream segment evaluated/surveyed, as depicted in
Figure 1.
5.1 Compass Creek
Compass Creek (Figure 1-1, Photo 1) is a defined channel 3 to 5 meters (m) wide with banks 0.5
to 1 in high. The substrate consists mainly of sand and pebble, with a few areas of cobble and
gravel just below the CSXT crossing. Most mussels found occurred in a sand dominated pool
approximately 80 feet below the crossing. Mussels were rare to absent throughout much of the
surveyed reach. Extensive scouring recently occurred below the railroad crossing, likely a result
of Hurricane Mathew. The floodplain is mostly uplands with small pockets of wetlands in lower
areas. Large piles of depositional sand are abundant throughout the floodplain. A total of 3.07
person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with two species of freshwater mussel being
found (Table 4). The only other mollusk species found during the survey was the Asian Clam.
Table 1. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Comoass Creek Branch
Scientific Name
Common Name
# live
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
lli do com lanata
astern Elliptio
11
3.58/hr
lliptio icterina[Variable
Spike
6
1.95/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
Corbicula fluminea[Asian
Clam
—
C
5.2 UT1 to Compass Creek
UT 1 to Compass Creek (Figure 1-1, Photo 2) is a small tributary approximately 2 in wide that
runs adjacent to the railroad bed. The substrate consists of sand and gravel and the water depth
is less than 0.2 in. Mussel surveys were conducted for 0.23 person hour from the confluence
with Compass Creek to a point approximately 45 in upstream, where potential mussel habitat
was no longer present, as the channel narrowed further and flow was intermittent. No mollusk
species were found.
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 7

5.3 Hornbeam Branch
Hornbeam Branch (Figure 1-1, Photo 3) is characterized as a defined channel that meanders
through a wetland complex. A series of small beaver impoundments occur within the channel
creating deep pools with substrate consisting mostly of sand and silt, with short riffle/run habitats
containing pebble and sand in between. No mussel species were found in 1.33 person hours;
however, the Asian Clam was common.
5.4 Beech Branch
Beech Branch (Figure 1-2, Photo 4) was surveyed from below the Old Battleboro (SR 1400) road
crossing through the rail road crossing. The stream channel ranged from 3 to 7 in wide with 1 to
2 in high banks that varied from stable to exhibiting significant erosion and undercutting.
Habitat consisted of a shallow, low gradient run and pool sequence. Substrate primarily
consisted of sand, with occasional accumulations of silt in depositional areas, and coarse sand
and pebble in riffle and run habitats. Fossiliferous marl and clay were observed in areas,
especially the downstream extent of the reach.
A total of 7.17 person hours of survey time were spent, with four species of freshwater mussel
being found (Table 2). The only other mollusk species found during the survey was the Asian
Clam.
Table 2. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Beech Branch
Scientific Name
Common Name
# live
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
lliptio complanata
Eastern Elliptio
52
7.3/hr
lliptio icterina
Variable Spike
14
2.0/hr
lli do isheriana
Northern Lance
49
6.8/hr
Utterbackia imbecillis
Paper Pondshell
37
5.2/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
Corbicula fluminea[Asian
Clam
VA
5.5 UTI to Beech Branch
This tributary (Figure 1-2, Photo 5) joins Beech Branch within the project boundary and was
surveyed from its confluence to the culvert for the rail line. Habitat consisted of a sequence of
run and pool. The stream ranged from 1 to 5 in wide with 1 to 2 in high banks that exhibited
some erosion and undercutting. Substrate was dominated by unconsolidated sand, with areas of
silt, clay, and cobble.
A total of 3.33 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with three species of
freshwater mussel being found (Table 3). The only other mollusk species found during the
survey was the Asian Clam.
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 8

Table 3. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in UT 1 Beech Branch
Scientific Name
Common Name
# live
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
lli do com lanata
Eastern Elli do
11
3.3/hr
lliptio icterina
Variable Spike
2
0.6/hr
lliptio fisheriana
Northern Lance
12
3.6/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
Corbicula fluminea[Asian
Clam
—
VA
5.6 UT2 to Beech Branch
This small tributary (Figure 1-2, Photo 6) was surveyed from below the Old Battleboro road
crossing through the intermodal property to the rail road culverts. Habitat consisted primarily of
pool and slackwater punctuated by the occasional run. The stream ranged from 1 to 3 m wide
and transitioned from incised in the lower half of the reach with 2 m high banks to stable with <
1 m high banks in the upper half of the reach. Substrate consisted of sand, silt, and clay banks.
A total of 2.5 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with no freshwater mollusks
being found on the site. Below the Old Battleboro road crossing, the channel fed an excavated
pond where a single Paper Pondshell was found.
5.7 UT3 to Beech Branch
This small tributary (Figure 1-2, Photo 7) was surveyed from the project boundary to a point
where it was channelized through an agricultural field and appropriate habitat was no longer
present. Habitat consisted primarily of pool and slackwater punctuated by the occasional run.
Several areas were dry at the time of the site visit. The stream ranged from 1 to 2 m wide with
stable banks up to 1 m high. Substrate consisted of sand, silt, and clay. Habitat
evaluations/surveys were conducted for a total of 1.5 person hours during which no freshwater
mollusks being found.
5.8 Lane Swamp
Lane Swamp (Figure 1-3, Photo 8) is characterized as large beaver dam dominated wetland
complex with multiple large pools and no discernible channel. Flow through the complex is
diverted in multiple directions by dams and logjams. The substrate consists of silt, sand and
organic material. Suitable habitat for the targeted species was absent. No survey was conducted.
5.9 Swift Creek
Above the bridge crossing Swift Creek (Figure 1-3) has a deep thalweg with steep stream banks,
the floodplain is inundated and has connection to Lane Swamp. Below the bridge crossing the
channel is approximately 6 to 7 m wide and very well defined with an upland floodplain with
pockets of wetlands. A total of 5.4 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with 3.6
hours performed using SCUBA. Three species of freshwater mussel (Photo 9) were found along
with the invasive Asian Clam (Table 4).
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 9

Table 4. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Swift Creek
Scientific Name
Common Name
# live
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
lli do com lanata
Eastern Elli do
Shell*
lliptio icterina
Variable Spike
1
0.18/hr
lliptio fisheriana
Northern Lance
1
0.18/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
Corbicula fluminea[Asian
Clam
U
5.10 UT1 to Swift Creek
UTI to Swift Creek (Figure 1-3, Photo 10) is a channel that collects runoff from adjacent
agricultural fields and flows through a small wooded cutover. During the site visit, the majority
of the stream was dry, with only a small amount of water present in a scour hole formed around a
pipe outlet. No suitable mussel habitat was present and no survey was conducted.
5.11 UT2 to Swift Creek
UT2 to Swift Creek (Figure 1-3, Photo 11) has been diverted into the ditch along the railroad
bed, presumably during construction of the adjacent factory. Substrate consists of sand and leaf
pack, and there was no discernable flow during the site visit. Suitable mussel habitat was not
present and no survey was conducted.
5.12 UT3 to Swift Creek
UT3 to Swift Creek (Figure 1-3, Photo 12) has a defined channel between 3 and 5 m wide for
approximately 6 m on both sides of the bridge crossing, which flows through an inundated
floodplain it shares with UT4 to Swift Creek. Directly above and below the bridge crossing
there is a large swamp where there was no discernable flow. Substrate consisted mostly of sand
and detritus and no evidence of mollusks were seen. Suitable habitat for the target species was
not present and thus no survey was performed.
5.13 UT4 to Swift Creek
UT4 to Swift Creek (Figure 1-3, Photo 13) has a defined channel for approximately 6 m on either
side of the bridge crossing, that flows through an inundated floodplain it shares with UT3 to
Swift Creek. Directly above and below the bridge crossing there is a large swamp where there
was no discernable flow. Substrate consisted mostly of sand and detritus and no evidence of
mollusks were seen. Suitable habitat for the target species was not present and thus no survey
was performed.
5.14 UT5 to Swift Creek
UT5 to Swift Creek (Figure 1-3, Photo 14) is a small drainageway that contained no water at the
time of investigation and was covered with recently fallen leaves. No suitable habitat for
mussels was present and thus no survey was performed.
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 10

5.15 UT6 to Swift Creek
UT6 to Swift Creek (Figure 1-3, Photo 15) is a defined channel before it flows underneath the
railroad in a culvert. After crossing the railroad, it becomes braided into a wetland complex with
an inundated floodplain. The substrate is mostly sand and detritus. No suitable habitat for the
target species was present, therefore no survey was performed.
5.16 UT1 to Fishing Creek
UT1 to Fishing Creek (Figure 1-4, Photo 16) is inundated due to Beaver (Castor canadensis)
impoundments. A discernible channel is visible, however suitable habitat for the targeted
species was ruled out, as there was no discernable flow, and the substrate consisted of mud and
organic material. No survey was conducted.
5.17 UT2 to Fishing Creek
UT2 to Fishing Creek (Figure 1-4, Photo 17) is inundated due to beaver impoundments. A
discernible channel is visible, however suitable habitat for the targeted species was ruled out as
there was no discernable flow, and the substrate consisted of mud and organic material. No
survey was conducted (Figure 1-4).
5.18 UT to White Oak Swamp
The channel of UT to White Oak Swamp (Figure 1-4, Photo 18) has been straightened with 2 to
3 m high berms on both sides of the stream. During the site visit, water was present only within
pools where the substrate was mostly sand. Suitable habitat did not exist and no evidence of
aquatic mollusks was observed. No survey was conducted.
6.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that the study area supports a freshwater mussel fauna of at least four species
in Beech Branch and UTI to Beech Branch, two species in Compass Creek, and very low
abundance of three species in Swift Creek. Other streams evaluated do not contain suitable
habitat, are characterized by poor habitat atypical of the target species, or are likely size limiting
within the study area. Neither the DWM nor TSM were found during these surveys. While
other target species were not found, appropriate habitat is present in Swift Creek, Beech Branch,
and Compass Creek; thus, there is the potential for additional species to occur within and
downstream of the study area.
Based on these survey results, impacts to target species are unlikely to occur in the reaches
evaluated. However, due to potential habitat and known rare species records, impacts could
occur downstream of the study area. Strict adherence to erosion control standards should
minimize the potential for any adverse impacts to occur.
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 11

7.0 LITERATURE CITED
Adams, W. F., J. M. Alderman, R. G. Biggins, A. G. Gerberich, E. P. Keferl, H. J. Porter, and A.
S.Van Devender. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater
and terrestrial molluscan fauna. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh. 246 pp,
Appendix A, 37 pp.
Alderman, J. M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community. Unpublished
report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of
Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC.
Clarke, A. H. 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias, Alasmidonta,
and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 326. 101 pp.
Clarke, A. H. 1983. Status survey of the Tar River spiny mussel. Final Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service with supplement. 63 pp.
Eads, C. B. and J.F. Levine. 2008. Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) and Tar River
Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) Conservation Research: July 2007 -June 2008. Final
report submitted to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh,
NC. 18 pp.
Eads, C.B., R. Nichols, C.J. Woods, and J.F. Levine. 2008. Captive spawning and host
determination of the federally endangered Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
Ellipsaria, 10(2):7-8.
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42.
Fuller, S. L. H. 1977. Freshwater and terrestrial mollusks. In: John E. Cooper, Sarah S.Robinson,
John B. Fundeburg (eds.) Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North
Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents
on Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS: 128 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
140: 263-449.
Johnson, R.I. and A.H. Clarke. 1983. A new spiny mussel, Elliptio (Canthyria) steinstansana
(Bivalvia: Unionidae), from the Tar River, North Carolina. Occasional Papers on
Mollusks, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 4(61): 289-298.
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 12

Lea, I. 1829. Description of a new genus of the family of naiades, including eight species, four of
which are new; also the description of eleven new species of the genus Unio from the
rivers of the United States: with observations on some of the characters of the naiades.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 3 [New Series]:403-457, pls. 7-14.
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.
Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal to list as
an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 10 pp. and appendices.
McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalvia. Pp. 331-429. IN: J.H.
Thorpe and A.P. Covich. Ecology and classification of North American
nd
freshwater invertebrates. 2 edition. Academic Press.
Michaelson, D.L. and R.J. Neves. 1995. Life history and habitat of the endangered dwarf
wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 14(2):324-340.
Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 1(5): 1-
7.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 189 pp.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Resources.
2014. Final 2014 North Carolina 303(d) List. https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards/3 03 d/3 03 d -files
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2016. nheo-2016-10. Natural Heritage
Element Occurrence polygon shapefile. October 2016 version.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Unpublished Aquatics Database.
O'Neill, C. R., Jr., and D. B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): an
unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Ortmann, A.E. 1919. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III: Systematic account
of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1): xvi-384, 21 pls.
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 13

Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh -water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New
York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Shelley, R.M. 1972. In defense of naiades. Wildlife in North Carolina. March: 1-7.
Simpson, C.T. 1900. Synopsis of the naiades, or pearly fresh -water mussels. Proceedings of the
United States National Museum 22(1205):501-1044.
Simpson, C.T. 1914. A descriptive catalogue of the naiades, or pearly fresh -water mussels. Parts
I—III. Bryant Walker, Detroit, Michigan, xii + 1540 pp.
Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range -wide assessment of populations of
Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N.
Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Office of Water. NPDES facilities
by permit type. NPDESPERMIT_WMERC. Accessed November 18, 2016.
https://watersgeo. epa. gov/arcgis/rest/services/OWPROGRAM/NPDESPERMIT_WMER
C/MapServer
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Special report on the status of
freshwater mussels.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species
of the southeast United States (The Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992c. Tar Spinymussel (Elliptio (Cathyria)
steinstansana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 34 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 527 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta
heterodon 5 -Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Susi vonOettingen, FWS, Concord,
NH.
Widlak, J.C. 1987. Recovery Plan for the Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio (Canthyria)
steinstansana) Johnson and Clarke. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
CSXT A Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322 Page 14

APPENDIX A
Figures

f
Raleigh
-- ---- &9penStFeetMap (and)_'
corTftibutors,,Qr�-BY-SA l
0-
%to
ZA
CA;,
k";
UT to
Com pass
Creek Surveyed Areas for A -Line
us Surveyed for Intermodal Project
RailLine
VC a9 CAW,
County Boundary
(9 OpenStFeetMap (and) contributors, CC -BY -SA
Prepared For: Freshwater Mussel Survey
AM EC Proposed CSXTA-Line
CSX Improvements
Project Vicinity and Survey Reach
Nash & Edgecombe Counties. North Carolina
Date,
November 2016
Scale -
0 0.5 1 Mile,
Job No.: 16-322
Y,
lChecked By:
ETM
TED
<
7—
n
Beech
Ui ---
Branch
In
Z:
UT 2 to
Ui - - -
wBeech krPLWI
Branch
+
k";
UT to
Com pass
Creek Surveyed Areas for A -Line
us Surveyed for Intermodal Project
RailLine
VC a9 CAW,
County Boundary
(9 OpenStFeetMap (and) contributors, CC -BY -SA
Prepared For: Freshwater Mussel Survey
AM EC Proposed CSXTA-Line
CSX Improvements
Project Vicinity and Survey Reach
Nash & Edgecombe Counties. North Carolina
Date,
November 2016
Scale -
0 0.5 1 Mile,
Job No.: 16-322
Dravin By:
lChecked By:
ETM
TED
Figure
I 1 1

Prepared For: III Freshwater Mussel Survey
AMSC
CSXT A -Line Project
Nash & Edgeoombe Counties, North Carolina
Date:
November 2015
Scale: 0 500 1,600 Feet
i � r
Job ND. -
16 -322
Dravin By:
Checked By:
NM5
I TED
Figure

Prepared For: III Freshwater Mussel Survey
AMSC
CSXT A -Line Project
Nash & Edgeoombe Counties, North Carolina
Date:
November 2016
Scale: 0 500 1.000 Feet
Joh ND. -
16 -322
Dravin By:
lChecked By:
NMS
I TED
Figure
1-2

Prepared For
�+ AMEC
LU
y1S
Freshwater Mussel Survey
CSKT A -Line Project
Nash & Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina
Date:
November 2016
ScaGe_ 0 500 1,000 Feet
I,�
Jab Na.:
16-322
Drawn BY:
Checked By
NMS
I TED
Figure
1-3

Prepared For:
" A AMEG
Q
Freshwater Mussel Survey
CSXT A -Line project
Nash & Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina
Date:
November 2016
style: 0 500 1,400 Fee:
I 1
Job No
16-322
Drawn By:
Checked 6v
NMS
TEC}
Figure
1-4

ig� EEfte Prepared For.
4 AMEC
CSX
Freshwater Mussel Survey
Proposed CSXT A -Line
Improvements
NHNHP Element Occurrences
Nash & Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina
Date:
November 2096
Scale: 0 q 2 Miles
I r I
.Job No . 16-322
Drawn By:
Checked By
ETM
TED
Figure

N
FNPDElity 4 ,
ischargeischargee 4!mpaired Streams
Boundary
t
" ` 3
Hosplra, Inc. Oq
Nash remediation �NC00015&9
` site NGOO79227 '
k ,
'3
Prepared For:
49
AME C
CSX
44�3t1`�
f7l
I
OK
�. ;'• MiddledSchoci
ti ,f�C0054435
Freshwater Mussel Survey
Proposed CSXT A -Line
Improvements
303(d) Listed Streams
and NPDES Discharges
Nash & Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina
Date:
November 2616
Scale: 0 © 5 1 Miles
I I
.lob No
16-322
Drawn By
lChecked 6v
ETM
I TED
Figure

APPENDIX B
Photos

��; • ice. #� * ,� . a 1 � �" r '�
J L tsi f I� v�

Photo 3: Beaver Impoundments on Hornbeam Branch
Photo 4: Elliptio apeture and Corbicula siphons; Beech Branch
CSXT A -Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322

Photo 5: UTI to Beech Branch
Photo 6: UT2 to Beech Branch Upper Reach
CSXT A -Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322

Photo 7: UT3 to Beech Branch Lower Reach
Photo 8: Lane Swamp
CSXT A -Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322

Photo 9: Elliptio fisheriana from Swift Creek
Photo 10: UT1 to Swift Creek
CSXT A -Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322

Photo 11: UT2 to Swift Creek
Photo 12: UT3 to Swift Creek Crossing
CSXT A -Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322

$Y SSS atap
� dd I(If
e
� k
m
IF
FI

Photo 15: UT6 to Swift Creek Crossing
Photo 16: UT1 to Fishing Creek
CSXT A -Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322

Photo 17: UT2 to Fishing Creek
Photo 18: UT to White Oak Swamp
CSXT A -Line Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-322

Appendix J
CSX CCX Intermodal Rail Terminal & Second Mainline
Edgecombe and Nash Counties, North Carolina
Project No. 643009004
APPENDIX J
FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEY REPORT
CSX CENTRAL CAROLINA INTERMODAL FACILITY

Appendix J
CSX CCX Intermodal Rail Terminal & Second Mainline
Edgecombe and Nash Counties, North Carolina
Project No. 643009004
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
CSX Central Carolina Intermodal Facility
Nash and Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina
Beech Branch during the survey efforts
Prepared For:
amec
fester
wheeler
AMEC Foster Wheeler
Durham, North Carolina
Prepared by:
`�
'�4833111`�''
1000 Corporate Drive, Suite 101
Hillsborough, NC 27278

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Waters Impacted.................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 303(d) Classification........................................................................................................ 1
2.2 NPDES dischargers.......................................................................................................... 1
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Descriptions................................................................ 2
3.1 Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel)............................................................... 2
3.1.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 2
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements.................................................................... 2
3.1.3. Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Elliptio steinstansana (Tar River Spinymussel)............................................................... 4
3.2.1. Species Characteristics.............................................................................................. 4
3.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements.................................................................... 5
3.2.3. Threats to Species..................................................................................................... 5
4.0 Survey Efforts...................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey.............................................................................. 6
4.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................... 6
5.0 Results..................................................................................................................................6
5.1 Beech Branch................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 UT 1 Beech Branch.......................................................................................................... 7
5.3 UT 2 Beech Branch.......................................................................................................... 7
5.4 UT 3 Beech Branch.......................................................................................................... 8
5.5 UT Compass Creek.......................................................................................................... 8
6.0 Discussion/Conclusions....................................................................................................... 8
7.0 Literature Cited.................................................................................................................. 10
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reaches
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: 303(d) Listed Streams and NPDES Discharges

1.0 INTRODUCTION
CSX Intermodal Transportation, Inc (CSXIT) proposes the construction of a new Central
Carolina Intermodal Facility (CCX) in Rocky Mount, NC on the border of Nash and Edgecombe
Counties (Appendix A, Figure 1). The project will impact Beech Branch and tributaries of
Beech Branch and Compass Creek of the Tar River Basin. The Federally Endangered Dwarf
Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon, DWM) and Tar River Spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana, TSM) are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
Nash/Edgecombe Counties.
According to the NC Natural Heritage Program database (NCNHP 2016), accessed October 28,
2016, the nearest element occurrence (EO) for DWM (EO ID: 20981) is located in Stony Creek
approximately 26 RM west of the study area (Figure 2-1). This EO was first observed in May
1991 and last observed in July 1992. The nearest EO for TSM (EO ID: 21438) is located in the
Tar River approximately 22 RM southeast of the study area (Figure 2-2). This was first observed
in May 1977 and last observed in October 2001.
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project -related
impacts to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (3 Oaks) was contracted by
AMEC Foster Wheeler (AFW), the primary consultant for the project, to conduct freshwater
mussel surveys targeting DWM and TSM.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
All streams within the study area are located in the Upper Tar River subbasin of the Tar River
basin (HUC# 03020101). Beech Branch flows approximately 8 RM from the study area to Tar
River. Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Compass Creek flows approximately 1 RM from the study
area to Compass Creek, which then flows approximately 2.5 RM to Tar River.
2.1 303(d) Classification
Neither Compass Creek nor Beech Branch are on the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ, formerly NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, NCDENR) - Division of Water Resources 2014 Final 303(d) list of impaired streams.
The closest impaired stream is Stony Creek over 7 RM southwest of the study area. Stony Creek
is listed as impaired due to fair benthos and low dissolved oxygen levels (Figure 3).
2.2 NPDES dischargers
There is a permitted NPDES discharge on Beech Branch (USEPA 2016); Hospira, Inc. (NPDES
Permit # NC0001589) immediately upstream of the study area. There are also several other
individual and general stormwater NPDES permitted discharges in the vicinity (Figure 3).
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 1

3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel)
3.1.1. Species Characteristics
The DWM was originally described as Unio heterodon (Lea 1829). Simpson (1914)
subsequently placed it in the genus Alasmidonta. Ortmann (1919) placed it in a monotypic
subgenus Prolasmidonta, based on the unique soft-tissue anatomy and conchology. Fuller
(1977) believed the characteristics of Prolasmidonta warranted elevation to full generic rank and
renamed the species Prolasmidonta heterodon. Clarke (198 1) retained the genus name
Alasmidonta and considered Prolasmidonta to be a subjective synonym of the subgenus
Pressodonta (Simpson 1900).
The specific epithet heterodon refers to the chief distinguishing characteristic of this species,
which is the only North American freshwater mussel that consistently has two lateral teeth on the
right valve and only one on the left (Fuller 1977). All other laterally dentate freshwater mussels
in North America normally have two lateral teeth on the left valve and one on the right. The
DWM is generally small, with a shell length ranging between 25 mm (1.0 inch) and 38 mm (1.5
inches). The largest specimen reported by Clarke (1981) was 56.5 mm (2.2 inches) long, taken
from the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire. The periostracum is generally olive green to dark
brown; nacre bluish to silvery white, turning to cream or salmon colored towards the umbonal
cavities. Sexual dimorphism occurs in DWM, with the females having a swollen region on the
posterior slope, and the males are generally flattened. Clarke (1981) provides a detailed
description of the species.
Nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies; a larval stage
(glochidium) becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel species have
specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. Based upon laboratory
infestation experiments, Michaelson and Neves (1995) determined that potential fish hosts for
the DWM in North Carolina include the Tessellated Darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) and the
Johnny Darter (E. nigrum). McMahon and Bogan (200 1) and Pennak (1989) should be consulted
for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The historic range of the DWM is confined to Atlantic slope drainages from the Peticodiac River
in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the Neuse River, North Carolina. Occurrence records exist
from at least 70 locations, encompassing 15 major drainages, in 11 states and 1 Canadian
Province (USFWS 1993). When the recovery plan for this species was written, the DWM was
believed to have been extirpated from all but 36 localities, 14 of them in North Carolina
(USFWS 1993). The most recent assessment (2013 5 -Year Review) indicates that the DWM is
currently found in 16 major drainages, comprising approximately 75 "sites" (one site may have
multiple occurrences). At least 45 of these sites are based on less than five individuals or solely
on relict shells. It appears that the populations in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland are
declining as evidenced by low densities, lack of reproduction, or inability to relocate any
individuals in follow-up surveys. Populations in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 2

Connecticut appear to be stable, while the status of populations in the Delaware River watershed
affected by the recent floods of 2005 are still being studied (USFWS 2013).
Strayer et al. (1996) conducted range -wide assessments of remaining DWM populations, and
assigned a population status to each of the populations. The status rating is based on range size,
number of individuals and evidence of reproduction. Seven of the 20 populations assessed were
considered "poor," and two others are considered "poor to fair" and "fair to poor," respectively.
In North Carolina, populations are found in portions of the Neuse and Tar River basins; however,
they are believed to have been extirpated from the main -stem of the Neuse River.
The DWM inhabits creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down to approximately two meters wide),
with slow to moderate flow. A variety of preferred substrates have been described that range
from coarse sand, to firm muddy sand to gravel (USFWS 1993). In North Carolina, DWM often
occur within submerged root mats along stable streambanks. The wide range of substrate types
used by this species suggests that the stability of the substrate is likely as important as the
composition.
3.1.3. Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non -point
discharge, and stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.) have contributed to the
decline of this species throughout its range. With the exception of the Neversink River
population in New York, which has an estimated population of over 80,000 DWM individuals,
all of the other populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short reaches of
isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of the
surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic
event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic events may consist of natural events such as
flooding or drought, as well as human influenced events such as toxic spills associated with
highways, railroads, or industrial -municipal complexes.
Siltation resulting from substandard land -use practices associated with activities such as
agriculture, forestry, and land development has been recognized as a major contributing factor to
degradation of mussel populations. Siltation has been documented to be extremely detrimental
to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to
other pollutants, and by direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979).
Sediment accumulations of less than one inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most
mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a
population of the DWM because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that recovery
of mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage
effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well documented (USFWS 1992a,
Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats, which results in
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 3

changes in aquatic community composition. The changes associated with inundation adversely
affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as fish community structure, which could eliminate
possible fish hosts for upstream transport of glochidia. Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in
northern Alabama, once the richest site for naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of
Wilson Reservoir and covered with 19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b). Large portions of all of
the river basins within the DWM's range have been impounded and this is believed to be a major
factor contributing to the decline of the species (Master 1986).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra
Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats to native
freshwater mussels. The Asian Clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the
United States (Fuller and Powell 1973) including those streams still supporting surviving
populations of the DWM. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for space, food
and oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and
Widlak 1987, Alderman 1995). The Zebra Mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black,
Caspian and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes
in the 1980s and has rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those
of the South Atlantic slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food
resources and space with native mussels, and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least
20 freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United
States (USFWS 1992b). The Zebra Mussel is not currently known from any river supporting
DWM population, nor the Tar River basin.
3.2 Elliptio steinstansana (Tar River Spinymussel)
3.2.1. Species Characteristics
The TSM grows to a maximum length of 60 millimeters. Short spines are arranged in a radial
row anterior to the posterior ridge on one valve and symmetrical to the other valve. The shell is
generally smooth in texture with as many as 12 spines that project perpendicularly from the
surface and curve slightly ventrally. However, adult specimens tend to lose their spines as they
mature (USFWS 1992a). The smooth, orange -brown to dark brown periostracum may be rayed
in younger individuals. The shell is significantly thicker toward the anterior end and the nacre is
usually pink in this area. The posterior end of the shell is thinner with an iridescent bluish white
color. Two or more linear ridges, originating within the beak cavity and extending to the ventral
margin, can be found on the interior surface of the shell. The distance between these ridges
widens toward the ventral margin. Johnson and Clarke (1983) provide additional descriptive
material.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the TSM (USFWS 1992c); however, nearly all
freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which involve a larval stage
(glochidium) that becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel species have
specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. The TSM is probably a
tachytictic reproducer with gravid females present at some time from April through August
(Widlak 1987). The glochidia have not been described. Eads and Levine (2008), and Eads et al.
(2008) identified the following fish species as suitable hosts: Bluehead Chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), Pinewoods Shiner (Lythrurus matutinus), Satinfin Shiner (Cyprinella
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 4

analostana), and White Shiner (Luxilus albeolus). McMahon and Bogan (200 1) and Pennak
(19 89) should be consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
3.2.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Previously this mussel was believed to be endemic to the Tar -Pamlico River basin and probably
ranged throughout most of the basin before the area was settled during the 1700s (NC Scientific
Council on Mollusks 2011). Historically, the TSM was collected in the Tar River from near
Louisburg in Franklin County to Falkland in Pitt County (approximately 78 RM). By the mid-
1960s, its known range had been reduced to the main channel of the Tar River from Spring Hope
in Nash County to Falkland in Pitt County (Shelley 1972, Clarke 1983). By the early 1980s, its
range in the Tar River was restricted to only 12 miles of the river in Edgecombe County (Clarke
1983). It was last observed (2 individuals) in the river in 2001 within an extensive sandbar
habitat in Edgecombe County (unpublished data, NCWRC Aquatics Database). It is currently
found in three streams, Shocco, Sandy/Swift, and Fishing/Little Fishing creeks in the Tar -
Pamlico River basin (unpublished data, NCWRC Aquatics Database). In 1998, the species was
found in Johnston County in the Little River, a tributary to the Neuse River. Only a few
individuals have been found in the Little River in subsequent years (unpublished data, NCWRC
Aquatics Database).
The preferred habitat of the TSM in the Tar -Pamlico River basin was described as relatively fast
flowing, well -oxygenated, circumneutral pH water in sites prone to significant swings in water
velocity, with a substrate comprised of relatively silt -free loose gravel and/or coarse sand
(Adams et al., 1990). Various species associates, which are good indicators for the presence of
the TSM, include (in decreasing order of association) the Atlantic Pigtoe, Yellow Lance, Yellow
Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), Notched Rainbow (Villosa constricta), Triangle Floater
(Alasmidonta undulata), and Creeper (Strophitus undulatus; Adams et al., 1990). Johnson
(1970) stated that the Atlantic Pigtoe appeared to be closely associated with the James River
Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) in the James River basin. This same close association is true
for the TSM and Atlantic Pigtoe. In habitats which have not been significantly degraded in the
Tar -Pamlico River basin, the presence of Atlantic Pigtoe is the best indicator of the potential
presence of TSM (NC Scientific Council on Mollusks 2011).
3.2.3. Threats to Species
Threats to the TSM are similar to those described for the DWM and have contributed to the
decline of this species throughout its range. All of the remaining TSM 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.
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Surveys were conducted by 30aks personnel Tom Dickinson (Permit # 16-ES00343) and Nathan
Howell on October 26-27, 2016.
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 5

4.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey
Streams were near normal flows and generally clear during these efforts. Fall leaf cover was
present in some pool and depositional areas, but did not preclude effective visual surveys in all
habitat types.
These survey efforts were conducted following historically high stream flows related to
Hurricane Matthew in early October. While stream flows had returned to median levels, the
project streams had been significantly impacted as indicated by heavy scour below culverts,
floodplain sediment deposits and newly eroded and undercut banks and benches in many areas.
4.2 Methodology
Habitat evaluations/mussel surveys were conducted as depicted in Figure 1. Appropriate areas
were searched, concentrating on the habitats preferred by the target species. The survey team
spread out across the creek into survey lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using glass bottom
view buckets (bathyscopes). Tactile methods were employed, particularly in streambanks under
submerged rootmats. All freshwater bivalves were recorded and returned to the substrate.
Timed survey efforts provided Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data for each species. Relative
abundance for freshwater snails and freshwater clam species were estimated using the following
criteria:
➢ (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.
5.0 RESULTS
The following details the site conditions and results for each stream segment.
5.1 Beech Branch
Beech Branch (Appendix B, Photos 1-7) was surveyed from below the Old Battleboro (SR 1400)
road crossing through the rail road crossing. The stream channel ranged from 3 to 7 meters wide
with 1 to 2 -meter -high banks that varied from stable to exhibiting significant erosion and
undercutting. Habitat consisted of a shallow, low gradient run and pool sequence. Substrate
primarily consisted of sand, with occasional accumulations of silt in depositional areas, and
coarse sand and pebble in riffle and run habitats. Fossiliferous marl and clay were observed in
areas, especially the downstream extent of the reach.
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 6

A total of 7.17 person hours of survey time were spent, with four species of freshwater mussel
being found (Table 1). The only other mollusk species found during the survey was the Asian
Clam.
Table 1. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in Beech Branch
Scientific Name
Common Name
# live
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio
CPUE
Elliptio complanata
Eastern Elliptio
52
7.3/hr
Elliptio icterina
Variable Spike
14
2.0/hr
lliptio fisheriana
Northern Lance
49
6.8/hr
Utterbackia imbecillis
Paper Pondshell
37
5.2/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
Corbicula fluminea
sian Clam
VA
5.2 UT 1 Beech Branch
This tributary (Photo 8) joins Beech Branch within the project boundary and was surveyed from
its confluence to the culvert for the rail line. Habitat consisted of a sequence of run and pool.
The stream ranged from 1 to 5 meters wide with 1 to 2 -meter -high banks that exhibited some
erosion and undercutting. Substrate was dominated by unconsolidated sand, with areas of silt,
clay, and cobble.
A total of 3.33 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with three species of
freshwater mussel being found (Table 2). The only other mollusk species found during the
survey was the Asian Clam.
Table 2. CPUE for Freshwater Mussels in UT 1 Beech Branch
Scientific Name
Common Name
# live
Abundance/
CPUE
Freshwater Mussels
CPUE
Elliptio complanata Eastern Elliptio
11
3.3/hr
Elliptio icterina Variable Spike
2
0.6/hr
lliptio fisheriana Northern Lance
12
3.6/hr
Freshwater Snails and Clams
Relative
Abundance
Corbicula fluminea sian Clam
VA
5.3 UT 2 Beech Branch
This small tributary (Photo 10) was surveyed from below the Old Battleboro road crossing
through the intermodal property to the rail road culverts. Habitat consisted primarily of pool and
slackwater punctuated by the occasional run. The stream ranged from 1 to 3 meters wide and
transitioned from incised in the lower half of the reach with 2 -meter meter high banks to stable
with < 1 meter high banks in the upper half of the reach. Substrate consisted of sand, silt, and
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 7

clay banks. A total of 2.5 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with no
freshwater mollusks being found on the site. Below the Old Battleboro road crossing, the
channel fed an excavated pond where a single Paper Pondshell was found.
5.4 UT 3 Beech Branch
This small tributary (Photo 11) was surveyed from the project boundary to a point where it was
channelized through an agricultural field and appropriate habitat was no longer present. Habitat
consisted primarily of pool and slackwater punctuated by the occasional run. Several areas were
dry at the time of the site visit. The stream ranged from 1 to 2 meters wide with stable banks up
to 1 meter high. Substrate consisted of sand, silt, and clay. Habitat evaluations/surveys were
conducted for a total of 1.5 person hours during which no freshwater mollusks being found.
5.5 UT Compass Creek
This small tributary (Photo 12) was surveyed from the project boundary to a point where
appropriate habitat was no longer present. Habitat consisted primarily of pool and slackwater;
iron oxidizing bacteria was widespread. The stream ranged from 0.5 to 2 meters wide with
stable banks up to 0.5 meter high. Substrate consisted of sand, silt, clay, and detritus. Habitat
evaluations/surveys were conducted for a total of 1.0 -person hour during which no freshwater
mollusks being found. A survey was conducted in a short reach of a receiving tributary upstream
of the Instrument Drive crossing. While slightly larger (approximately 2 meters wide) with sand
dominated substrate and a sequence of riffle, run, and pool, likewise, no freshwater mollusk
evidence was observed.
6.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that the study area supports a freshwater mussel fauna of at least four species
in Beech Branch and UT 1 to Beech Branch on the intermodal site. Other streams evaluated on
the site are likely size limiting and do not support a mussel fauna within the study area boundary.
Neither the DWM nor TSM were found during these surveys. While other target species were
not found, appropriate habitat is present, particularly in Beech Branch; thus, there is the potential
for additional species to occur within the study area.
Based on the species records and these survey results, impacts could occur downstream of the
study area. Strict adherence to erosion control standards should minimize the potential for any
adverse impacts to occur.
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 8

CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 9

7.0 LITERATURE CITED
Adams, W. F., J. M. Alderman, R. G. Biggins, A. G. Gerberich, E. P. Keferl, H. J. Porter, and A.
S.Van Devender. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater
and terrestrial molluscan fauna. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh. 246 pp,
Appendix A, 37 pp.
Alderman, J. M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community. Unpublished
report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of
Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC.
Clarke, A. H. 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias, Alasmidonta,
and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 326. 101 pp.
Clarke, A. H. 1983. Status survey of the Tar River spiny mussel. Final Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service with supplement. 63 pp.
Eads, C. B. and J.F. Levine. 2008. Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) and Tar River
Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) Conservation Research: July 2007 -June 2008. Final
report submitted to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh,
NC. 18 pp.
Eads, C.B., R. Nichols, C.J. Woods, and J.F. Levine. 2008. Captive spawning and host
determination of the federally endangered Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
Ellipsaria, 10(2):7-8.
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42.
Fuller, S. L. H. 1977. Freshwater and terrestrial mollusks. In: John E. Cooper, Sarah S.Robinson,
John B. Fundeburg (eds.) Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North
Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents
on Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS: 128 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
140: 263-449.
Johnson, R.I. and A.H. Clarke. 1983. A new spiny mussel, Elliptio (Canthyria) steinstansana
(Bivalvia: Unionidae), from the Tar River, North Carolina. Occasional Papers on
Mollusks, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 4(61): 289-298.
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 10

Lea, I. 1829. Description of a new genus of the family of naiades, including eight species, four of
which are new; also the description of eleven new species of the genus Unio from the
rivers of the United States: with observations on some of the characters of the naiades.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 3 [New Series]:403-457, pls. 7-14.
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.
Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal to list as
an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 10 pp. and appendices.
McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalvia. Pp. 331-429. IN: J.H.
Thorpe and A.P. Covich. Ecology and classification of North American
nd
freshwater invertebrates. 2 edition. Academic Press.
Michaelson, D.L. and R.J. Neves. (1995). Life history and habitat of the endangered dwarf
wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 14(2):324-340.
Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 1(5): 1-
7.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 189 pp.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Resources.
2014. Final 2014 North Carolina 303(d) List. https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards/3 03 d/3 03 d -files
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2016. nheo-2016-10. Natural Heritage
Element Occurrence polygon shapefile. October 2016 version.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Unpublished Aquatics Database.
O'Neill, C. R., Jr., and D. B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): an
unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Ortmann, A.E. 1919. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III: Systematic account
of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1): xvi-384, 21 pls.
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 11

Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh -water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New
York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Shelley, R.M. 1972. In defense of naiades. Wildlife in North Carolina. March: 1-7.
Simpson, C.T. 1900. Synopsis of the naiades, or pearly fresh -water mussels. Proceedings of the
United States National Museum 22(1205):501-1044.
Simpson, C.T. 1914. A descriptive catalogue of the naiades, or pearly fresh -water mussels. Parts
I—III. Bryant Walker, Detroit, Michigan, xii + 1540 pp.
Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range -wide assessment of populations of
Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N.
Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. NPDES facilities by permit type.
NPDESPERMIT—WMERC. Accessed April 29, 2016.
https://watersgeo. epa. gov/arcgis/rest/services/OWPROGRAM/NPDESPERMIT_WMER
C/MapServer
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Special report on the status of freshwater
mussels.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of the
southeast United States (The Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of Endangered
Species, Southeast Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992c. Tar Spinymussel (Elliptio (Cathyria)
steinstansana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 34 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 527 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon 5 -
Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Susi vonOettingen, FWS, Concord, NH.
Widlak, J.C. 1987. Recovery Plan for the Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio (Canthyria)
steinstansana) Johnson and Clarke. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 12

APPENDIX A
Figures
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 13

FTep are;:::. r,r
AMEC
CSx
Freshwater Mussel Survey
Proposed Central Carolina
Intermodal Facility
Project Vicinity and Survey Reach
Nash & Edge combe Counties, North Carolina
Date -
November 2016
Scale. 500 1,000 Feet
r r i
Job No
16-321
Drawn By.
Checked 6Y'
NNIS
I TED
Figure

FTep are;:::. r,i
AMEC
CSx
Freshwater Mussel Survey
Proposed Central Carolina
Intermodal Facility
NHNHP Element Occurrences
Nash & Edgecombe Counties, North Carolina
Bate -
November 2016
Scale: 0 g,5f10 33,Ub0 FeeE
t � 1
.Job No
16321
Dawn 13y.
Checked BY.
NMS
TED
Figure

p♦v Hospira:lnc
It �`] .ate #NC0001589
111 -
Id
p
It ExpiredPermit4- 7
River WWTP
WT11
, IT
°f g, C ,..
y: k
%J ] `
WPDES D
Permit Type`.,
ti� e
■ Major- Individual Permit
p Minor- Individual Permit{
O General Permit f9 A
333{d} Impaired Streams` "+�$
Stream m _
Major Roads
�F
Approx Study Area
-- County Boundary °
Preprared For.
AM EC
4, CSK
Freshwater Mussel Survey
Proposed Central Carolina
Intermodal Facility
NHNHP Element Occurrences
Nash & Edgecombe Counties, North, Carolina
Dare
November 2016
Scale. D 1.91,U 3,9001-eet
I
.Joh No
16321
u awi uy.
checUM oa
NMS
TED
Figure

APPENDIX B
Select Photographs
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 17

y s ,
y.* .•ten .1� t•Y r k 5
le
,a 'l• �J� ,r L ae ^'�a 'r ��8'
• T!
' V '
H
IV`
q
.,Z .." v •� �, ,,fir_ #s:
_Ka
11.4
1
WAw'
_ � F
AWN

� -x �"�.. � ,� a`iirr "w .t J �� �� � qr �.y'i rr •'.
h
p
:M4
Th
L« .
'.Z
x

Photo 5: Eastern Elliptio Beech Branch
Photo 6: Paper Pondshell Beech Branch
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report
Job# 16-321
ar
if
Photo 7: Northern Lance Beech Branch
December 2016
Page 20

Photo 8: UT 1 Beech Branch
Photo 9: UT 2 Beech Branch pond and Paper Pondshell
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 21

-
17
24
Tx
_Ile
r r

Photo 12: UT Compass Creek within project boundary
CSX Intermodal Facility Mussel Survey Report December 2016
Job# 16-321 Page 23