20081181 Ver 1_Reports_20020320

•

•
•
•

•
• NORTH CAROLINA

DEPART
• MENT OF
• TRANSPORTATION
•
•
• OF NORTH C,q

• CIO
•
• rn z
• 9 0

• OF TR AN
•

NATURAL
• RESOURCES
• TECHNICAL REP
• ORT
•

• REPLACEMENT BRIDGE # 142
•
• SR 1193 OVER HOWARDS CREEK
• LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
• NCDOT TIP No. B-4177
•

r a,

• FEBRUARY 2002
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•

r

• NORTH CAROLINA

• DEPARTMENT OF
•
• TRANSPORTATION

•
of NORTH cq

CIO 7

v z
• ~ o

• OF pNSQO
• TR
•

• NATURAL RESOURCES
•
s TECHNICAL REPORT
•

•
• REPLACEMENT BRIDGE # 142
• SR 1193 OVER HOWARDS CREEK
• LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

NCDOT TIP No. B-4177
•
•

•
• FEBRUARY 2002
•
•

• PREPARED BY:

•

• HAB TAT
. ASs ES.5IIENT AND
• RESTORATION
•

•
•
•

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................1
1.2 Project Purpose l
1.3 Methodology ...........................................................................................2
1.4 Qualifications ..........................................................................................3
1.5 Definitions ...............................................................................................3

2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................4
2.1 Soils .........................................................................................................4
. 2.2 Water Resources ......................................................................................5
2.2.1 Best Usage Classification ..............................................................5
2.2.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters ...................................5
2.2.3 Water Quality ................................................................................5
• 2.2.3.1 Benthic Macroin vertebrate Monitoring Network 6
• 2.2.3.2 Water Quality Monitoring Data .....................................6
2.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................6

3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .....................................................................................7
3.1 Terrestrial Resources ...............................................................................7
3.2 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................9
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................9
3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts .........................................................................9
• 3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts .............................................................................9

4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS 10
4.1 Waters of the United States ...................................................................10
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ........................10
• 4.2 Permit Issues .........................................................................................11
4.2.1 Bridge Demolition .......................................................................11
4.2.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ..................................12
4.3 Protected Species ...................................................................................13
• 4.3.1 Federally Protected Species ........................................................13
4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species .................13

5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................15

r

00166-091-018 i February 2002
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142
•

FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1 - Project Location Map ...................................................................Appendix A
Figure 2 - Study Area ....................................................................................Appendix A
Table 1 - Federally Protected Species 13

APPENDICES

A Figures •
B Data Sheets
C Personnel Qualifications
D Endangered Species Biological Conclusions

r

r

00166-091-018 ii February 2002
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142

•

NATURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT

BRIDGE NO. 142
• SR 1193 OVER HOWARDS CREEK
LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT TIP NO. B-4177

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is planning to replace the above-
referenced bridge during Fiscal Year 2005. In support of this planned activity, HDR
Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR) and Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program
• (HARP) prepared the following Natural Resources Technical Report (Report) for the site.

1.1 Project Description

• The proposed project is designed to replace Bridge No. 142 on SR 1193 over Howards
• Creek in Lincoln County (County), North Carolina (Figure 1, Appendix A). The current
bridge structure consists of asphalt over wood with wood and steel supports, spanning
approximately 40 feet [12.19 meters (m)] of stream. The current bridge is 19 feet
i (5.79 m) wide and 80 feet (24.38 m) long.

• The Study Area, depicted in Figure 2, was previously determined by NCDOT and
includes approximately 4.6 acres of land surrounding the existing bridge. Land use
within the Study Area is approximately 60 percent forested and 40 percent agricultural.

1.2 Project Purpose

This report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for
the above-referenced project. The purpose of this Report is to inventory and describe the
natural resources that occur within the proposed Study Area. Assessments of the nature
and severity of potential impacts to these natural resources are provided along with
recommendations for measures that will minimize resource impacts.

• This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern that may affect the
• selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such
environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of
the proposed project in order to maintain environmental quality in the most efficient
manner. The analyses contained in this document are relevant only in the context of the
• existing preliminary Study Area. If the Study Area changes, additional field
. investigations may be necessary.

r

• 00166-091-018 1 February 2002
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142

i
1.3 Methodology

Natural resource information for the Study Area (Figure 2) was obtained from several
sources. Prior to an on-site evaluation of the Study Area, topographic maps from the ,
United States Geological Survey (USGS) and soil surveys from the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) were used to determine existing landscape and soil
composition (USDA, 1995). Aerial photographs, supplied by NCDOT, were studied to
identify hydrologic and environmental features. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database was used to search for the presence of known populations of •
Federally threatened and endangered species in the County and in the Reepsville
Quadrangle. In addition, the NCNHP database was searched for Federal Species of
Concern (FSC), as well as State listed species. North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) records were reviewed to determine stream index number, classification, and •
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits within the Project
Vicinity. The Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (CRBWQMP)
was used to further characterize environmental resource conditions at and around the
project site (NCDENR, 1999). The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) database was searched to identify proposed critical habitats for aquatic
species.
•
Field investigations were conducted by HDR/HARP personnel (Section 1.4) on August
14, and 30, 2001. Water resources were identified and their physical characteristics •
recorded on field data sheets (Appendix B). Plant communities and their associated
wildlife (or potential wildlife habitat) were also identified and described. Terrestrial
community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990), where
applicable, and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows
Brigham et al. (1982), Martof et al. (1980), Menhinick (1991), Potter et al. (1980), and •
Webster, et al. (1985).

Vegetative communities were mapped based on aerial photography and field work
verified during the site visit. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition •
involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative
communities. Wildlife identification involved various techniques including qualitative
habitat assessment based on vegetative communities, active searching, and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, burrows, etc.). Cursory surveys of
aquatic organisms were conducted and tactile searches for benthic organisms were •
administered as well. Organisms captured during these searches were identified and then
released.

Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on criteria •
established in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental •
Laboratory, 1987) and Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina
(NCDENR, 1995). Wetlands were classified using Cowardin, et al. (1979). i

i

00166-091-018 2 February 2002 •
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142 •

•

1.4 Qualifications

The following personnel performed and/or supervised the natural resource investigation
and preparation of this Report. Each individual is listed with qualifications and areas of
involvement with the project.

• • Personnel: Responsibility:

Mr. Chris Matthews, M.S. Project Management
Environmental Services Manager Field Inventory
HDR-Charlotte Report QA/QC

Ms. Kerri Snyder, M.S. Preliminary Research
Environmental Scientist Field Inventory
HDR-Charlotte Report Preparation

• Ms. Jaime Henkels, M.E.M. Preliminary Research
Environmental Scientist Field Inventory

HDR-Charlotte Report Preparation

• Mr. Philip May, B.S. Preliminary Research
Environmental Scientist Field Inventory
HDR-Raleigh Report Preparation

. Dr. James F. Matthews, Ph.D. Field Inventory
• Botanist Report Preparation
HARP-Charlotte

Mr. John T. Soule Field Inventory
• Botanist/Surveyor Report Preparation
• HARP-Charlotte

Resumes for each of the above-listed personnel are included in Appendix C.

• 1.5 Definitions

For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of
natural resource investigations. "Study Area" denotes the area bounded by the proposed
• limits supplied by NCDOT on the aerial photograph (Figure 2). "Project Area" is
S defined as the area within which the actual bridge reconstruction will eventually take
place. "Project Vicinity" is defined as an area extending 1 mile (1.6 km) on all sides
from the Study Area boundary. "Project Region" denotes an area equivalent in size to
• the area represented by a 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map, centered on the Study Area
. [i.e., 61.8 square miles (163.3 km2)].

00166-091-018 3 February 2002
• Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142

2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES

Soil and water resources that occur in the Project Area are discussed below with respect to
possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly influence the •
potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or
management concerns. Water resources within the Project Area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water
quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can •
potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In
addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these
resources. •

2.1 Soils

The County lies in the Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina. The landscape
is characterized by gently rolling, well-rounded hills and long, low ridges that form a •
transition area between the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Elevations within the Piedmont range from 300 to 600 feet above sea level; elevations are
as high as 1,500 feet above sea level near the Blue Ridge Mountains (Menhinick, 1991).

Soil mapping units are based on the NRCS soil survey for the County (USDA, 1995). •
During field investigations, soils were evaluated to verify map units depicted in the soil
survey. The Study Area is located at the intersection of SR 1193 and Howards Creek and
is mapped as Pacolet sandy loam and sandy clay loam (Typic Kanhapludults).

No hydric soils have been mapped within the Study Area. Pacolet soils consist of very
deep, well-drained soils on side slopes and narrow ridges on uplands. These soils usually
have thinner subsoil than Cecil soils. Within the Study Area, Pacolet sandy loam and
sandy clay loam are present on eroded slopes ranging from 15 to 25 percent and 8 to 15 •
percent, respectively. These soils have moderate permeability and low shrink-swell •
potential. These soils are slightly to strongly acidic in the surface layer and moderately to
very strongly acidic in the subsoil.

Investigation of the soils on-site revealed a thin horizon of soil (4 to 6 inches) overlying •
rock along the slopes above the stream channel. This does not correspond to the above
description. This discrepancy is likely due to shallow occurrence of bedrock along the
stream slope. The lack of soils could be partially due to historical disturbance such as
logging of the timber resources in the area or by natural erosive forces reducing the soil •
thickness over time. The shallow bedrock would not have been noted on the soil survey i
without direct sampling in the area.
r

00166-091-018 4 February 2002 •
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142
•

2.2 Water Resources

i This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
• impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
• characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources,
along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to
surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.

2.2.1 Best Usage Classification

r Water resources within the Study Area are located in the Catawba River Basin (USGS
Hydrologic Unit 03050102, NCDWQ Subbasin 03-08-35). There is one water resource
• within the Study Area. SR 1193 crosses Howards Creek, a perennial, third order
• tributary to the South Fork Catawba River. There are no additional tributaries, ponds or
wetlands contained within the Study Area; however, a small tributary exists along the
northeast boundary. This tributary occasionally meanders into the Study Area.

• Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NCDWQ that reflects water
quality conditions and potential resource usage. The classification for Howards Creek
(NCDWQ Index No. 11-129-4, 08/01/98) is Class C. Class C waters are protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival,
• agriculture, and other uses. Secondary recreation involves human body contact with
• water (wading, boating, etc.), which occurs in an infrequent, unorganized or incidental
manner. No high quality waters, water supply watersheds or outstanding resource waters
exist within the Project Vicinity.

• 2.2.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters

Howards Creek at SR 1193 has a channel width of approximately 27 feet (8.23 m) and a
water depth of 0.75 feet (0.23 m). Bankfull width at the current bridge location is 32 feet
• (9.75 m), and bankfull height is 1.8 feet (0.55 m).

The Creek has a substrate composed primarily of 45 percent boulders, 45 percent
bedrock, and 10 percent silt.

• 2.2.3 Water Quality

This section describes the quality of water resources within the Project Area.
Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point
• and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based
on published resource information and existing general watershed characteristics.
These data provide insight into the value of water resources within the Project
Area to meet human needs and to provide habitat for aquatic organisms.

• 00166-091-018 5 February 2002
• Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142

2.2.3.1 Benthic Macroi n vertebrate Ambient Network

The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the NCDWQ, is part of an i
ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program that addresses long-term •
trends in water quality. The Program monitors ambient water quality by sampling •
at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms, which are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of
taxa present of intolerant groups [Ephemoptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)]
and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is calculated. A biotic index value is also •
calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each
collection. The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification.
The biotic index and taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical
pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as •
sediment.

There is one benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring station (B-26) on Howards
Creek approximately 1.5 miles downstream from the Study Area where it crosses
SR 1200. Sampling results from 1997 yielded a rating of "Good" at this station. •

2.2.3.2 Water Quality Monitoring Data

The CRBWQP rates Howards Creek as "Fully Supporting" its Class C usage.
Howards Creek is not listed as an impaired water (Clean Water Act Section •
303(d)). No NPDES permitted facilities exist within the Project Vicinity. The
CRBWQP notes that Howards Creek is impaired by sediment. Non-point source
discharges likely result from ongoing development activities and agricultural
runoff. The subbasin is comprised of 35 percent pasture or managed herbaceous •
land.

2.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts

Impacts to water resources in the Project Area are likely to result from activities •
associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts include
clearing and grubbing on stream banks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction,
fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following
impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the above-mentioned .
construction activities.

o Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the Project Area.
o Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
o Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
o Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
o Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas. •

00166-091-018 6 February 2002
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142

o Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
o Potential for increase release of toxic compounds, such as fuel and oil, from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• o Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and ground
• water drainage patterns.

In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the Project Area, NCDOT's
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
• enforced during the construction phase of the project. Impacts can be further reduced by
• limiting in-stream activities and revegetating stream banks immediately following
completion of the grading. Uses of turbidity curtains for this project were reviewed and
investigated. Given the size of the stream and general design considerations for turbidity
• curtains, HDR feels that the specified flotation components, in many instances, are larger
• than the depth of the stream and would most likely result in additional expense with
minimal added benefit.

3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES

Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the biotic
communities encountered in the Study Area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora
within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout
the Study Area are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land usage.
• Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990), where possible.
Representative animal species that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range
distributions) are also listed.

Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and
plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to the common name
only, unless no common name is designated.

• Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora and fauna
described within biotic communities use resources from adjacent communities, making
boundaries between contiguous communities difficult to define.

• 3.1 Terrestrial Resources

There are four terrestrial communities located in the Study Area (Figure 2). These
communities are pasture, power line right-of-way (ROW), transition forest and upland
• slopes. The transition forest and upland slope communities do not correspond well to any
• of the natural communities listed in Schafale and Weakley (1990). The transition forest
is not consistent with the natural communities because of previous impacts and influence
adjacent agriculture. Most likely, the upland slope represents an ecotonal community
between a Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) and a Piedmont/Low
• Mountain Alluvial Forest.

• 00166-091-018 7 February 2002
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142

The pasture consists of Blackberry (Rubus sp.), Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), Knotweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum), Rye grass
(Lolium sp.), and Fescue grass (Festuca sp.).

Within the power line ROW, trees consist of Sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifluia) 6- •
inch diameter breast height (dbh), Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), over an
understory of Privet (Ligustrum sinense). Herbs include Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium
maculatum), Small yellow crownbeard (Verbesina occidentalis), Microstegium
(Microstegium vimineum), and Beggar lice (Desmodium sp.). •

Within the transition forest, trees include Black walnut (Juglans nigra) 10-inch dbh,
White oak (Quercus alba) 22-inch dbh, Red maple (Acer rubrum) 18-inch dbh, Red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana) 10-inch dbh, and Black cherry (Prunus serotina) 10-inch dbh. •
The understory includes the following species: Privet, Flowering dogwood (Cornus •
Florida), Persimmon Diospyros virginiana) 5-inch dbh, and Ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana). The herb layer consists of Small yellow crownbeard, Blackberry,
Pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), Ironweed (Vernonia glauca), Japanese honeysuckle, .
Common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), Gamma grass (Tripsacum dactyloides), •
Microstegium, and Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis).

Upland slope vegetation includes River birch (Betula nigra) 4-inch dbh, Sweetgum 6-
inch dbh, Black cherry 10-inch dbh, Yellow poplar 23-inch dbh, White oak 18-inch dbh, •
Black walnut 12-inch dbh, with a sparse understory dominated by Privet and Ironwood •
near the northeast tributary. The herb layer consists of Coneflower (Rudbeckia
laciniata), Joe-pye-weed, Small yellow crownbeard, Microstegium, Beggar lice, Black
raspberry (Rubus occidentalis), Southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides), Broad-leaved
spike-grass (Chasmanthium latifolium), Japanese honeysuckle, Poison ivy •
(Toxicodendron radicans), and Blackberry.

No obvious signs of fauna were noted during the site visit. However, fauna likely to exist
in the communities within the Study Area are as follows. The roadside and pasture •
community could potentially provide habitat for the Southeastern shrew (Sorex •
longirostris), Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), Woodchuck (Maromota monax), Old-field mouse (Peromyscus polionitus),
Cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), Pine vole (Microtus pinetorum), Eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis), Red fox (Vulpes fulva), and White-tailed deer (Odocoileus •
virginianus). Various species of birds may use the roadside and pasture areas for
foraging and hunting rodents, etc.

The transition forest and upland slopes provide potential habitat for Opossum (Didelphis •
virginiana), Short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), Eastern mole, Eastern cottontail, •
Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Southern flying

squirrel (Glaucomys volans), White-footed mouse (P. leucopus), Raccoon (Procyon
lotor), Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Bobcat (Lynx rufus), and White-tailed deer.
Many bird species have the potential to inhabit woodland areas. •

00166-091-018 8 February 2002 •
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142
•

3.2 Aquatic Resources

There is one aquatic community, Howards Creek, located in the Study Area. Physical
• aspects of the aquatic communities are described in Section 2.2.

Macroinvertebrates found in this community include mayflies (Heptageniidae), net
making caddisflies (Hydropsychidae), rock-case caddisflies (Neophylax sp.), alderflies
(Megaloptera), damselfly larvae (Odonata), and Crayfish (Decapoda).

Fishes observed within this community include Bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus),
Striped jumprock (Scartomyzon rupiscartes), Margined madtom (Noturus insignis),
Rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), Fieryblack shiner (Cyprinella pyrrhomelas),
• Highfin shiner (Notropis altipinnis), Tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), and
Fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare).

A review of the NCWRC Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat database
showed no occurrence within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the Study Area. There is no Essential
• Fish Habitat or Construction Moratoria for the Study Area.

3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts

• Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
• described above. Any construction-related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section describes potential impacts to the
natural communities within the Study Area in terms of the communities and organisms
affected. Estimates of impact areas are not included due to the early stage of the planning
process for this project. No estimates can be made until the design and footprint of the
• bridge construction have been determined.

3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts

S Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
widening, clearing, and packing of portions of the Project Area, and thus, the loss
of community area. Depending upon the final location of the Project Area, the
communities likely to be impacted by the project include pasture, power line
• right-of-way (ROW), transition forest and upland slopes.

3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts

Impacts to the aquatic community of Howards Creek will result from the
• replacement of Bridge No. 142. Impacts are likely to result from the physical
disturbance of aquatic habitats (e.g., substrate and water quality). Disturbance of
aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by
reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical
i alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic
communities:

• 00166-091-018 9 February 2002
• Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142
•

o Inhibition of plant growth,
o Clogging of feeding structures or filter feeding organisms and gills of fish,
o Burial of benthic organisms, •
o Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations, which deplete •
dissolved oxygen supplies,
o Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring, resulting from an
increased sediment load, and •
o Increased water temperatures due to removal of riparian canopy. •

Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to the
BMPs.

4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS

This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant regulatory
issues: Waters of the United States, and rare and protected species. These issues retain .
particular significance because of Federal and State mandates that regulate their protection. This
section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority(ies)
prior to project construction. •

4.1 Waters of the United States

Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States", as defined in Section 33 of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. Any
action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls
under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters, which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season. •

4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters

Criteria used to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, •
hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology. There are no wetlands within the Study •
Area. There are minor wetland benches along the tributary to Howards Creek;
however, they are outside the boundaries of the Study Area. Physical descriptions
of surface waters in the Study Area are included in Section 2.2. •

No concurrence from the USACE is necessary due to the lack of special aquatic
sites (i.e., wetlands) within the Study Area.

00166-091-018 10 February 2002 •
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142 •

•

Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of
the stream that are located within the Study Area. Impacts to Waters of the
United States will be limited to surface waters.

4.2 Permit Issues

Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated for the proposed
project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from
• various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water
resources.

A Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the
. United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by
another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined
that, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation for
• implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:

(1) the activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment;
• and,
. (2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.

This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the NCDWQ prior
to the issuance of the NWP. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state
issue or deny certification for any Federally permitted or licensed activity that may result
in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface
• waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
• manipulation. The issuance of a 401 Certification from the NCDWQ is a prerequisite to
issuance of a Section 404 permit.

4.2.1 Bridge Demolition

Bridge No. 142 is located on SR 1193 over Howards Creek in the County. It is
constructed of asphalt, wood, and steel and is described in Section 1.1. All efforts
will be made to demolish the bridge without dropping any materials into Waters
• of the United States. However, there is some potential for materials to enter
• surface waters during construction. We have estimated possible temporary fill
using the width of the bridge, a standard depth of 2 feet, and the width of the
bankfull area. Because we do not anticipate the entire bridge entering the stream,
we have divided this number by two. The resulting temporary fill associated with
• bridge demolition would be approximately 22 cubic yards.

• 00166-091-018 11 February 2002
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142

4.2.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

The USACE, through the CEQ, has adopted a wetland mitigation policy, which
embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose i
of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical •
integrity of Waters of the United States; specifically, wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include the following: avoiding,
minimizing, rectifying, reducing (over time), and compensating for impacts (40
CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and •
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.

Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 •
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the U.S. Environmental Protection •
Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. •

Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of
these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. •
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project •
through the reduction to median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes, and/or road
shoulder widths.

Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to .
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and
values may be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable impacts that •
remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. •
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent or contiguous to the discharge site.

Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under NWPs
that result in the fill or alteration of more than 0.5 acres (0.20 ha) of wetlands
and/or more than 150 linear feet (45.72 meters) of streams. For projects in or near
streams or other open waters, a common component of any compensatory
mitigation plan is to establish and maintain a vegetated buffer next to open waters •
within the Project Vicinity. Generally, the buffer is 25 to 50 feet wide on each
side of the stream; however, the District Engineer will determine whether or not
the vegetated buffer is required and, if so, the appropriate buffer width. The
vegetated buffer should consist of native species and cannot account for more .
than one third of compensatory mitigation acreage. •

00166-091-018 12 February 2002 •
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142
•

The impacts from this project do not meet the minimum mitigation thresholds;
therefore, no mitigation requirement is anticipated. However, final authority for
the permit/mitigation decisions rests with the USACE.

Stream mitigation potential on-site is limited by the presence of the bridge, which
r restricts the use of natural channel design.

4.3 Protected Species

Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are, in the process of decline due
either to natural forces or their inability to co-exist with human development. Federal
• law [under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended]
• requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as Federally
protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other
species may receive additional protection under separate State laws.

4.3.1 Federally Protected Species

Plants and animals with Federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected
• under the provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA, as amended. As of August
• 8, 2001, the NCNHP lists two Federally protected species for the County (Table
1). Brief descriptions of the characteristics and habitat requirements for these
species are included as Appendix D. Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" were
found for both species.

A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no
occurrence of Federally protected species within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the Study
Area. In addition, habitat for these species does not occur within the Study Area.

TABLE 1
• Federall Protected Species
Common Name Scientific Name> Federal Status
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastvlis naniflora T

i 4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species

There are no Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the NCNHP for the
County. FSC are not afforded Federal protection under the ESA and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these
species is subject to change, and therefore, should be included for consideration.
FSC are defined as species that are under consideration for listing for which there
. is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms which are

• 00166-091-018 13 February 2002
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142
•

listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the NCNBP
list of Rare Plant and Animal Species, are afforded State protection under the NC
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.

A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no
occurrence sites within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the Study Area.

S

00166-091-018 14 February 2002 •
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142
•

1.

5.0 REFERENCES

Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka. 1982. Aquatic Insects and Oligochaetes of North
and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, IL.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington,
DC.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.

International Collaborative Internet Projects. 2000. Spider Silk Project.
• http://tafe.angis.org.au/icip/spider/key.html. Accessed September 5, 2001.

Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, J.R. Harrison, III, and J. Dermid. 1980. Amphibians
and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.

Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources. 1995. Guidance for
• Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina - Fourth Version. Raleigh, NC.

1999. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. Raleigh, NC.

2001. List of Active NPDES Permits.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/permits.html#lists.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Element Occurrence Search Page.
http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/county.html.

Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

S Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

• Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina - Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh,
NC.

• United States Department of Agriculture, 1995. Soil Survey of Lincoln County, North
• Carolina. Natural Resource Conservation Service.

r

• 00166-091-018 15 February 2002
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142

•
•
•

Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, •
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. •
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•

•

•
•
•

i
•
•
•

•
•
00166-091-018 16 February 2002 •
Natural Resource Technical Report - Bridge No. 142
•

•

N

Lincol
Count

0
aeeps 'Ile r

B-4177

t
Bo
0
Lincolnton d

o stow
Ir Sta ' n
o ~
v
0

Legend

8-4177 Project Location
Figure 1: Project Location Map NStreams
Utility Lines
B-4177, Howards Creek Railroads
Lincoln County, North Carolina Roads

Project: 00166-091-018 Lincolnton

Yy « Transition ~r tip,

ate.
Forest
Study Area
~r I
st li r
Boundary
~w r

iv 'R t 4 T 'i y.:..

a1 +.'h+~~L,'f;r.,1.yr r r x r .-}~+,~.q- ~J*l
f Y r R
'Y Pasture'`

Upland,
Slope t fi•, ,

ryt a) ~y a 4 h; y Y j
44

Figure 2: Study Area Reference: NCDOT Aerial Photograph
B-4177, Howards Creek
HDR Engineering. Inc. Lincoln County, North Carolina
of the Carolinas
SCALE: DATE: DRAWN/ PROJECT: FILE: B-4177
1" z 147' September 14, 2001 CHECKED BY: KPS / CRM 00166-091-018 Study Area.ppt

Natural Resource Technical Report
Field Data Sheet
Page: 1 of 3
Tip Number: Rj- 4t 1'I Date: k.ta; 2. r,
Road Number:- Stream Crossing:y
i County: State: .I River Basin: Ca}u wbCt
Weather: rvP r f DWQ Classification: C ~(A C~
• Investigators: ~ ;'fMrr P t/A,4 , Ejcn`r~IS

r BRIDGE:
Description:

• Measurements: Length: 4- D'
Width: t
Span:

i Structural Components:

STREAM:
Description: • J

Channel substrate: >r v,-r- bL] 4 'T

Measurements: Channel width: 2-1
i Bankfull width:
Bankfull height:

Water depth:

• General characteristics: Description:
Turbidity curtain Yes o
Trout waters Yes No
Essential fish habitat Yes No
Anadramous fish Yes ^No
Navigable stream Yes No
Shellfish waters Yes No
• Primary nursery area Yes No'
CAMA Yes No

AEC Yes No

Additional tributaries or ponds:. N
/ NRTR Data Sheet

00166-091-018 August 2001
•

r
Natural Resource Technical Report
Field Data Sheet •
Page: 2 of 3
t
Tip Number: - 411-i Date: Rio kvtA - !2.o
Road Number: SR ~~q3 Stream Crossing: •t~! ~ sXep k
County: h h State: N Investigators: C Ma!,Y1ev,,S, p tAa..J . ikr fc 1 ti i
r
AQUATIC COMMUNITIES:
Community characterization: c4' fir. tt~

Fauna or signs of fauna:
Macroinvertebrates Fishes Other

t Y"

arc • ~'i vH~:_;

•

TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITITES:
Community characterization:

Fauna or signs of fauna: s. •

NRTR Data Sheet August 2001 •
00166-091-016 •

i

i Natural Resource Technical Report
Field Data Sheet
i Page: 3 of 3
i Tip Number: $ - 4- Vj -l Date: 2eo ,
i Road Number: Stream Crossing: (Mre t,,~_
i County: State: ;.IL,- Investigators: C P~'w,_tt Y^~~., V 1-Ac A ' c-

• LAND USE:

i General Description:
•

i Urban %
i Agricultural %
Residential %
Forested b p %
i Other % Description:

i
. PROTECTED SPECIES:

i Federally Protected Species:
Within 1 mile of the Study Area: h0
i
i
•
i Within the County T/, Py 6 t.,

•

i Sightings of Federally protected species: y~
•
•

Potential Habitat for Federally protected species: f

•

•

•
•
•

i

NRTR Data Sheet
00166-091-018 August 2001
•

Christopher R. Matthews

•
Experience

• Mr. Matthews is HDR's Environmental and Water Resources Section Manager in
. Education Charlotte, NC. His experience includes performing stream restoration projects,
• M.S., Applied Ecology/ endangered species surveys, environmental assessments (aquatic and terrestrial), and
Conservation Biology, wetland surveys for proposed sewer lines, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, and
Frostburg State University, commercial and residential developments in the Carolinas. He evaluated and reported
• 1996 on plants and animals in critical ecological areas of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, and
• B.A., Biology, University Mecklenburg Counties for the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. His Masters
of North Carolina at degree project included researching the biology and genetics of the federally
. Charlotte, 1988 endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
• Professional Endeavors STREAM RESTORATION
HDR Engineering, Inc. Chatham, Cleveland, Guilford, Macon, Mecklenburg, New Hanover, Randolph
• 2001 - Present and Rowan Counties, North Carolina. Project Manager for stream and wetland
• 1996 - 1999 mitigation feasibility studies for the NCDOT and the NC Wetland Restoration
Habitat Assessment and Program.
• Restoration Program, Inc.
• (HARP) Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities Commission, Winston-Salem, North
1999 -2000 Carolina. Assisted with a stream mitigation and restoration project in support of the
• new NW Forsyth Water Treatment Plant.
• Professional Affiliations
Union Cross Business Park, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Assisted with a
Association of
Southeastern Biologists stream mitigation and restoration project in support of the Union Cross Business Park.
Society of Wetland Tributary to McDowell Creek, Huntersville, North Carolina. Assisted with a
• Scientists stream mitigation and relocation project in support of the North Mecklenburg Water
• Wetland Delineators Treatment Plant expansion.
Association
Southern Appalachian Brush Creek/Little Pine Creek, North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program,
• Botanical Society NCDENR. Performed stream characterization, design, construction administration,
and aquatic species surveys for a stream relocation and restoration project for the NC
• Wetlands Restoration Program, Sparta, NC.
Toby Creek Channelization and Restoration Study, Mecklenburg County, North
• Carolina. Reviewed and amended technical design standards for stream restoration of
• Toby Creek. Also, achieved floodplain bench vegetation planting and 3-year
monitoring program for stream restoration and vegetation test plot project.
• Reedy Creek Public Improvements, Richmond, Virginia. Assisted with aquatic
bioassessment, design criteria, and vegetation selection for the Reedy Creek stream
. restoration project.
ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS
• a Project Manager for Environmental Assessment for the Abbotts Creek sewer
improvement project, Winston-Salem, NC.
• a Maybank Highway (SC 700) Bridge Replacement and Highway Widening, South
Carolina Department of Transportation. Performed preconstruction environmental
documentation for the Stono River Bridge Replacement Project in Charleston, SC.

Christopher R. Matthews
Page 2 •
• Performed endangered species review and wetland survey for the proposed North
Corridor portion of the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) commuter rail
project (Charlotte, NC).
• Evaluated and performed terrestrial and aquatic surveys for a proposed Tom Fazio
golf course and residential development in Banner Elk, NC.
• Performed environmental assessment for large CMUD sewer expansion project •
along the Catawba River, Mecklenburg County (NC). •
• Member of HDR's Natural Resources Study Team during the Surface
Transportation Board's (STB) Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Norfolk- .
Southern/CSX railroad merger. Responsible for protected species research and
initial environmental assessment, report writing, and compilation.
• Assisted with an environmental assessment for landfill expansion at Hanes Mill •
Landfill (Winston-Salem, NC).
• Surveyed coastal watershed basin for protected species and wetlands in the City of
Myrtle Beach (SC) in conjunction with a watershed drainage improvement study •
conducted by HDR for the City. •
• Performed environmental assessments for proposed sewer lines, wastewater
treatment facilities, and commercial and residential developments, Charlotte, NC.
Projects include Coddle Creek Water Treatment Plant, Ballantyne, Brown's Cove .
Water Treatment Facility, and Twelve Mile Creek Sewer and Water Treatment
Facility (Mecklenburg County, NC). •
AQUATICS, FISHERIES, AND STREAM PROJECTS
• Collection and identification of freshwater fishes from the Dismal Swamp and •
surrounding watershed, including the cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach,
VA.
• Collection and identification of freshwater fishes, especially sculpin, from the •
Holston, Clinch, Bluestone, Potomac, Shenandoah, and James River systems in
western and central Virginia. •
• Collection and identification of freshwater fishes of the western shore of the •
Chesapeake Bay for the Maryland Natural Heritage Program.
• Designed, managed, and performed 40-site aquatic bioassessment program for the •
City of Winston-Salem (NC). This program examined fish, aquatic insect, and .
plant populations, along with water chemistry and stream channel health to help in
determining BMPs for handling storm water issues within the city limits. •
• Proposed and initiated 5-year aquatic macrobenthos monitoring program for a
stream relocation project designed by Paris Projects and Habitat Assessment and
Restoration Project (Charlotte, NC). •
WETLANDS
• Performed 401/404 wetland permitting for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities in •
support of the Hambright Road, Commons Apartments, and Hamilton Road sewer
installation and the Clarke Creek IV sewer line expansion (Mecklenburg County, i
NC.) •
• Performed a site characterization study and wetland restoration involving a
bentonite spill off of Beam Road, for the City of Charlotte, NC. •
• Assisted with the design and planting of a stormwater BMP called a rain garden for
the NCWRC along Stevens Creek (Mint Hill, NC).
• Assisted in preparing the 401/404 permitting package involving mitigation projects •
for the Koury Corporation (Greensboro, NC), .
• Performed 401/404 wetland permitting in support of a commercial development
for the Mathisen Co. (Matthews, NC). •

Christopher R. Matthews
Page 3

• • Assisted with the design and installation of wetland plantings at the Innes Street
Market wetland mitigation project (Salisbury, NC).
• Designed and installed plants on numerous bioengineering and stream restoration
projects for the City of Charlotte Storm Water Services and Mecklenburg County
Storm Water Services (Charlotte, NC)
• • Delineated wetlands and created 401/404 wetland permit documents for permitting
for the new water line for the City of Sanford (Sanford, NC).
• Handled 401/404 wetland permit production, field surveys and agency
• correspondence for proposed municipal solid waste landfill in Pickens County
• (SC) for the Appalachian Council of Governments.
• Assisted with wetland design and mitigation banking agreements for the Richmond
• International Airport, (Henrico County, VA).
• Helped with data gathering, compiling, and updating mitigation monitoring report
for Churchland Water Main (Suffolk, VA).
• Performed wetland mitigation monitoring at Coddle Creek Reservoir, Georgetown
County (SC) Landfill, and Lancaster/Union County (SC) water treatment plant.
• Created final detailed wetland mitigation plan for Georgetown County Landfill,
• administered the planting of 35,000 trees for wetland mitigation, and initiated 3-
year monitoring program.
• Prepared and assisted in initiating wetland mitigation bank for Georgetown County
• at the Georgetown County Landfill.
• • Helped in solving wetland mitigation issues at the Horry County (SC) Landfill,
administered the mitigation planting of 38 acres at the landfill for wetland
• mitigation, and initiated 3-year monitoring program.
• • Assisted the HDR Office in Richmond, VA, with wetland mitigation issues for
stream restoration project at Reedy Creek (Richmond, VA). Issues included site
. location, land acquisition, and wetland design.
LAND MANAGEMENT
• Team member on the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(Gaithersburg, MD) Land Management Plan, examining wildlife (deer and Canada
• goose populations) and forest stand issues, along with water quality and stream
restoration needs.
• Managed landscaping activities at Smith Metal and Iron Brownfield site
• (Charlotte, NC), and supervised gasoline pipeline relocation at Coddle Creek
• Reservoir.
• Administered contract and supervised operations for clearing reservoir shoreline
• prior to full impoundment at Coddle Creek Reservoir (Concord, NC).
• • Aided in property owner relations and supported Cabarrus County (NC) during
public hearings regarding Coddle Creek Reservoir shoreline clearing (Concord,
NC).
Publications
• Matthews, C. R. and J. H. Howard. Genetic variation in the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower,
• Helianthus schweinitzii T & G (Asteraceae). Castanea 64 (3): 231-242, 1998.
. Matthews, C. R., E. M. Wolfe, and W. Tingle. Performance of eight Piedmont plant species for use in
stream restoration and bioen ineerin at t Toby Creek Charlotte NC. (Abs.) ASB Conference, 1998.
• Matthews, J. F., L. S. Barden, and C. R. Matthews. Corrections of the chromosome number, distribution,
. and misidentifications of the Federally endangered sunflower, Helianthus schweinitzii T & G. Journal of the
Torrey Botanical Society. 124 (2): 198-209, 1997.
• Genetic variability and population characteristics of the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower
Helianthus schweinitzii T&G. (Abs.) ASB Conference, 1996.
•
•
•

•
•

• Kerri Pratt Snyder
•
•
• Experience

• Mrs. Snyder is an Environmental Scientist in HDR's Environmental and Resource
• Education Management group. She received her Masters degree in Zoology from the University of
• M.S., Zoology, University Oklahoma. Mrs. Snyder's experience includes wetlands delineation, feasibility studies,
of Oklahoma, 2000 data collection and analysis, groundwater sampling, stream restoration, and endangered
• B.S., Education, University species and critical habitats. Representative experience includes:
• of Oklahoma, 1997
City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. As Environmental Scientist, currently
• working on an Environmental Assessment for proposed sewer lines.
• Certification
401 Certification, Benthic Greenville County. As Environmental Scientist, performed wetland delineation of Site
• Macroinvertebrate M, a proposed landfill site.
• Collection
North Carolina Department of Transportation. As Environmental Scientist, currently
• performing feasibility studies for wetland mitigation in Shelby, Salisbury, High Point, and
• Professional Endeavors Franklin, North Carolina. Working on Natural Resource Inventories for wetland areas in
HDR Engineering, Inc. Cabarrus, Guilford, and Moore Counties in North Carolina and Natural Resource
November 2000 - Present Technical Reports for several bridge creek crossings near Charlotte, North Carolina. In
addition, working on fatal flaw analyses for the Vance Road Extension Corridor in
•
Engineers. Huntersville, North Carolina and for the Fred D. Alexander Boulevard Corridor in
Summer r 19 1999 9
. Sum
Charlotte, North Carolina.
University of Oklahoma
• (Teaching Assistant) South Carolina Department of Transportation. As Environmental Scientist, observed
• August 1998 - May 2000 Right-of-Ways and Proposed Right-of-Ways for endangered species and critical habitats
• for the Stono Bridge Replacement Project in Charleston, South Carolina.
• Professional North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program. Collected data and assisted with
Associations designs for stream restoration for Little Pine Creek and Brush Creek near Sparta, North
• Southwestern Association Carolina. Currently, working with subcontractors on the construction of Little Pine
• of Naturalists Creek.
• City of Rock Hill, South Carolina. Created permit package for Finley Road Stream
• Bank Stabilization Project. Currently working on permit package for Armory Park
• Stream Bank Stabilization Project.
• City of Greensboro, North Carolina. As Project Ecologist, currently working on plans
• for wetlands restoration and habitat optimization in association with the White Street
Landfill.
•
Piedmont Natural Gas. As Environmental Scientist, observed pipeline Right-of-Ways
• for listed and protected species and wetland areas and wrote reports.
•
• City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. As Project Ecologist, analyzed data and wrote
reports associated with the biomonitoring project.
•
• Williamsburg County, Georgetown County, Sumter County, and Horry County,
South Carolina, and City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Responsibilities
• included sampling groundwater from wells.
• Georgetown County, South Carolina. As Project Ecologist, performed site reviews,
analyzed data and wrote reports associated with the wetlands monitoring project.
•
•
•
•

Kerri Pratt Snyder
Page 2
EPA/Corps of Engineers. As a Research Technician, assisted on the following projects: •

¦ Impact assessment for 41 sites on Lake Texoma.
¦ Collected fishes and took,'and analyzed water column and benthic samples including
measuring pH, temperature, conductivity, DO, CO2, secchi depth, invertebrate
colonization; and filtered samples and used spectrophotometry to measure •
chlorophyll A.
¦ Compared fish assemblages among impacted and unimpacted sites
Master's Research. Recorded life history for a recently described species (Cyprinidae), •
compared life history traits for harsh and benign environment
University of Oklahoma. As a graduate student, assisted in collections for the Sam
Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History; collected in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, and
Arkansas; assisted in data analysis for publications over Spatial and Temporal Variation •
in Fish Assemblages; and assisted in life history studies in live bearers (Poeciliidae).

Publications •
Pratt, K.E., "Life history of the rocky shiner, Notropis suttkusi," Masters Thesis, The •
University of Oklahoma Press, 2000.

Pratt, K.E., C.W. Hargrave, and K.B. Gido, "Rediscovery of Labidesthes sicculus
(Atherinidae) in Lake Texoma," The Southwestern Naturalist, in Press. •

Jaime L. Henkels, M.E.M.
•

• Experience

• Ms. Henkels joined HDR as a Water Resources Specialist in the Water Resources Group
• upon obtaining her Masters of Environmental Management degree from Duke University.

Education Representative project experience includes:
M.E.M.. Water Resources WATER RESOURCES AND STORMWATER
. Management,
Duke University, 2000 Flood Hazard Mitigation and Bank Stabilization Study, Mecklenburg County
B.A., Biology, Stormwater Services, North Carolina. Part of field team that conducted an assessment
• Hiram College, 1998 of aquatic life and bank stability of six urban stream reaches within the city of Charlotte.
Primary duties included recommendations to improve water quality and enhance aquatic
Professional diversity through habitat improvements. Assessments of flooded structures were also
• Endeavors conducted for each phase of this project. Reviewed, identified trends, and summarized
HDR Engineering, Inc. data from the nearest environmental rating sites. Created ArcViewTM maps for each
2000 - Present location summarizing existing conditions, problem areas, and proposed solutions for
• hazard mitigation.
Water Resources Research flood
• Institute of North Carolina Storm Water Systems Inventory, Concord, North Carolina. Project duties include
Researcher coordination of field crew, attribution of storm water drainage systems including data
• Oct. 1999 -May 2000
collection and use of GPS technology. Field duties include identification of illicit
Dogwood Alliance and discharges and maintenance needs. Design of database for management and use by the
. North Carolina Chip Mill City of Concord. Mapping tools developed using ArcViewTM and FieldNotesTM software.
Study
• Water Quality Specialist Storm Water Master Plan, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Middle Mill, Silas,
• May -August 1999 Middle and Lower Salem Creek watersheds. Project duties include development and
calibration of hydrologic and hydraulic models with XP-SWMM for both existing and
• Ohio Environmental future conditions, development and calibration of a water quality model, analysis of
Protection Agency,
Northeast District results, calculation of floodplains, and development of solution alternatives.
• Surface Water Intern
May - August 1997 Water Resources Research Institute of North Carolina and Middle Cape Fear River
• May -August 1998 Basin Authority. With Dr. Donald Francisco of the University of North Carolina, Ms.
Henkels performed trend analysis of water quality data for the Middle Cape Fear River.
Focus was on dissolved oxygen and nutrient loading, with preliminary results presented at
• the annual Middle Cape Fear River Basin Authority meeting in Fayetteville, North
Carolina in May 2000.
Water Resources Research Institute of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Contracted to write "The Use of Benthic Macroinvertebrates as Indicators of the
• Effectiveness of Stormwater Best Management Practices." This project summarized
• current research on the subject with emphasis on the advantages and difficulties of use of
this monitoring in North Carolina. Results of this research were presented to North
• Carolina's Stormwater Working Group.
Dogwood Alliance and North Carolina Chip Mill Study, Brevard, North Carolina.
• Conducted extensive literature review and created annotated bibliography of water
• quality research pertaining to water quality and forestry practices. Project included
review of North Carolina Sediment Pollution Control Act. Report was submitted to
• North Carolina Chip Mill Study team for incorporation into their final report.
• Participated in public hearing process for study.

•
Jaime L. Henkels, M.E.M. •
Page 2 •

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Northeast District Office, Twinsburg,
Ohio. As a surface water intern, Ms. Henkels conducted physical, biological, and •
chemical monitoring of Northeast Ohio waterways and Lake Erie. Reviewed NPDES •
permits and conducted monitoring to ensure facilities were in compliance with their •
permits. Tasks included the use of the Index of Biological Integrity from fish sampling to
data analysis. Comprehensive aquatic habitat evaluations were conducted using Ohio's •
Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index. •
STREAM RESTORATION •
North Carolina Department of Transportation. As Environmental Scientist, is •
currently performing feasibility studies for wetland mitigation in Shelby, Salisbury, High •
Point, and Franklin, North Carolina. In addition, conducting a fatal flaw analyses for the
Vance Road Extension Corridor in Huntersville, North Carolina, and for the Fred D. •
Alexander Boulevard Corridor in Charlotte, North Carolina. •

North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program. Collected data and assisted with •
designs for stream restoration for Little Pine Creek and Brush Creek near Sparta, North •
Carolina. Currently working with subcontractors on the construction of Little Pine Creek. •
Publications and Conferences •

Henkels, J.L. and R.E. Holman, "The Use of Benthic Macroinvertebrates as Indicators of •
the Effectiveness of Stormwater Best Management Practices," Water Resources Research •
Institute of North Carolina Special Report, 2000.
•
Henkels, J., "Water Quality and Quantity Trends in Three Subbasins of the Yadkin River •
Basin, North Carolina," Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment Master's
Project, http://sedimentary.env.duke.edu/research/Yadkin/jaime%20henkets/index.htm •
"The Use of Benthic Macro invertebrates as Indicators of the Effectiveness of Stormwater •
Best Management Practices," research presented to North Carolina Stormwater Working •
Group, Winston-Salem, November 1999. •
Honors and Affiliations •

Omicron Delta Kappa honor society •
American Water Resources Association, Member •
Computer Experience •

MS Access, Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. ArcInfo, ArcView, QUAL-2EU, BASINS, •
and GPS equipment.
•
•
•

•
•
•

i

•
•
•

•

• Philip W. May
•
•
• Experience
•
• Mr. May is an Environmental Scientist with HDR in Raleigh, NC. He has a Bachelor's
• Degree in Biology with a minor in Chemistry, and over six years experience in the
environmental field. Mr. May's previous experience includes: wetland delineations and
. permitting, environmental site assessments, water quality assessments, and statistical
• analysis of groundwater data. His experience also includes water, soil, and air sampling
Education techniques as well as monitoring well installation and aquifer testing, permit preparation and
• compliance reporting, and groundwater and landfill gas remediation. He has worked on a
B.S., Biology, Kennesaw variety of sites from small underground storage tank sites to large municipal waste landfills.
• State University, 1992
• Graduate Work, University Representative experience includes:
of North Carolina - Chapel
Hill, 1993-1994 WETLANDS
•
Professional Endeavors Davidson County Landfill, Lexington, NC. Project consisted of performing wetland
• delineation and 401/404 permitting for the Davidson County Landfill soil borrow area
• HDR Engineering, Inc. stream crossing. Coordinated redesign which avoided wetland impacts and costly
Feb. 2001 - Present mitigation.
• G.N. Richardson &
• Associates, Inc. C&D Landfill, Davidson County, NC. Project included delineation of wetlands for the
Apr. 1996 - Feb. 2001 future Davidson County C&D landfill (Lexington, NC). This reduced the size of
• ATEC & Associates, Inc. previous inaccurate and outdated delineation, which resulted in the avoidance of wetland
• Dec. 1994 -Apr. 1996 impacts and permitting.
• Phase 2 MSW Landfill, Davidson County, NC. Project included oversight of wetland
• delineation for the Davidson County Phase 2 MSW Landfill (Lexington, NC).
• Johnston County Phase 4a "Piggy Back" Landfill, Smithfield NC. Performed
• wetland delineation, and 401/404 permitting for the Johnston County Phase 4a "Piggy
Back" Landfill. This consisted of preparation and negotiation of one of the first
• applications for a variance from the restrictive Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules,
• as well as coordination of environmental permitting and waste remediation activities.
• Phase 3 MSW Landfill, High Point, NC. Performed wetland delineation, permitting,
• and oversight of mitigation plan preparation for the City of High Point Phase 3 MSW
Landfill. Assisted with negotiations which reduced mitigation requirements to
• preservation of existing wetlands and buffer areas on site.
• Rutherford County, NC. This project included delineation of wetlands and endangered
• species review for the proposed Rutherford County MSW landfill.
• Site Assessment. Performed field and office based investigations of a variety of
• potential landfill sites with emphasis on wetlands and riparian buffer concerns for a large
• solid waste company.
• Mountaire Farms, Inc., Red Springs, NC. Delineated wetlands for the Mountaire
• Farms, Inc. lagoon construction project. Also assessed additional acreage for the
presence of wetlands prior to expansion decisions being made.
•
•

•

•
•
•

Philip W. May
Page 2

ENVIRONMENTAL/SITE ASSESSMENT •

Site Suitability Study, Davidson County, NC. Assisted with a Site Suitability Study •
for the Davidson County Phase 2 municipal solid waste (MSW) Landfill (Lexington,
NC). This included oversight of piezometer installation, coordination of wetland
delineations and endangered species reviews, performance of a local restriction review, a
local area study, and preparation of permitting documents.
Site Suitability and Design Hydrogeological Study, Johnston County, NC. Assisted •
with a Site Suitability and Design Hydrogeological Study of the Johnston County Phase
4a "Piggy Back" MSW landfill (Smithfield, NC). This included oversight of piezometer
installation, wetland delineation and 401/404 permitting, local area study, and preparation •
of permitting documents.
Site Suitability Study, Wake County, NC. Assisted with the Site Suitability Study for
the Red Rock Disposal LLC construction & demolition (C&D) landfill (SE Wake County
NC). This included local area study, wetland management and oversight, and preparation
of permitting documents. •
Site Suitability Study, High Point, NC. Assisted with the Site Suitability Study for the
Phase 3 MSW landfill for the City of High Point, NC. This included wetland delineation, •
401/404 permitting and mitigation, piezometer installation and monitoring, endangered
species review, a local area study, and preparation of permitting documents.

Design Hydrogeological Study, Davidson County, NC. Assisted with the Design •
Hydrogeological Study for the Davidson County C&D landfill (Lexington, NC). This
included piezometer installation, wetland delineation, a local area study, and preparation .
of permitting documents.
Phase II Environmental Site Assessments. Planned, implemented, and reported Phase •
II Environmental Site Assessments for various facilities including a golf course, an
existing bank, and an abandoned school site, among others (Kenly, Raleigh, and Southern
Pines, NC). These projects involved monitoring well installations, water and soil •
sampling, and various field assessment activities.
Pre-Buy Site Assessment Activities. Assisted with various pre-buy site assessment •
activities for a major solid waste company, including initial review of site location
restrictions (wetlands, watershed buffers, and endangered species). 0

Groundwater Assessments. Assisted with a ground water assessment for four North i
Carolina landfills (Davidson County, Johnston County, Scotland County, and Halifax •
County, NC). Work included work plan preparation, implementation of activities, data •
analysis, and final report preparation. Activities included groundwater monitoring well
instal I ation/sampl i ng, surface water assessment/sampling, and gas migration studies. •
Corrective Action for Superfund Site. Assisted with the implementation of a corrective •
action for a Superfund site in Columbia, SC. Work included groundwater assessment
sampling, groundwater remediation system installation oversight, and gas migration pilot •
studies.

Philip W. May
Page 3

• WATER QUALITY

• U.S. Forest Service. Developed techniques/protocol for the U.S. Forest Service for
• biological indicator sampling, in order to assess the environmental status of watersheds in
western North Carolina.
• Groundwater Monitoring at Superfund Site. Performed sampling of groundwater and
oversight of well installations at a Superfund site in Columbia, SC. Also assisted with
• groundwater assessment and landfill gas migration pilot studies for the site.

Underground Storage Tank Sites. Performed groundwater monitoring, remediation
. system construction and maintenance as well as field assessment activities at over 40
underground storage sites in NC and SC.
• Groundwater Remediation Sites. Performed troubleshooting on problem groundwater
remediation sites involving complex remediation equipment such as catalytic oxidizers,
air strippers, etc. in Charlotte NC.

• Database Design/Management. Performed database design/maintenance, statistical
analysis of data, and regulatory compliance reporting for many projects including 15
• long-term ground water monitoring sites in NC, SC, VA and TN.
Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling. Performed ground and surface water
sampling at 11 landfills in NC, SC, VA and TN. Performed ground water sampling at
over 30 underground storage sites in NC and SC.
• Nash County Landfill, NC. Assisted in the negotiation and implementation of a
reduction of monitoring requirements at the Nash County Landfill (Nashville, NC).
Reduction from assessment to detection monitoring resulted in a savings of over
• $200,000 over the monitoring period for the landfill.

Holston Landfill, Kingsport, TN. Performed installation and remote monitoring of a
• leachate collection gauging system, and design of a monitoring system to assess leachate
impact to surrounding streams for the Holston Landfill in Kingsport, TN.
EPA Clean Lakes Projects, Lake Allatoona, GA. Primary field assistant for EPA
Clean Lakes Project, Lake Allatoona, GA that involved extensive lake and stream
sampling, large database maintenance, and semiannual reporting. Lake Allatoona is one
• of the two major reservoirs serving the Atlanta Metropolitan.

• JIM MATTHEWS, Ph.D.
HARP President / Senior Biologist
• Education:
1962 Ph.D. Emory University, Atlanta GA, Cytogenetics
1959 M.S. Cornell University, Ithaca NY, Taxonomy/ Ecology
. 1957 B.A. Atlantic Christian (Barton) College, Wilson NC, Biology Major

Current Position and Background:
• Dr. Matthews is the founder and President of HARP. He began his teaching career as a
professor of Biology in 1962. He has been with the University of North Carolina at Charlotte
since 1964, became a full professor in 1972, and served as chairman of the Biology
Department from 1994-1996. Currently, he is retired from teaching and holds the status of
Professor Emeritus.
Professional Experience:
Dr. Matthews has over 30 years experience in the study of the plants, ecology and natural
i communities in the Carolinas. He has been the author or co-author on 27 scientific papers
• from 1966-1998. He is a Contributing Member of four professional societies: American Society
of Plant Taxonomists, International Association of Plant Taxonomists, Southern Appalachian
• Botanical Society and Association of Southeastern Biologists. Dr. Matthews has been the
recipient of the following professional awards: North Carolina National Bank Award for
Teaching Excellence, 1972; Governor's Award for Excellence, State of North Carolina,
. Environmental Activity, 1994; Southern Appalachian Botanical Society, Elizabeth Ann
Bartholomew Award for Distinguished Service, 1995; Mecklenburg County Environmental
Protection Commission, Environmental Excellence Award, 1995. As HARP President and
Senior Biologist, Dr. Matthews oversees all HARP projects.
Director, Herbarium, 1314CC. 32,000+ specimens computerized database, search software
developed and functional.
• • N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Natural Heritage
Advisory Committee, 1973-1984, Chairman, 1980-1984.
• Executive Committee, Association of Southeastern Biologists, 1980-83 and 1994-97
• • National Natural Landmarks Evaluator, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service,
1979. (U.S. Dept. of Interior).
• Co-chairman and Organizer for Symposium on Recognition and Protection of Natural
• Areas of the Southeastern U.S., 1978
• Co-Chairman of Rocky River Bluffs Natural Landmark Acquisition Committee, to raise
$16,000 for purchase of this landmark, 1966-67.
• • Academic Research and Contracts Officer, UNCC 1974-75
• Chairman, Charlotte Parks Bond Advisory Committee, to recommend spending $10
million on park acquisition and development, 1979-81.
• Developed Nature Preserve Guidelines for City and County Nature Preserves, 1979.
• Advisor to Charlotte Advisory Parks Committee, for City Parks and Recreation
Department, 1982 to 1987.
• Preparation of over 150 environmental assessments for highway, airport and sewer
construction projects. 1976 - present.
• Co-authored Nature Trail Guide for Chimney Rock Park, 1979.
• Co-authored Teacher's Nature Guide to Chimney Rock Park, 1984.
• Helped develop Field Station for UNCC at Chimney Rock Park, 1985
• Arranged for Development and Conservation meeting of owners of 4,000 acres of land in
Hickory Nut Gorge, 1985.
• • Bat Cave Stewardship Committee. N.C. Nature Conservancy, 1984-present.
• Gaston College Liberal Arts and Sciences Division Advisory Committee, 1984-1989.
• Co-Chair of Scholarship and Degrees Committee.

0
0
0
• Editor, Castanets, journal of the Southern Appalachian Botanical Society, 1985-86, •
1997.
• Co-convener of Carolinas Collections Colloquium, a forum for the herbarium curators in 0
the Carolinas: UNC-Chapel Hill, October 1985; Columbia, May 1987; 014CC, April .
1989.
• Workshop for U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, 33. attendees from 0
SE and SW, September 24-28, 1987. Wetland Plant Identification. •
• Co-host (with R.L. Kologiski) for S.E. Regional Wetlands Review Panel, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife - Two meetings- Aug. 12-14, 1986 and April 21-23, 1987. 0
• C hairman, Local Arrangements Committee, Association of Southeastern Biologists for •
1989 meeting.
• Southern Appalachian Botanical Society: Endowment Committee (1986-90), Long Range
Planning Committee (1987-1989), and Member of selection Committee for Windier •
Award (1991- 1994). Finance Committee (1990-1995)
• Appointed to Mecklenburg County Citizens Environmental Advisory Council, under
Mecklenburg Co. Park and Recreation Commission, 1992-present.
• Council to oversee the environmental issues within the Park and Recreation Division. i
Initial project was the development of a natural heritage survey for the county.
• Oversaw two Field Investigators during summer, 1993, to survey Land mass of •
Mecklenburg Co. for potential natural areas, volunteer of over 250 hours through
December 1993. Final report written in large part and submitted, February 1998.
• Presented program to lst, 2nd and 3rd Annual Bi-State Catawba River Conferences, •
1992, 1993, and 1994. •
• Presented lectures on pollution to English Language Training Institute, March and May
1993,1994.
• Arranged for acquisition of Davidson College Herbarium, 19,000 specimens plus •
cabinets, 1994.
• Chair, Department of Biology, 1994-96.
• Retired, Professor Emeritus, July 1996. •
• Founded HARP, 1996

• JOHN T. SOULE, B.A., A.A.S.
Environmental Scientist
• Education:
1976 AAS Degree, Civil Engineering Technology, CPCC, Charlotte, NC.
• 1993 AAS Degree, Electronic Engineering Technology, (TAC/ABET Accredited), CPCC,
Charlotte, NC.
1985 B.A. Biology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC.

• Additional / Continuing Education:
1996 Rosgen Level I
1999 Mecklenburg County Surface Water Improvement & Management Stream Buffer
• Workshop
2000 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation & Management Training Program
2001 North Carolina Stream Restoration Conference
• Current Position and Background:
Mr. Soule is a key member of the HARP team. As a botanist he is proficient in the collection,
• identification, and preservation of plant specimens and has been the lead field technician for
• all of the Natural Heritage Inventories performed by HARP. As a trained surveyor, he is
comfortable performing field surveys using maps, compass, transit, and chain in addition to
S mapping and drafting with traditional tools and Auto Cad. Mr. Soule oversees channel
construction on stream restoration projects, as well as bioengineering for bank stabilization.
He oversees wetland restoration and planting projects. He provides riparian buffer
characterization, and maintenance and monitoring plan development for stream and wetland
projects. Mr. Soule has participated in numerous Environmental Assessments, Endangered
Species Surveys and Wetland Delineations for HARP. Mr. Soule is very familiar with the
taxonomy and habitat of the Federally Endangered Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), and Threatened Dwarf Heartleaf Ginger (Hexastylis naniflora), as well as other
rare species and species of concern.
• Professional Experience:
Mr. Soule has conducted the following activities for HARP
. • Field Supervisor, City of Charlotte Storm Water Services Bioengineering Projects. Lead
• team in the restoration of over 40 projects involving a total of 50,000 linear ft. of stream
in Charlotte/Metro area.
• • Field Surveyor for the Gaston County Natural Heritage Inventory. Organized, directed,
and worked in field survey of natural areas in Gaston County, taking field data and
writing reports.
. • Field Surveyor for the Cabarrus County Natural Heritage Inventory. Organized,
directed, and worked in field survey of natural areas in Cabarrus County, taking field
data and writing reports.
• Field Surveyor, Mecklenburg County Natural Heritage Inventory Organized, directed,
• and worked in field survey of natural areas in Mecklenburg County, taking field data
and writing reports.
• Field Surveyor. Crescent Resources, Directed field work for endangered species survey
• for 1500 acres
• Field Supervisor, Albemarle Crossing Shopping Center Stream Relocation and
Restoration project. Oversight of soil bioengineering and riparian buffer planting.
• • Field Supervisor, South Hill Condominiums Stream Relocation and Restoration Project.
Oversight of soil bioengineering and riparian buffer planting.

•
•

Prior to joining the HARP team Mr. Soule held the following positions: ,
•
• Research Associate / Naturalist. Chimney Rock, North Carolina. Assisted in the plant •
ecosystematic study of Chimney Rock Park, collected, identified and preserved plant •
specimens, took field data measurements, served as Park Naturalist, and conducted
nature walks. •
• Survey Crew Chief, Frank B. Hicks Associates, Charlotte, North Carolina. Supervised •
a land survey crew Established property boundaries, streets, curbs, gutters, sewer and
provided elevations for grading. •
• Engineering Aid, Christopher Construction Company, Columbus, Ohio McAlpine Creek •
Waste Treatment Plant Additions, Assisted project engineer in establishing grades, pipe
and structure, locations, computed concrete volumes for pours, established pour levels •
and took test cylinders, and supervised laborers. •
• Aviation Structural Mechanic (Hydraulics) - Petty Officer Third Class, United States
Navy. Served as a Transport Flight Crew Plane Captain and Loadmaster on models C-1A
•
and C-2A aircraft and as Division Training Petty Officer. Stationed in Atsugi, Japan, •
Cubi Point, Philippines, and Da Nang, Viet-Nam. Honorably Discharged
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•

APPENDIX D

Descriptions of Federally Protected Species found in Lincoln County, North Carolina

• Scientific Name: Hexastylis naniflora
Common Name: Dwarf-flowered heartleaf
Family: Arisolochiaceae
Current Status: Threatened
Date Listed: April 14, 1989

The Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found in the upper piedmont regions of North and South
Carolina. There are 24 known populations within an eight county area, including two
• populations in the County. These two sites are currently endangered with one site
• possibly lost and the other having only 160 healthy plants. A third the County population
has already been destroyed. The Dwarf-flowered heartleaf grows in acidic, sandy loam
soils along bluffs and nearby slopes, in boggy areas adjacent to creekheads and streams,
and along the slopes of hillsides and ravines. Soil type is the primary habitat
• requirement. The species needs Pacolet, Madison gravelly sandy loam, or Musella fine
sandy loam soils to grow and survive. In the appropriate soil, the plant can flourish in
either dry or moderately moist habitat.

• The Dwarf-flowered heartleaf has dark green, heart-shaped, evergreen leaves and small
• (less than 10 mm) jug-shaped flowers. The flowers range in color from beige to dark
brown and are sometimes greenish or purplish. Plant stalks are long and thin, originating
from an underground root.

i
• BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The NC, NHP has no record of the Dwarf-flowered heartleaf in the Reepsville or
Lincolnton West quads near the Study Area. HDRIHARP personnel conducted a search
• of the Study Area on August 14, 2001. No individuals were found within the Study Area.
• Suitable habitat for the Dwarf-flowered heartleaf was not found within the Project
Vicinity.

Scientific Name: Rhus michauxii
• Common Name: Michaux's sumac
Family: Anacardiacene
Current Status: Endangered
Date Listed: September 28, 1989

• The Michaux's sumac is found throughout the coastal plain, sandhills, and Piedmont
regions in sandy forests, woodlands, and woodland edges. It grows in sandy or rocky
open woods in association with basic soils. It usually is found in areas where some form
of disturbance has provided an open area. A majority of the plant's remaining
• populations are on highway right-of-ways, roadsides, or the edge of artificially

maintained clearings (utility lines etc.). A few remaining populations occur in areas with
periodic fires or where natural succession is ongoing.

Michaux's sumac, or false poison sumac, is a densely hairy shrub with erect stems of 1 to •
3 feet in height. The compound leaves are narrowly winged at the base and finely •
toothed on its edges. Flowers are greenish-yellow to white and 4 to 5 parted. It flowers
from April to June, and fruits in October and November.

i
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS: NO EFFECT
The NC NHP has no record of Michaux's sumac in the Reepsville or Lincolnton West
quads. HDR/HARP personnel conducted a search of the Study Area on August 14, 2001.
No individuals were found within the Study Area. •

r