20210305 Ver 1_Bridge 110155 Burke Natural Resources Technical Report_20210329

FINAL
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Replace Bridge Number 155 on Goodman Lake Road (SR 1410) over Unnamed
Tributary (UT) to Irish Creek (Irish Creek)
Burke County, North Carolina

TIP B-5870
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1410(005)
WBS Element No. 48064.1.1

THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
Natural Environment Section

September 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................... 1
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 1
3.1 Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 2
4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 3
4.1 Terrestrial Communities .................................................................................................... 3
4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed ................................................................................................ 3
4.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest ................................................................................. 3
4.1.3 Terrestrial Community Impacts ................................................................................. 3
4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................................................. 3
4.3 Aquatic Communities ......................................................................................................... 4
4.4 Invasive Species ................................................................................................................... 4
5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES .................................................................................... 4
5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. ................................................................................. 4
5.2 Clean Water Act Permits ................................................................................................... 4
5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern ................................ 5
5.4 Construction Moratoria ..................................................................................................... 5
5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules ........................................................................................... 5
5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters .................................................... 5
5.7 Wetland and Stream Mitigation ........................................................................................ 5
5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts................................................................... 5
5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts ........................................................................ 5
5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species ...................................................................... 5
5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................. 11
5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species ................................................................. 11
5.11 Essential Fish Habitat ..................................................................................................... 11
6.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 12
Appendix A Figures
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
Figure 3. Jurisdictional Features and Terrestrial Map
Appendix B Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report
Appendix C Stream Forms
Appendix D List of Contributors

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Soils in the study area ....................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Water resources in the study area ................................................................... 2
Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area ....................... 2
Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area.................................. 3
Table 5. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area ............. 4
Table 6. Federally protected species listed for Burke County. .................................... 6

Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
1 September 2016
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace bridge
number 155 on Goodman Lake Road (SR 1410) over UT to Irish Creek (identified during
project scoping as Irish Creek) (TIP B-5870) in Burke County (Figure 1). The following
Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project.

2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS

All work was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Natural Environment Section
standard operating procedures and July 2012 NRTR template. Field work was conducted
on March 28, 2016. The principal personnel contributing to this document were:

Principal
Investigator: Brian Dustin
Education: B.S. Forest Management, 2003
M.C. GIST, 2012
Experience: Senior Scientist, CALYX, Inc., 2007-Present Environmental
Biologist, H.W. Lochner, 2003-2007
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, stream assessment, GPS,
natural community assessment, and T/E species assessment,
document preparation

Investigator: Heather Wallace
Education: B.S. Ecology, 1997
Experience: Environmental Project Manager, CALYX, Inc., 2015-Present
Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT, 2013-2015
Environmental Senior Specialist, NCDOT, 2007-2013
Environmental Scientist, H.W. Lochner, 2003-2007
Biologist, Earth Tech, 2000-2003
Responsibilities: Document preparation

Additional personnel who contributed to portions of the field work and/or documentation
for this project were Sam Beavans and Mark Mickley. Appendix D lists the qualifications
of these contributors.

3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES

The study area lies in the piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina (Figure 2).
Topography in the project vicinity is comprised of gently rolling hills with narrow, level
floodplains along streams. Elevations in the study area range from 1,160 to 1,200 ft.
above sea level. Land use in the project vicinity consists primarily forested land with
residential development interspersed some agricultural areas.
Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
2 September 2016
3.1 Soils

The Burke County Soil Survey identifies three soil types within the study area (Table 1).

Table 1. Soils in the study area
Soil Series Mapping Unit Drainage Class Hydric Status
Fairview sandy clay loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, moderately eroded FaC2 Well Drained Nonhydric
Fairview sandy clay loam, 15 to
25 percent slopes, moderately
eroded
FaD2 Well Drained Nonhydric
Rhodhiss sandy loam 25 to 45
percent slope RhE Well Drained Nonhydric

3.2 Water Resources

Water resources in the study area are part of the Catawba River basin [U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03050101]. One stream was identified in the study area
(Table 2). The location of the water resource is shown in Figure 3. The physical
characteristics of this streams are provided in Table 3.

Table 2. Water resources in the study area
Stream Name Map ID NCDWR Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
UT to Irish Creek (Irish
Creek1) SA 11-35-3-(2) WS-III
1 Note: UT to Irish Creek was identified as Irish Creek during project scoping.

Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area
Map
ID
Bank
Height (ft)
Bankful
Width (ft)
Water
Depth (in)
Channel
Substrate Velocity Clarity
SA 3-4 6-10 6-18 Sand, Gravel,
Cobble Moderate Clear

There are no ponds in the stud y area. There are no designated NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) trout waters, anadromous fish waters, or Primary Nursery Areas
(PNA) present in the study area. There are no designated High Quality Waters (HQW),
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or Water Supply Watersheds (WS -I or WS-II)
within 1.0 mile downstream of the stud y area. There are no North Carolina 303(d) listed
streams within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area (NCDWR 2014). Additionally,
there are no benthic and/or fish monitoring sites within 1.0 mile downstream of the study
area.

Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
3 September 2016
4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES

4.1 Terrestrial Communities

Two terrestrial communities were identified in the study area: maintained/disturbed and
mesic mixed hardwood forest. Figure 3 shows the location and extent of these terrestrial
communities in the study area. A brief description of each community type follows.
Scientific names of all species identified are included in Appendix B.

4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed
Maintained/disturbed areas are defined as places where the vegetation is periodically
mowed, such as roadside shoulders and residential lawns, and this community t ype
covers over half of the study area. The vegetation in this community is comprised of
sparse canopy trees species such as white pine, American holly, and shortleaf pine; along
with low growing grasses and herbs consisting of fescue, dandelion, clover, violet,
henbit, and bedstraw. Areas with less-frequent maintenance contain vines like muscadine
grape, English ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, and poison ivy, and small shrubs like Chinese
privet.

4.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
The mesic mixed hardwood forest community is scattered throughout the study area. The
dominant native species in this community is primarily American beech, white pine, and
northern red oak there is a small component of red maple, American holly, and
sweetgum. The shrub and herbaceous layer consisted of azalea, doghobble, elderberry,
Christmas fern, cranefly orchid, broomsedge, and little brown jug. Vines are similar to
those listed in the maintained/disturbed community.

4.1.3 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Terrestrial communities in the study area may be impacted by project construction as a
result of grading and paving of portions of the study area. At this time, decisions
regarding the final location and design of the proposed bridge replacement have not been
made. Therefore, community data are presented in the context of total coverage of each
type within the study area (Table 4). Once a final alignment and preliminary design have
been determined, probable impacts to each community type will be calculated.

Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area
Community Coverage (ac.)
Maintained/ Disturbed 1.57
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.77
Total 2.34

4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife

Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised of both natural and disturbed
habitats that may support a diversity of wildlife species (those species actually observed
Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
4 September 2016
are indicated with *). Mammal species that commonly exploit forested habitats and
stream corridors found within the study area include species such as eastern cottontail,
raccoon, Virginia opossum, and white-tailed deer. Birds that commonly use forest and
forest edge habitats include the American crow, blue jay, Carolina chickadee, tufted
titmouse, field sparrow*, northern cardinal*, Carolina wren*, tufted titmouse*, eastern
bluebird*, brown thrasher*, eastern phoebe*, and eastern towhee*. Reptile and
amphibian species that may use terrestrial communities located in the study area include
the eastern box turtle, eastern fence lizard, five-lined skink, and northern dusky
salamander.

4.3 Aquatic Communities

Aquatic communities in the study area consist of one perennial stream. The perennial
stream in the study area could support crayfish, bluehead chub, northern dusky
salamander, and redbreast sunfish.

4.4 Invasive Species

Three species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were found
to occur in the study area. The species identified were Chinese privet (Threat), Japanese
honeysuckle (Moderate Threat), and English ivy (Moderate Threat). NCDOT will
manage invasive plant species as appropriate.

5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES

5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.

One jurisdictional streams was identified in the study area (Table 6). The location of this
stream is shown on Figure 3. USACE and NCDWQ stream delineation forms are
included in Appendix C. The physical characteristics and water quality designations of
the jurisdictional stream are detailed in Section 3.2. The jurisdictional stream in the study
area has been designated as cool water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation. No
jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area.

Table 5. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area
Map ID Length (ft.) Classification Compensatory
Mitigation Required
River Basin
Buffer
SA 294 Perennial Yes Not Subject
Total 294

5.2 Clean Water Act Permits

The proposed project has been designated as a CE for the purposes of National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. As a result, a Nationwide Permit
(NWP) 23 will likely be applicable. A NWP No. 33 may also apply for temporary
construction activities such as stream dewatering, work bridges, or temporary
Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
5 September 2016
causeways that are often used during bridge construction or rehabilitation. The
USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project
construction. If a Section 404 permit is required then a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) from the NCDWR will be needed.

5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern

The project is not in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and therefore this
project will not require a CAMA permit.

5.4 Construction Moratoria

The NCWRC has not identified UT to Irish Creek as trout waters in a letter dated April
28, 2016. Therefore, a construction moratorium does not apply.

5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules

The project is located in a river basin with applicable buffer rules. However, the
Catawba River Basin Buffer Rules appl y only to the Catawba River mainstem below
Lake James and along mainstem lakes from and including Lake James to the North
Carolina and South Carolina border. Therefore buffer ruled do not apply to this project.

5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters

The surface waters within the project study area have not been designated by the USACE
as Navigable Waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

5.7 Wetland and Stream Mitigation

5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
The NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the
greatest extent practicable in choosing a preferred alternative and during project design.
At this time, no final decisions have been made with regard to the location or design of
the preferred alternative.

5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts

The NCDOT will investigate potential on-site stream and wetland mitigation
opportunities once a final decision has been rendered on the location of the preferred
alternative. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS).

5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species

Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
6 September 2016
As of July 24, 2015 the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists nine federally
protected species for Burke County (Table 6). A brief description of each species’
habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on
survey results in the study area. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the
current best available information from referenced literature and/or USFWS.

Table 6. Federally protected species listed for Burke County.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T(S/A) No Not Required
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T Unresolved Unresolved
Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flowered heartleaf T No No Effect
Liatris helleri Heller’s blazing star T No No Effect
Hudsonia montana Mountain golden heather T No No Effect
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen E No No Effect
Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia T Yes No Effect
Geum radiatum Spreading avens E No No Effect
Sisyrinchium dichotomum White irisette E No No Effect
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance

Bog turtle
USFWS optimal survey window: April 1 – October 1 (visual surveys); April 1-June 15
(optimal for breeding/nesting); May 1-June 30 (trapping surveys)

Habitat Description: Bog turtle habitat consists of open, groundwater supplied
(springfed), graminoid dominated wetlands along riparian corridors or on seepage
slopes. These habitats are designated as mountain bogs by the NCNHP, but they
are technically poor, moderate, or rich fens that may be associated with wet
pastures and old drainage ditches that have saturated muddy substrates with open
canopies. Plants found in bog turtle habitat include sedges, rushes, marsh ferns,
herbs, shrubs (tag alder, hardhack, blueberry, etc.), and wetland tree species (red
maple and silky willow). These habitats often support sphagnum moss and may
contain carnivorous plants (sundews and pitcherplants) and rare orchids.
Potential habitats may be found in western Piedmont and Mountain counties from
700 to 4500 feet elevation in North Carolina. Soil types (poorly drained silt
loams) from which bog turtle habitats have been found include Arkaqua,
Chewacla, Dellwood, Codorus complex, Hatboro, Nikwasi, Potomac – Iotla
complex, Reddies, Rosman, Tate – Cullowhee complex, Toxaway, Tuckasegee –
Cullasaja complex, Tusquitee, Watauga, and Wehadkee.

Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
7 September 2016
Biological Conclusion: Not Required
Species listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance do not require Section 7
consultation with the USFWS. However, this project is not expected to affect the bog
turtle because no suitable habitat is present within the study area. Freshwater wetlands
within the study area are forested riparian systems. On March 1, 2016, a query of
NCNHP records using the online North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer
indicated no bog turtle occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Northern long-eared bat
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: June 1 – August 15

Habitat Description: In North Carolina, Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) occurs in the
mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western
North Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this
species is not known to be a long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean
mines are extremely rare in eastern North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or
where NLEB hibernate in eastern North Carolina. During the summer, NLEB
roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live
and dead trees (typically 3 inches dbh). Males and non-reproductive females
may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat has also been
found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings,
behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Foraging occurs on
forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings, over water,
and along tree-lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important habitat type
for foraging.

Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Construction activities for this project will not take place until Endangered Species Act
compliance is satisfied for NLEB. The NCDOT Biological Surveys Group will be
responsible for habitat assessment and surveys for the NLEB.

Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: March-May

Habitat Description: Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is endemic to the western Piedmont and
foothills of North and South Carolina. This herbaceous evergreen is found in
moist to rather dry forests along bluffs; boggy areas next to streams and creek
heads; and adjacent hillsides, slopes, and ravines. Requiring acidic, sandy loam
soils, the species is found in soil series such as Pacolet, Madison, and Musella,
among others. Occurrences are generall y found on a north facing slope.
Undisturbed natural communities such as Piedmont/Coastal Plain Heath Bluff,
Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest, and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest hold the most
viable occurrences. However, less viable remnant occurrences are found in
disturbed habitats, including logged, grazed, mown, and residential/commercial
developed lands; areas converted to pasture, orchards, and tree plantations;
Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
8 September 2016
roadside rights-of-way; and on upland slopes surrounding manmade ponds or
lakes.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist within the study area. Slopes in the study
area generally face south or west, or are highly disturbed due to recent road-building and
clearing activities. No individuals of this species were observed during the site visit on
March 29, 2016. On March 1, 2016, a query of NCNHP records using the online North
Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer indicated no dwarf-flowered heartleaf
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Heller's blazing star
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: July-September

Habitat Description: Heller's blazing star, endemic to the Blue Ridge Mountains of North
Carolina, occurs in the High Elevation Rocky Summit natural community on high
elevation ledges, rock outcrops, cliffs, and balds at elevations of 3,500–5,999 feet
above mean sea level. This early pioneer, perennial herb grows in acidic and
generally shallow humus or clay loams on igneous and metasedimentary rock.
Known occurrences are intermittently saturated and excessively to moderately
poorly drained. The plant generally occurs in full sunlight with grasses, sedges,
and other composites. Blue Ridge goldenrod, Roan Mountain bluet, and spreading
avens are a few of its common associate species.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist within the study area. Elevations in the
project study area are 1,140-1,200 feet above mean sea level, which is much lower than
those where Heller’s blazing star is known to occur. In addition, there are no natural
communities present in the study area that match those preferred by this species. On
March 1, 2016, a query of NCNHP records using the online North Carolina Natural
Heritage Data Explorer indicated no Heller’s blazing star occurrences within 1.0 mile of
the study area. Therefore, the proposed project will have No Effect on Heller’s blazing
star.

Mountain golden-heather
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late May-early June

Habitat Description: Mountain golden-heather, endemic to the Blue Ridge Mountains of
North Carolina, occurs in Pine-Oak/Heath and Montane Acidic Cliff natural
communities on rock cliffs and shrub balds at elevations of 2,800-4,000 feet
above mean sea level. This needle-leaved perennial shrub prefers exposed,
windswept quartzite or mica gneiss ledges in a sparsel y vegetated ecotone
between bare rock and sand myrtle-dominated heath balds that merge into a
pine/oak forest. Plants require periodic fire to maintain its suitably open habitat,
although they may survive for a while in areas shaded by pine trees.

Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
9 September 2016

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist within the study area. Elevations in the
project study area are 1,140-1,200 feet above mean sea level, which is much lower than
those where mountain golden-heather is known to occur. In addition, there are no natural
communities present in the study area that match those preferred by this species. On
March 1, 2016, a query of NCNHP records using the online North Carolina Natural
Heritage Data Explorer indicated no mountain golden-heather occurrences within 1.0
mile of the study area. Therefore, the proposed project will have No Effect on Mountain
golden-heather.

Rock gnome lichen
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: year round

Habitat Description: Rock gnome lichen occurs in high elevation coniferous forests
(particularly those dominated by red spruce and Fraser fir) usually on rocky
outcrop or cliff habitats. This squamulose lichen only grows in areas with a great
deal of humidity, such as high elevations above 5,000 feet mean sea level where
there is often fog, or on boulders and large outcrops in deep river gorges at lower
elevations. Habitat is primarily limited to vertical rock faces where seepage water
from forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The species requires a
moderate amount of sunlight, but cannot tolerate high-intensity solar radiation.
The lichen does well on moist, generally open sites with northern exposures, but
requires at least partial canopy coverage on southern or western aspects because
of its intolerance to high solar radiation.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist within the study area. Elevations in the
project study area are 1,160 to 1,200 feet above mean sea level, which is much lower than
those where rock gnome lichen is known to occur. In addition, there are no natural
communities present in the study area that match those preferred by this species. On
March 1, 2016, a query of NCNHP records using the online North Carolina Natural
Heritage Data Explorer indicated no rock gnome lichen occurrences within 1.0 mile of
the study area. Therefore, the proposed project will have No Effect on rock gnome
lichen.

Small whorled pogonia
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: mid May-early July

Habitat Description: Small whorled pogonia occurs in young as well as maturing (second
to third successional growth) mixed-deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous
forests. It does not appear to exhibit strong affinities for a particular aspect , soil
type, or underlying geologic substrate. In North Carolina, the perennial orchid is
typically found in open, dry deciduous woods and is often associated with white
pine and rhododendron. The species may also be found on dry, rocky, wooded
slopes; moist slopes; ravines lacking stream channels; or slope bases near braided
Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
10 September 2016
channels of vernal streams. The orchid, often limited by shade, requires small
light gaps or canopy breaks, and typically grows under canopies that are relatively
open or near features like logging roads or streams that create long-persisting
breaks in the forest canopy.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for small whorled pogonia does not exists within the study area in the
form of open, dry deciduous woods. On March 1, 2016, a query of NCNHP records
using the online North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer indicated no small
whorled pogonia occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Therefore, the proposed
project will have No Effect.

Spreading avens
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: June-September

Habitat Description: Spreading avens occurs in areas exposed to full sun on high
elevation cliffs, outcrops, and bases of steep talus slopes. This perennial herb also
occurs in thin, gravelly soils of grassy balds near summit outcrops. The species
prefers a northwest aspect, but can be found on west-southwest through north-
northeast aspects. Forests surrounding known occurrences are generally
dominated by either red spruce-Fraser fir, northern hardwoods with scattered
spruce, or high-elevation red oaks. Spreading avens typically occurs in shallow,
acidic soil (such as the Burton series) in cracks and crevices of igneous,
metamorphic, or metasedimentary rocks. Soils may be well drained but almost
continuously wet, with soils at some known occurrences subject to drying out in
summer due to exposure to sun and shallow depths. Known populations occur at
elevations ranging from 4,296 to 6,268 feet above mean sea level. Blue Ridge
goldenrod, Heller’s blazing star, and Roan Mountain bluet are a few of its
common associate species.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist within the study area. Elevations in
the project study area are 1,160 to 1,200 feet above mean sea level, which is much
lower than those where spreading avens is known to occur. In addition, there are
no natural communities present in the study area that match those preferred by
this species. On March 1, 2016, a query of NCNHP records using the online
North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer indicated no spreading avens
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Therefore, the proposed project
will have No Effect on spreading avens.

White irisette
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late May-July

Habitat Description: White irisette, endemic to the upper Piedmont of North and South
Carolina, is generally found on the southeast to southwest aspect of gentle to very
steep, mid-elevation mountain slopes in thin-canopied, dry-mesic Basic Oak
Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
11 September 2016
Hickory Forests that are mature, successional, or recently logged. Occurrences are
also found in open, disturbed sites such as clearings, woodland edges, roadside
embankments/rights-of-way, and power line rights-of-way. Known populations
occur at elevations between 1,312 and 3,280 feet above mean sea level. The
perennial herb prefers rich, basic soils, probably weathered from amphibolite,
which are intermittently saturated with rain but well drained. The species occurs
in a variety of soils, including the Ashe-Cleveland association; the Evard-Cowee
complex; and Brevard, Cowee, Fannin, Greenlee, and Hayesville series. It may
grow on shallow soil sites where down slope runoff removed the usual deep litter,
humus, or mineral soil layers. Partial shade to direct sun is preferred, and some
form of disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire) is necessary to
maintain its relatively open habitat.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist within the study area. Elevations in the
project study area are 1,140-1,200 feet above mean sea level, which is lower than those
where white irisette is known to occur. In addition, there are no soil types or natural
communities present in the study area that match those preferred by this species. On
March 1, 2016, a query of NCNHP records using the online North Carolina Natural
Heritage Data Explorer indicated no white irisette occurrences within 1.0 mile of the
study area. Therefore, the proposed project will have No Effect on white irisette.

5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act

Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies
of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically
within 1.0 mile of open water.

A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a
1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on March 4,
2015 using 2013 color aerials. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be
considered potential feeding sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat
within the review area, a survey of the project study area and the area within 660 feet of
the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on
March 1, 2016 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact
anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this
species.

5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species

As of July 24, 2015 the USFWS lists no Candidate species for Burke County

5.11 Essential Fish Habitat

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has not identified any streams within the
project study area as an Essential Fish Habitat.
Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
12 September 2016
6.0 REFERENCES

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Environmental Laboratory. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual,
memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams.

Harp, J.M. 1992. A Status Survey of the Spruce-fir Moss Spider, Microhexura
montivaga Crosby and Bishop (Araneae, Dipluridae). Unpubl. report to the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife
Program, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina. 30
pp.

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: March 4, 2016).

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina.
Fourth version.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Resources. 2010. Basinwide Water Quality Plan, Catawba River Basin. Raleigh,
North Carolina. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/basin/catawba/2010

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Resources. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2014 Final
303(d)list). http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=28b97405-
55da-4b21-aac3-f580ee810593&groupId=38364

North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2012. Invasive Exotic Plants of North
Carolina.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Guide to Federally Listed
Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina. Raleigh, NC. 134 pp.
Padgett, James Edward. 2004. Biogeographical, Ecological, Morphological, and
Micromorphological Analyses of the Species in the Hexastylis heterophylla
Complex. Appalachian State University, Boone, NC. 124 pp.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Bog Turtle Fact Sheet. 2006.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Conserving/documents/nongame_bogturtle_h
ires.pdf (Accessed: March 4, 2016).

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 pp.
Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
13 September 2016

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006.
Soil Survey of Burke County, North Carolina.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006.
Hydrologic Units-North Carolina (metadata). Raleigh, North Carolina.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Determination of Hudsonia montana to be a Threatened Species, With
Critical Habitat. 45 FR 69360-69363.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Status of Hexastylis naniflora (Dwarf-flowered heartleaf).
54 FR 14964-14967.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria
medeoloides) Recovery Plan, First Revision. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 75
pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Spreading Avens Recovery Plan.
Atlanta, GA. 32 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. White Irisette Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
Georgia. 22 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for Rock Gnome
Lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) (Evans) Yoshimura and Sharp. Atlanta, GA. 30 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Recovery Plan for Liatrus helleri
Porter (Heller’s Blazing Star). First Revision. Atlanta, GA. 25 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North
Carolina’s Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/plant_survey.html. (Accessed: March 4, 2016).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf (Hexastylis
naniflora) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Draft. Asheville, NC. 51 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Bog Turtles in North Carolina.
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/bogturtle.htm. (Accessed: March 4, 2016).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Information on Threatened and
Endangered Species: Small-whorled Pogonia.
Final Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5870, Burke County, N.C.
14 September 2016
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/plants/smallwhorledpogoniafs.html.
(Accessed: March 4, 2016).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Spreading Avens in North Carolina.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_spreading_avens.html (Accessed: March
4, 2016).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Northern Long-Eared Bat Interim
Conference and Planning Guidance. USFWS Regions 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/pdf/NLEBinterimGuida
nce6Jan2014.pdf. (Accessed: March 4, 2016).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Optimal Survey Windows for North
Carolina’s Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species (Last Revised:
February 2015).
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pdfs/Optimal_Survey_Windows_for_listed_plants.p
df

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina
Ecological Services. 2003. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina:
Burke County. Updated July 24, 2015.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/burke.html

United States Geological Survey. 1994. Oak Hill, North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (7.5-minute series).

Appendix A
Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
Figure 3. Jurisdictional Features and Terrestrial Map

")B-5870UV1593UV1489UV1332UV1473UV1353UV1478UV1316UV1466UV1287UV1475UV1429UV1422UV1337UV1263UV1467UV1246UV1436UV1259UV1492UV1317UV1347UV1351UV1343UV1407UV1474UV1293UV1480UV1472UV1418UV1408UV1354UV1415UV1356UV1320UV1484UV1342UV1462UV1252UV1262UV1486UV1493UV1245UV1286UV1485UV1494UV1416UV1505UV1441UV1261UV1449UV1571UV1221UV1409UV1481UV1251UV1253UV1300UV1247UV1256UV1413UV1242UV1431UV1260UV1476UV1255UV1504UV1249UV1257UV1349UV1412UV1435UV1461UV1434UV1470UV1433UV1421UV1428UV1233UV1410UV1250UV1350UV1241UV1258UV1443UV1438UV1243UV1414UV1248UV1424UV1427UV1419UV1244UV1440UV1426UV1439UV1254UV1240UV1423""126""181£¤64Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom,MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User CommunityNORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATIONDIVISION OF HIGHWAYSPROJECT DEVELOPMENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNITDiv:TIP#Date:13B-58701FigureTIP Project B-5870VICINITY MAPReplace Bridge No. 155 on SR 1410 over Irish Creek in Burke County00.75MilespDECEMBER 2015
Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013National Geographic Society, i-cubedLegend0250500750FeetB-5870 Study AreaIThis Exhibit is for planning purposes only and information shown hereon does notmeet The Standards of Practice for Land Surveying in North Carolina (21 NCAC56.1600). The Exhibit was compiled from available information obtained from thesources listed below. Streams and Wetlands: All features located in the field wererecorded using a mapping grade Trimble GeoXT or GeoXH GPS receiver withsupposed sub-meter accuracy.Sources:Topographic Mapping: ESRI USA Topo Maps1 inch = 500 feetGRAPHIC SCALEFIGURE2Study AreaTIP Project B-5870Burke County, NCMap Date: 06/06/2016Natural ResourcesTechnical Report
SALegend0100200FeetIThis Exhibit is for planning purposes only and information shown hereon does notmeet The Standards of Practice for Land Surveying in North Carolina (21 NCAC56.1600). The Exhibit was compiled from available information obtained from thesources listed below. Streams and Wetlands: All features located in the field wererecorded using a mapping grade Trimble GeoXT or GeoXH GPS receiver withsupposed sub-meter accuracy.1 inch = 100 feetGRAPHIC SCALEFIGURE3Jurisdictional Features and Terrestrial CommunitiesTIP Project B-5870Burke County, NCMap Date: 06/06/2016Natural ResourcesTechnical ReportSources:Aerial Mapping: ESRI 2D World ImageryStreams UnverifiedB-5870 Study AreaTerrestrial CommunitiesMaintained DisturbedMesic Mixed Harwood Forest

Appendix B
Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report
Plants
Common Name

Scientific Name
American beech Fagus grandifolia
American holly Ilex opaca
Bedstraw Galium aparine
Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus
Clover Trifolium spp.
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense
Christmas fern Polystichum acrostichoides
Dandelion Taraxacum officinale
English ivy Hedera helix
Fescue Festuca sp.
Henbit Lamium amplexicaule
Greenbriar Smilax rotundifolia
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Northern red oak Quercus rubra
Mountain doghobble Leucothoe fontanesian
Muscadine grape Vitis rotundifolia
Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Red maple Acer rubrum
Shortleaf pine Pinus echinata
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua
Violet Viola sp.
Virginia pine Pinus virginiaga
White Pine Pinus strobus

Animals
Common Name Scientific Name
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
American kestrel Falco sparverius
Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon
Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum
Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus
Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinensis
Crayfish Cambarus sp.
Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis
Eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina
Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus
Eastern fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus
Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe
Eastern towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Field sparrow Spizella pusilla
Five-lined skink Eumeces anthracinus
Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis
Northern dusky salamander Desmognathus fuscus
Raccoon Procyon lotor
Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
Spring peeper Hyla crucifer
Tufted titmouse
Turkey vulture
Baeolophus bicolor
Cathartes aura
Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana
White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata

Appendix C
Stream Forms

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant’s name: 2. Evaluator’s name:
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. –77.556611):
Method location determined: GPS Topo Sheet Orth o (A erial) Ph o t o /GIS Ot her GIS Other:

13. Location of reach under evaluation (Note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):

14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:
Sect ion 10

T idal Wat ers

Es sent ial Fisheries Habit at

T rout Wat ers

Out st anding Resource Wat ers

N ut rient Sensit ive Wat ers

Wat er Sup p ly Wat ershed
(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point?
YES NO
If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 t o 4%) Mo d e rate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: St raig h t Occas io n al b ends Freq u ent mean d e r Very s in uous Braid ed ch an n el

Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:

Evaluator’s Signature: ___________________________________________________ Date:
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change–version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
USACE AID# _________________ DWQ# ___________________ Site # _______ (indicate on attached map)
Sam Beavans
Mar 28,2016
UT Irish Creek (SA)
~500 ac
294 ft
35.803747 -81.762605
Stream flows northeast under Goodman Lake Rd.
Rained <1"in the last 24 hours.
Sunny and mid 60's
4.5 ac
III
15 20
65
3-4 ft6-10 ft
Mar 28,2016
2nd
11:00:00 AM
Catawba
Sam Beavans
58
NCDOT
B-5870
Burke

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

# CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain PHYSICAL 1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
2 Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
3 Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-5
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4
5 Groundwater discharge
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-4
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-2
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-2
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points) 0-6 0-4 0-2
9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-3
10 Sediment input
(extensive deposition = 0; little or no sediment = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-4
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) N/A* 0-4 0-5 STABILITY 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5
13 Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
14 Root depth and density on banks
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) 0-3 0-4 0-5
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 HABITAT 16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6
17 Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0-6
18 Canopy coverage over streambed
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
19 Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max) N/A* 0-4 0-4 BIOLOGY 20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-5 0-5
21 Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4
22 Presence of fish
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4
23 Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (Also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

5
4
4
4
1
2
2
0
2
1
4
2
2
3
5
5
2
3
3
2
0
0
58
2
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Project/Site: Latitude:
Evaluator: County: Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination: Other:
e.g. Quad Name: Stream is at least intermittent if
19 or perennial if 30

A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong SCORE
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-
pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong SCORE
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = )

Absent Weak Moderate Strong SCORE
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW =0.75; OBL=1.5 Other=0
*perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes:

Bank Height (feet)
Bankfull W idth (feet)
Water Depth (inches)
Channel Substrate
Velocity:
Clarity:
Sketch:

Mar 28,2016
Sam Beavans
37
Perennial
MORGANTOWN N
22
7.5
7.5
3
3
3
2
2
1
0
1
1
3
3
0
1
1
3
1
1.5
2
3
1
0
0
0
0.5
1
Sand/gravel/bedrock
Moderate
Clear
3-4
6-10
6-18
B-5870
Burke
35.803747
-81.762605
SA

Appendix D
Qualifications of Contributors

Investigator: Sam Beavans
Education B.S. Agricultural and Environmental Technology, 2013
Experience: Environmental Scientist, CALYX, Inc., 2013 - Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, stream assessment, GPS,
natural community assessment, T/E species assessment, and
GIS mapping
Investigator: Sam Beavans

Investigator: Mark Mickley
Education: B.S. Biology, 2003
Experience: Environmental Group Manager, CALYX, Inc., 2004 – Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineation, T/E species assessment,
document preparation