20191109 Ver 1_PCN Form Submission_20190819

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name Linville Creek Streambank Stabilization - Shipley Property
2. Naine of Property Owner/Applicant: Shipley Family LLC
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: Adam Williams PWS, BFEC Inc.
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s):
5. Site Address: 1655 Linville Creek Rd
6. Subdivision Name:
7. City: Vilas
8. County: Watauga
9. Lat: 36.247021 Long: -81.752247 (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Valle Crucis
11. Waterway: Linville Creek, UT1
12. Watershed: Cove Creek - Watauga River
13. Requested Action:
Nationwide Permit # 13
General Permit #
Jurisdictional Determination Request
— Pre -Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/ Nature of Activity/ Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:

DR
02*10n of Water R"Ourc"
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance into the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned
20191109
Is a payment required for this project?*
r No payment required
r Fee received
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office*
Winston-Salem Regional Office - (336) 776-
9800
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Linville Creek Stabilization - Shipley Site
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Adam Williams
1 b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
8/19/2019
Nearest Body of Water
Linville Creek
Basin
Watauga
Water Classification
C
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
36.247021 -81.752247
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Watauga
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
V Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
F_ Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1 b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
V Nationwide Permit (NWP)
r- Regional General Permit (RGP)
r- Standard (IP)
Version# *
1
What amout is owed?*
r $240.00
* $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Sue Homewood:eads\slhomewood
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]

1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
f Yes F No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
rJ 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
F Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
F- Individual Permit
13 - Bank Stabilization
1e. Is this notification solelyfor the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
r- 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
F- Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r- Yes F No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
f Yes r No
19. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r- Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
f Yes B No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
F Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
F_ Owner rJ Applicant (other than owner)
1e. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?
r Yes r- No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Shipley Family LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
1889/538
2c. Responsible party:
Robert Shipley Jr
2d. Address
Street Address
300 Parkway
Address Line 2
City
Greensboro
Postal / Zip Code
27401
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
29. Email Address:*
bob@sh ipleyfa rmsbeef. com
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Adam Williams
State / Province / Flagion
NC
Country
NC
2f. Fax Number:
f Yes 6 No
rYes 6%

3b. Business Name:
Brushy Fork Environmental Consulting, Inc
3c.Address
Street Address
10565 H*y 421 South
Address Line 2
2b. Property size:
City
State / Province / fagion
Trade
TN
Postal / Zip Code
Country
37691
USA
3d. Telephone Number: 3e. Fax Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
1 c. Nearest municipality / town:
Vilas, NC
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
2b. Property size:
1982809528000
114
2c. Project Address
Street Address
1655 Linville Creek Rd
Address Line 2
city
State / Province I f?agion
Vilas
NC
Postal / Zp Cade
Country
28692
USA
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Linville Creek
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C
3c. What river basins) is your project located in?*
Watauga
3d. Please provide the 12 -digit HUC in which the project is located.
060101030302
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
The project site is currently being used as pasture to graze cattle. The barn and associated farmstead buildings are located along Linville Creek on the upstream end of the project
reach. Land uses in the surrounding vicinity include farmland (primarily grazing and hay), undeveloped forest land, and single family residences.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
r Yes r No O Unknown
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
Topographic Map.pdf
743.17KB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
Soil Map.pdf 907.86KB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.086 acres
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:

4977 linear feet
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The purpose of the project is to stabilize eroding stream banks on Linville Creek and an unnamed tributary. Unrestricted cattle access along the banks, lack of riparian vegetation, and
an increased sediment load due to upstream agricultural land use has caused degradation on these two reaches. Animal exclusion, streambank benching and sloping, natural channel
structures, and a planted riparian forest buffer will be used to restore the reaches.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
The project will provide bank stabilization and grade control using natural channel design structures including cross vanes, J hooks, rock steps and toe wads. A bankful bench will be
constructed and the banks will be sloped back and stabilized using coir matting and live stakes and a riparian buffer of native tree and shrub species will be planted. Equipment used for
this proposed construction includes track -hoes, skid steers, and dump trucks.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
SHIPLEY 8-19-19.pdf 12.44MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
Comments:
Sb. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A
Corps AID Number:
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
MI. Jurisdictional determination upload
Shipley PJD print.pdf
6. Future Project Plans
Paige Seago, Jordan Bailey
Brushy Fork Environmental Consulting, Inc
40.43KB
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes r No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
No
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
V Wetlands FZ Streams -tributaries r Buffers
r Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
!a. Site #* (?) 2al Reason(?) 2b. Impact type * (?) 2c. Type of W.* 2d. W. name* 2e. Forested * �Jurlsdlcltlon
f. Type of 2g. Impact
*M area*
N= Streambank Stabilization T Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh Wetland 1 Both 0(0065)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.006
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.006
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.000

31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
106
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
108
3j. Comments:
31. Total temporary stream impacts:
3,130
The culvert impacts are existing culverts which will be replaced with properly sized culverts. No new culverts will be installed for this project. The
downstream culvert in Ur1 will remain in place. The existing upstream culvert, an 18" RCP, will be replaced with a 48" CMP culvert, and will be
increased from 30 to 40 feet in length. The existing 25' CMP culvert in Linville Creek will be replaced with a 30' CMP culvert and the diameter will be
increased from 60" to 72". The total stabilization lengths listed above include the stream crossings and culverted areas.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
The proposed work and associated impacts are intended to stabilize appoximately 3,130 linear feet of stream bank along Linville Creek and an
unnamed tributary (UTI) while minimizing impacts to aquatic resources. Design measures which minimize impacts include installation of natural
channel design structures which will improve stream stability and provide habitat. All disturbed buffer areas will be immediately seeded upon
completion, matted (coir matting) and stabilized at the close of each construction day. Two existing undersized culverts (one in Linville Creek and one
in UTI) will be replaced with properly sized culverts. Three stable stream crossings, two on UT1 and one on Linville Creek, will be installed to allow
access to pastures on both sides of the reaches. The two stream crossings on UT1 will replace unstable, unimproved fords. In addition, an unstable
stream crossing just north of Linville Creek Rd on UT1 will be repaired.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
All streambank disturbances vrill be stabilized same day and covered with coir matting and livestaked to reduce sedimentation during construction.
Only well maintained equipment will be used; no leaks will be tolerated. Equipment will work from the stream banks whenever possible and will only
work in the channel when absolutely necessary. Temporary diversion structures will be installed upstream of the work areas to divert flow away from
exposed substrate materials and to prevent excess sedimentation. Following construction, the banks of the restored channel will be seeded with a
native floodplain mix (permanent seed). The forested riparian buffer will be planted with a variety of native 1 -gallon trees and shrubs following
construction.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
This project will result in improved conditions along the two reaches which are being stabilized, and will not have impacts requiring mitigation.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r No
If no, explain why:
Project is not within a NC Riparian Buffer Protection area.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name *
3e. Stream Type *
3f. Type of
3g. S. width *
3h. Impact
F
(?)
Jurisdiction*
length*
S1
Stabilization Project
1
Tem ora
p ry
Bank Stabilization :1
Linville Creek
Perennial
Both
16
1,450
Aver�e(feet)
(Ir:ear feet)
S2
Stabilization Project
Temporary
Bank Stabilization
Unnamed Tributary 1
Perennial
Both
14
1,680
Aver�e(feet)
(Ir�arfeet)
S3
Culvert Replacement
Permanent
Culvert
Linville Creek
Perennial
Both
30
Average (feet)
(Gr�ear feet)
S4
Culvert Replacement
P
Permanent
Culvert
Unnamed Tributary 1
ry
Perennial
Both
4
40
Aver�e(feet)
(Inearfeet)
S5
Stream Crossing
Permanent
Other
Linville Creek
Perennial
Both
16
12
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S6
Stream Crossing (1)
Permanent
Other
Unnamed Tributary 1
Perennial
Both
14
12
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
g7
Stream Crossing (2)
Permanent
Other
Unnamed Tributary 1
Perennial
Both
14
12
Average (feet)
(Gn�rfeet)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
106
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
108
3j. Comments:
31. Total temporary stream impacts:
3,130
The culvert impacts are existing culverts which will be replaced with properly sized culverts. No new culverts will be installed for this project. The
downstream culvert in Ur1 will remain in place. The existing upstream culvert, an 18" RCP, will be replaced with a 48" CMP culvert, and will be
increased from 30 to 40 feet in length. The existing 25' CMP culvert in Linville Creek will be replaced with a 30' CMP culvert and the diameter will be
increased from 60" to 72". The total stabilization lengths listed above include the stream crossings and culverted areas.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
The proposed work and associated impacts are intended to stabilize appoximately 3,130 linear feet of stream bank along Linville Creek and an
unnamed tributary (UTI) while minimizing impacts to aquatic resources. Design measures which minimize impacts include installation of natural
channel design structures which will improve stream stability and provide habitat. All disturbed buffer areas will be immediately seeded upon
completion, matted (coir matting) and stabilized at the close of each construction day. Two existing undersized culverts (one in Linville Creek and one
in UTI) will be replaced with properly sized culverts. Three stable stream crossings, two on UT1 and one on Linville Creek, will be installed to allow
access to pastures on both sides of the reaches. The two stream crossings on UT1 will replace unstable, unimproved fords. In addition, an unstable
stream crossing just north of Linville Creek Rd on UT1 will be repaired.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
All streambank disturbances vrill be stabilized same day and covered with coir matting and livestaked to reduce sedimentation during construction.
Only well maintained equipment will be used; no leaks will be tolerated. Equipment will work from the stream banks whenever possible and will only
work in the channel when absolutely necessary. Temporary diversion structures will be installed upstream of the work areas to divert flow away from
exposed substrate materials and to prevent excess sedimentation. Following construction, the banks of the restored channel will be seeded with a
native floodplain mix (permanent seed). The forested riparian buffer will be planted with a variety of native 1 -gallon trees and shrubs following
construction.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
This project will result in improved conditions along the two reaches which are being stabilized, and will not have impacts requiring mitigation.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r No
If no, explain why:
Project is not within a NC Riparian Buffer Protection area.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*

r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:
Project will not increase impermeable area on site.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes r No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15ANCAC 2B.0200)?*
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Project will stabilize stream banks and implement agricultural BMPs. Project site will be maintained in agricultural use (grazing) and is not anticipated to
be developed.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
C' Yes r No r N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
r Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
5f. Will you cut anytrees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?'
r Yes r No
r Unknown
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
BFEC completed the USFW IPaC regulatory review process. BFEC then reviewed specific information for each species on the Raleigh Ecological
Services Field Office page and USFWS fact sheets. No Critical Habitat is located at this site. Habitat requirements are not met for the majority of the
species on the list, due to specific habitat requirements such as high elevation rocky outcrops/summits or spruce fir forest. No known caves are
located at the project site. No bat maternity roosts are known on site, though a few mature trees are present near the reaches.
Consultation Documentation Upload
Shipley Species List_ Asheville Ecological Services Field Office.pdf 270.19KB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)

6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NOAA online essesmial fish habitat mapper: https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
[- Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
NC Historic Preservation Office HPOWEB GIS Service. No historic sites are located on the subject property, although historic farms are located nearby
to the east and west of the property. The project Will not impact historic properties.
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
SHPO Map.pdf 348.59KB
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FEMA Flood Map Service Center online mapper
Miscellaneous
Comments
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
FIRMETTE.pdf 410.69KB
Wetlands Attachment.pdf 2.04MB
Shipley USACE Submittal Coversheet.pdf 95.52KB
Shipley WNCSI Photosheet.pdf 3.06MB
Signature
*
rJ By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Adam Williams
Signature
Date
8/19/2019

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FOR M FOR WNCSI STREAM PROJECTS
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. --=-N:.L.:/A;.!_ ___ PLAN NO. ~N:.L.:/A:..!_ __ PARCEL ID: 1982809528000
STREET ADDRESS: _..;;;1=65=5:;..;L=in.;..;v=ill:.::.e..::C~re:.::e.::..k .:..::Rd::.i,...:;V.:.:;i la~s~. N:.:.;C:::..2~8~6~9~2 _____ _
Property Owner:
Shipley Family LLC
Property Owners Street Address (if di fferent than above):
300 Parkway. Greensboro. NC 27401
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property do hereby authorize
__ .....:..:A.::.da::.:m..:..:......:W..:.,;ic:.:.lf;.:;i a""'m=s'--______ __,. of Brushy Fork Environmental Consulting. Inc .
(Contractor/Agent) {Consulting Fi rm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance
of this permit or certification and any and all standard and sp ecial conditions attached .
We hereby certify the above information sub mitted in this application is true and accurate to
the best of our knowledge.
Authorized Signature:
4 Project Location
Copyright (C) 2008, MyTopo
081° 46' 00.00" W
081° 46' 00.00" W
081° 45' 00.00" W
081° 45' 00.00" W
081° 44' 00.00" W
081° 44' 00.00" W036° 16' 00.00" N036° 16' 00.00" N036° 15' 00.00" N036° 15' 00.00" N036° 14' 00.00" N036° 14' 00.00" NSCALE 1:24000
0 1MILE
0 1000 YARDS
0 1 KILOMETER
Declination
MN 6.82° W

MN
Location: 036° 14' 47.14" N 081° 44' 59.58" WName: VALLE CRUCIS (NC)
Date: 12/17/18
Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft.
Copyright (C) 2008, MyTopo
Datum: NAD83
Shipley WNCSI Project Topographic Map
CkE
CkE
SnC
ChF
EvE
CkE
NkA
CsC
SnC
SnB
CkD
EvE
SnD
AcF
SnD
SnB
SnD EvD
ChF
SoE
SnB
CkE
SnB
SoECkD
EdE
EdE
EdD
SnD
SnC
EdD
EvD
SoE
SnD
SkD
AcD
CkD
CsC
AcF
ChF
EdC
CsC
LINVILLE CREEK RDCHARLIE THOMPSON RDR LAYNG RDPALMERS PEAK
RUSSELL BEACH RDDAWGWOOD LNC H U R C H R D G
THOM PSON HOLLOW RDJACKS RD
NCCGIA
Shipley WNCSI Project Soil Map
Legend
WNCSI Reaches
Project Parcel
Watauga Roads ±0 400 800 1,200 1,600200Feet
Shipley Site SHPO Map
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
NR Points
NR Individual Listing
NR Listing, Gone
NRHD Center Point
NR Boundaries
National Register Boundary
Boundary of Destroyed/Removed NR Listing
SL Points
SL Individual Entry
SL and DOE entry
December 17, 2018
0 0.25 0.50.13 mi
0 0.4 0.80.2 km
1:20,062
USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed October, 2017.
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Feet
Ü81°45'26.78"W 36°15'2.28"N 81°44'49.32"W 36°14'33.26"N
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOODHAZARD AR EAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)Zone A, V, A99With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulator y Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areasof 1% annual chance flood with averagedepth less than one foot or with drainageareas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% AnnualChance Flood Hazard Zone XArea with Reduced Flood Risk due toLevee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREE N Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culver t, or Storm SewerLevee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance17.5 Water Surface ElevationCoastal Transect
Coastal Transect BaselineProfile BaselineHydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of StudyJurisdiction Boundar y
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from theauthoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This mapwas exported on 12/17/2018 at 2:18:55 PM and does notreflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date andtime. The NFHL and effective information may change orbecome superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following mapelements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images forunmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used forregulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OFFLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERALSTRUCTURES
OTHERFEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
1:6,000
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative proper ty location.
BrushyForkEnvironmentalConsultingBrushy Fork Environmental ConsultingShipley WNCSI ProjectSitePhotosheetsSite PhotosheetsPhotographedbyBFECon02/08/1902/19/19&05/15/2019Photographed by BFEC on 02/08/19, 02/19/19, & 05/15/2019
LinvilleCreekPhotosLinville Creek PhotosViewdownstreamtowardfarmsteadfromView downstream toward farmstead from near upstream extent of reach. Erosive area visible on stream right.Farmstead spanning Linville Creek stream left and right. Erosion present (red arrow) upstream of culvert on stream right. 1
Stream left showing vertical bank on Linville Creek, central portion of reach.Stream right bank erosion at cross section 2. 2
Two views upstream along Linville Creek showing areas of bank erosion and undercut trees on stream left.3
UT1PhotosUT1 PhotosErosive bankUT1Downstream view of confluence of UT1 and Linville Creek.UT1 passes through culvert under Linville Creek Rd.4
lhdddbkView downstream from culverted stream crossing at cross section 6 showing cattle trampled banks.View upstream along UT1 showing denuded banks resulting from cattle access to stream.5
dblfView downstream below cross section 7 showing existing cattle crossing.View upstream from cross section 8 on UT1 showing cattle trampling on banks.6
View downstream from cross section 9 on UT1 showing steep bank on stream right.Stream left on UT1 at cross section 9 showing 6ft rod against near vertical bank.7
Vertical bank erosion on UT1 stream left at cross section 10.8View downstream from cross section 10, showing steep bank on stream right.
W1
01
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community
±0 80 160 240 32040Feet
Project Reaches
Wetland Im pacts
Wetland Boundary
Area of Disturbance
Project Parcels
Shipley WNCSI Project Wetland Map
Map is not to be construed as surveyed data. All boundaries are approximate GIS data taken from public data sources. BFEC 2019.
We tl and ID Are a (AC.)Impacts (Sq. Ft.)Impacts (Ac.)W1 0.086 281.06 0.0065
WtNthCliStWestern North Carolina Stream Initiative: Shipley Sitetat eSpeySteLinville Creek Wetland Delineation PhotosheetsSite Visit: 8/1/20191
W1&CoreW1 & CoreSiteofcoresample12ihlSite of core sample12 inch core sample2
01&Core01 & CoreSitfl12ihlSite of core sample12 inch core sample3
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
XNo
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Shipley WNC Stream Initiative Vilas, Watauga
W1
8/1/19
Shipley Farms, LLC NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range: Vilas, NCPaige Seago, Jordan Bailey
1ConcaveDepression in floodplain
Datum:-81.75256336.247467LRR N
NoneNWI classification:Nikwasi loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
No surface water, water table, or saturation were noted at sample location. However, saturation was present elsewhere in wetland.

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Area is in a cattle pasture near the confluence of Linville Creek and an unnamed tributary.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:x 1 =
1.x 2 =
2.x 3 =
3.x 4 =
4.x 5 =
5.Column Totals: (B)
6.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: X
1.X
2.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: X
=Total Cover
Cyperus esculentus 2
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
30' x 30' )
30' x 30' )
15' x 15'
118
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
=Total Cover
=Total Cover
59 24
)
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Agrostis gigantea 30 Yes FACW
Mentha spicata 3 No FACW
No
No FACW
Carex lurida 40 Yes OBL
Phleum pratense 15 No FACU
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 10 No OBL
Polygonum sp.3
Vernonia noveboracensis 15 No FACW
=Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5' x 5' )
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Multiply by:
FACW species
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.83
UPL species 0 0
50 100
FAC species 0 0
Prevalence Index worksheet:=Total Cover
OBL species 50 50
FACU species 60
210115 (A)
Total % Cover of:
15
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0%
2 (B)
2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody Vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
VEGETATION (Five Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.W1
Tree Stratum 30' x 30' )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
% Texture
Sand most likely from flood deposition
3PL
C
W1SOIL
6-12 2.5Y 3/1
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
90
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
7.5YR 3/3
%
10
Matrix
2.5Y 4/2
10YR 3/2 10YR 3/4
5-6
0-5
Loc2
PL
100
Loamy/Clayey
Sandy
Loamy/Clayey
97 C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Shipley WNC Stream Initiative Vilas, Watauga
O1
8/1/19
Shipley Farms, LLC NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range: Vilas, NCP Seago, J Bailey
1NoneFloodplain
Datum:-81.75264636.247434LRR N
NoneNWI classification:Nikwasi loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
No wetland hydrology was identified at this location

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Sample location was taken near top of bank near the confluence of Linville Creek and an unnamed tributary. This area is within a cattle pasture.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:x 1 =
1.x 2 =
2.x 3 =
3.x 4 =
4.x 5 =
5.Column Totals: (B)
6.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: X
1.
2.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: X
=Total Cover
Agrostis gigantea 30 Yes FACW
Plantago rugelii 2
Although dominance test indicates that hydrophytic vegetation is dominant, many FACU species are also present at sampling location.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
30' x 30' )
30' x 30' )
15' x 15'
104
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
=Total Cover
3 =Total Cover
52 21
Rosa multiflora 3 No FACU
)
21
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Ambrosia artemisiifolia 5 No FACU
Holcus lanatus 25 Yes FAC
FACU
Dactylis glomerata 5 No FACU
No
No FACU
Phleum pratense 20 No FACU
Daucus carota 3 No UPL
Solanum carolinense 2 No FACU
Trifolium pratense 2
Solidago sp.10 No
=Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5' x 5' )
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Multiply by:
FACW species
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.15
UPL species 3 15
30 60
FAC species 25 75
Prevalence Index worksheet:=Total Cover
OBL species 0 0
FACU species 156
30697 (A)
Total % Cover of:
39
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0%
2 (B)
2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody Vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
VEGETATION (Five Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.O1
Tree Stratum 30' x 30' )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
PL1
Texture
Small black masses throughout
C Sand present in layer
O1SOIL
9-12 10YR 3/4
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
60
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
5YR 4/4
%
40
Matrix
C10YR 3/3
10YR 3/3
10YR 2/13-9
0-3
Loc2
M
99
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Black masses are probable iron manganese masses, but do not qualify as indicator F12. The soil matrix does not have a chroma of 2 or less, and
the masses are only present at 1%.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B.NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
C.DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D.PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.:Long.:
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody:
E.REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE”SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
1 36.246706 -81.751733 1450 ln ft
non-wetland waters (creek)404
2 36.247866 -81.750518 1680 ln ft
non-wetland waters (creek)404
W1 36.247502 -81.752742 0.086 ac wetland 404
3 36.249687 -81.750775 1847 non-wetland waters (creek)
8/9/19
Shipley Farms, LLC
NC Watauga Vilas
36.2484 -81.7507
Linville Creek
8/1/19
8/1/19
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit)or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be”navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: ________________.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: _______.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:________.
Corps navigable waters’study: ____________.
U.S.Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:________.
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S.Geological Survey map(s).Cite scale &quad name: _________.
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.Citation: __________.
National wetlands inventory map(s).Cite name:________.
State/local wetland inventory map(s): ____________.
FEMA/FIRM maps: ________________.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ____.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name &Date):______.
or Other (Name &Date): ______.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:__________.
Other information (please specify): ______________.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.
1:12,000 Valle Crucis, NC
Shipley WNC Stream Initiative Photosheets
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2019-SLI-0392
Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017
Project Name: Shipley WNCSI Project

Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The attached species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. Although not required by
section 7, many agencies request species lists to start the informal consultation process and begin
their fulfillment of the requirements under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
This list, along with other helpful resources, is also available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) Asheville Field Office's (AFO) website: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/
cntylist/nc_counties.html. The AFO website list includes “species of concern” species that could
potentially be placed on the federal list of threatened and endangered species in the future. Also
available are:
Design and Construction Recommendations
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project_review/Recommendations.html
Optimal Survey Times for Federally Listed Plants
https://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/plant_survey.html
Northern long-eared bat Guidance
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html
Predictive Habitat Model for Aquatic Species
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/Maxent/Maxent.html
June 11, 2019
06/11/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017   2

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could require modifications of these lists.
Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act,
the accuracy of the species lists should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website or the AFO website (the AFO website dates each
county list with the day of the most recent update/change) at regular intervals during project
planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be
requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the
enclosed list or by going to the AFO website.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a Biological
Evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12 and on our office's website
at https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project_review/assessment_guidance.html.
If a Federal agency (or their non-federal representative) determines, based on the Biological
Assessment or Biological Evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be
affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to
50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and
proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the
regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license
applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://
www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF.
Though the bald eagle is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, please be aware
that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16
U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require additional consultation (see
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/our-services/permits/eagles/). Wind energy projects should follow
the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to
migratory birds (including bald and golden eagles) and bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
06/11/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017   3

www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;
http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/
towers/comtow.html.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office.
Attachment(s):
▪Official Species List
▪Migratory Birds
▪Wetlands
06/11/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017   1

Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
[phone]
06/11/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017   2

Project Summary
Consultation Code:04EN1000-2019-SLI-0392
Event Code:04EN1000-2019-E-01017
Project Name:Shipley WNCSI Project
Project Type:STREAM / WATERBODY / CANALS / LEVEES / DIKES
Project Description:This project will stabilize approximately 2660 linear feet of Linville
Creek and an unnamed tributary in rural Watauga County, NC. The land is
currently being used for grazing cattle. Livestock exclusion fencing will
prevent livestock from continuing to access the streams. A vegetative
riparian buffer composed of native trees and shrubs will be planted along
the banks.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/place/36.24571851498371N81.75191660445546W
Counties:Watauga, NC
06/11/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017   3

Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 9 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1.NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Mammals
NAME STATUS
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2657
Endangered
Gray Bat Myotis grisescens
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6329
Endangered
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Threatened
Virginia Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8369
Endangered
Arachnids
NAME STATUS
Spruce-fir Moss Spider Microhexura montivaga
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4801
Endangered
1
06/11/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017   4

Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Blue Ridge Goldenrod Solidago spithamaea
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5821
Threatened
Heller's Blazingstar Liatris helleri
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5962
Threatened
Roan Mountain Bluet Hedyotis purpurea var. montana
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1087
Endangered
Spreading Avens Geum radiatum
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6854
Endangered
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
06/11/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017   1

Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1.The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2.The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3.50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location.
To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see
the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that
every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders
and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data
mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For
projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative
occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional
information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory
bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found
below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8745
Breeds May 1 to Jul 20
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 10 to Aug
31
1
2
06/11/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017   2

NAME BREEDING SEASON
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker sphyrapicus varius
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8792
Breeds May 10 to Jul
15
Probability Of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ “Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report” before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ()
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1.The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2.To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3.The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort ()
06/11/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017   3

Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Golden-winged
Warbler
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Yellow-bellied
Sapsucker
BCC - BCR
Additional information can be found using the following links:
▪Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
▪Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/
management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
▪Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/
management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
06/11/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017   4

permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my
project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab
of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of
interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your
migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
06/11/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017   5

Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1."BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2."BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3."Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ “What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location”. Please be
aware this report provides the “probability of presence” of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the “no
data” indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
06/11/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017   6

contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ “Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds” at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
06/11/2019 Event Code: 04EN1000-2019-E-01017   1

Wetlands
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine
the actual extent of wetlands on site.
RIVERINE
▪R5UBH