19930302 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19930516

9
1 C s q
1
1 4 1993
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
July 8, 1993
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Jonathan R Howes, Secretary
Dr. G. Wayne Wright
Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Dr. Wright:
In keeping with your request, this office has circulated to interested state review agencies
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice Action ID. 199301805 dated April 8, 1993 which
describes a project proposal by W. B. Wilkins of Plumtree. The project, involving stream bank
stabilization and channel improvement, is located on the North Toe River upstream of The Town
of Plumtree in Avery County.
Based on a coordinated agency review, the state interposes no object to the project nor
offers any additional management techniques. As you are aware, the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission provided professional advice in the planning.
For the record,. the Division of Environmental Management issued Water Quality
Certification No. 2829 for this project on May 16, 1993.
Should you require additional input from the state on this matter, do not hesitate to
contact this office or the Wildlife Resources Commission.
Very sincerely,
J R. Parker, Jr.
Inland '404 Coordinator
JRP:Jr/aw
cc: Wildlife Resources Commission /
Division of Environmental Management?
COE--Asheville
P.O. Box 27687,.Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
?(\ 50%-yded/10%port-m---pape

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
MAY 1 2 1993
?
TO: John R. Parker, Inland 11404" Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
WETLANDS GROUP
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordin WATER ALITYSECTION
Habitat Conservation Program CRIMINAL SIGNEDERY.
DATE: May 6, 1993 EPILA `? "
SUBJECT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice No.
199301805, request for permit by Mr. W. B. Wilkins, the
Beck Heirs, and Mrs. Gail V. McNeil to stabilize 1000
feet of stream bank at four sites on the North Toe
River near Plumtree, Avery County
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
reviewed the information provided by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and biological field staff conducted a site visit on
February 4, 1993. These comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et
seq.), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.).
The applicant proposes to incorporate the techniques and
stream restoration principles of Dave Rosgen from Wildland
Hydrology Consultants in order to reduce stream bank erosion.
Proposed activities would result in fill below ordinary high
water in the river utilizing native materials such as logs, root
wads, large boulders, cobble, and gravel to protect stream banks
experiencing excessive erosion. The amount of fill for all four
sites will total approximately 365 cubic yards below ordinary
high water. Excavation and removal of gravel and soil materials
in the stream channel will be necessary to establish a more
stable stream cross section and to concentrate the stream flow
into a defined thalweg. The excavated channel will be
approximately 30-foot wide by 1-foot deep by 800-foot long
involving 889 cubic yards of excavated material. In addition,
approximately 110 cubic yards of material will be removed from
the existing transverse gravel bars currently obstructing flow in
the river. The purpose of the project is to stabilize highly
eroding stream banks and reduce the loss of valuable farm land.

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
assisted landowners with plans for this project, which upon
completion should reduce sediment load in the North Toe River
while improving water quality and fish habitat. Therefore we
have no objection to the project as proposed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, DEM

IWO -North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resource!
Division of Environmental Managen
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director

Post-It.M brand fax transmittal memo 7671 # of pages ?
From e?
May 16, 1993
Mr. W.B. Wilkins
P.O. Box 40
Plumtree, North Carolina 28664
Dear Mr. Wilkins:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
Proposed stream bank stabilization and channel
excavation
Project # 93302, COE # 1.99301805
Avery County
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 2829 issued
to W.B. Wilkins, the Beck heirs and Gail McNeil dated May 16,
1993.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
U'(
reston Howard, J P.E.
Director
Attachments
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. John Parker
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
./ , ,-?.A'
NORTH CAROLINA
Avery County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to W.B. Wilkins, the Beck heirs and Gail McNeil pursuant to an
application filed on the 14th day of April, 1993 to stabilize
streambank, channel excavation and transves gravel bar removal.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into wetlands adjacent to the waters
of North Tar River in conjunction with the proposed stream wark
Avery County will not result in a violation of applicable Water
Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State
of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if
conducted in accordance with the application and conditions
hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the stream is 25 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the
above conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 16th day of May, 1993.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
P esto' ard, P. E.
WQC # 2829
oo,
,,ice Gun.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina-
n?at?a3sA u" nab
_ ?no8o sari lE
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Jonathan B. 1
April 20, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Acting Director
Division of Environmental Management
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Inland "404" Coordinator
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
The attached U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199301805.
dated April 8, 1993 describing a proposed project by Mr. W. B. WUkins, is being
circulated to interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404
and/or Section 10 permits.'
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project,
and return this form by May 8, 1993 If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project, please contact me at 733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with
supporting data is requested.
- q
REPLY This office orts the project proposal.
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
Signed
This office objects to the project as proposed.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North
# Date -511 ' //
27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% ,-yded/ 10% post-mnaumtt p+pa
APR 16 ' G - - 100r.n
w
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: John DoY'ney
Plannirig Branch
RQviewe
W(,t w 12pSI
P.2
SU,13 0';F;(:;T : WETLAND STAFF p:EPORT AND REC%OMMENDATI ONS>
***EACH ITEM MUST ?3E ANSWERED (rFSE N/A FOR NE;':' APPLICABLE) . r
PERMIT Y(I: 93 PERM!T NO
APPLICANT %7704E: W.S. WILKINS
PROJECT TYPE: BANK. STABILIZATION
COE #: 199301805
RCD_FROM_.(. f)A : COE
PF('7„ OFFICE • AIR()
5TREAPI_CLASS : W5 :22C- 4'ae6cX-
to L IMPAC'T??N
0000302 CC}C.,NTY: AVERY
TIER
DATE.
RiVER._AND_ 5UB.
STR._INDEY_„N0 :
WL REQUESTED:
W'I., S C ORE (#) .
HYDE?O_CNEC`I'': Y/`N
M IT I CAT I ON_, T YPE :

DOT
_FRM-c. DA: 04/14/9,
WL ACR :1 ?i`.P ' : Y /'N
WATEP IMP A{'"l'`,D BY IT:" "i LON
MlTIGA`1'1'%.)N'l: Y/N
MITIs'jATl0l''-! SIZE:
IS I ETI,AND RATING SHEET 2-,TTACHED ;: Y/LT
RECOMMENDATION (Circle Ole)
COMMENTS :
A"L
,....._.-
-?-.?ls?ci'?ies_1N
N
,_- a4x?s ,+?...?. ss/oa ecs'a.?,?l.q? •? ??._otnrc,,S-?
c : - gional Office
Central Files

.
Hydrologically connected
Hydrologically isolated

Wetland type (select one) Other
o Swamp forest o Shoreline
o Bottomland hardwood forest Stream channel
o Carolina bay o Saft marsh

o Pocosin
o Brackish marsh .
o Pine savannah o Freshwater marsh
o Wet flat o Bog/Fen
o Perched o Vernal pool •
••. •. •.•.•.•••••••••••• •.
•.••••. ••••••••.•..•• .•....•• ?
sum
Water storage f>= ::>
?
Bank/Shoreline stabilization

x 4.00.
Pollutant removal """

Sensitive watershed x -
1
50 t+-4'M1-Y?++•++t:+ •• .

Dispersal corridor .
>»

'

We
tlandscore •
Special ecological attributes ?_`
Wildlife habitat x 1.50
uatic life val
A
q
ue

Recreation/Education
x 0.25
Economic value
Wetland area acres Wetland width feet
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
TO: 9dr
FAX #: q 1q/733- ?133?
FROM:
FAX ##: [phone]
DATE: 5 -13 r'/ .3
# OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER`S
MESSAGE: If questions, please call 704/251-6208.
TA *H R?7U'572.6TGT6 01 NNH3Q Od aT t i naysd WONJ b0:60 266T-2T-AUW
APR 16 '93 02:09FM
j _
TFNlC.i12RNDU1'R PRINT NAMES :
Reviewer:
i'O : Jchn Dorney WQ „oaupv , : ?T
. planning Branch }SAT `'` - -
3UBJ.FCT : WETLAND S`I`Ar F REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
* 1F * E AC.H ITEM DWST BE ANSWERED (:T`,E ;I/A FOR NOT A APLI CABLr.
PERMIT YR: 93 PERMIT NO: 0000302 C(AMI TY. AVE'Ry
I:Pr'LIt'.AIN1X ?TAPhE: Ena.f'. Ls1ILKINS °?:' TYPE: iNl?
PROJECT-TYPE: BANK STABILIZATION ??;ERMI
co% 9.99: 01805 ,D7 #
RCD_FR0K_CDA: COE DATE_FF;M_CLA. 04/14/93
REG.-OFFICE : AR0 -
omnrAm CLASS STR•_INDEX_NO : 7'? ?CO•?,

Wl._ IMPACT? . N
WL REQUESTED:
WL SCORE(# ):
HYDRO_C'NECT? Y4P
MITI GAT I ON_.TYPE :
COME'NTS :
MITIGA`I'IDN'-' : Y/N
MITIGATION.--SIZE.

,?•e ; Regiondl Of fiG4?
Central Files
r'c

WL ACR E.;iT? : Y/N
t(ytp,,TER IMPAcITED BY .FILL? ON
FTI'H P? TM_GT6T6 01 NNH39 Oa aI i T naysd WOdH b0:60 266T-2T-AUW
IS WETLAND RATING SHEE'! ATTACHED? : WIN
RECOMMETIDATION (circle One) T01-1 ' IS,SUF/ COND DRNY
20 ' d 10101
Nearest road

Hydrologically connected
Hydrologically Isolated
Wetland type (select one) Other -- •
o Swamp forest o Shoreline
o Bottomland hardwood forest Stream channel •
o Carolina bay o Sale marsh •
o Pocosin o Brackish marsh •
o Pine savannah o Freshwater marsh
o Wet fiat o Bog/Fen •
o Perched o Vernal pool ;
• • • • • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , • , •S • • . f • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • • • • • f •
Water storage
Bank/Shoreline stabilization X 4-00
Pollutant removal
.
S0'd
Recreation/Education O.Z$
Economic value
8SSTS22,6T6T6 01 ?INH3G Oa atiTnaysd WodA S0:60 266T-2T-AUW
Wetland area acres Weiland width feet
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID. 199301805
PUBLIC NOTICE
E
APR 1 4 1993
April 8, 1993
MR. W.B. WILKINS, THE BECK HEIRS, AND MRS. GAIL V. MCNEIL, C/O MR. W.B.
WILKINS, Post Office Box 40, Plumtree, North Carolina 28664 have applied for
a Department of the Army (DA) permit to STABILIZE APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET OF
STREAM BANK AT FOUR SITES ON THE NORTH TOE RIVER JUST UPSTREAM OF THE TOWN OF
PLUMTREE, Avery County, North Carolina. In addition, SOME CHANNEL EXCAVATION
WORK AND THE REMOVAL OF TRANSVERSE GRAVEL BARS is proposed in association with
THE STREAMBANK STABILIZATION. The plans and parts of the application were
submitted on behalf of the applicants by the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC).
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant, from observations made during an onsite visit by a representative
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and from data provided by the
WRC. The problem of streambank erosion of the North Toe River in the Plumtree
area is a result of a mill dam just downstream of the project area and the
loss of riparian vegetation. In the recent past, sites Nos. 1 and 2 (see
Figure 3) were partially impounded by a mill dam. This caused a decrease in
stream velocities and an increase in sediment deposition. Then, with the
decay of the wooden dam, the river began to cut a lower channel,. water
velocities increased, and the deposited sediments upstream began to erode.
The absence of a buffer zone of trees and shrubs along the upstream banks,
especially at Site No. 1, decreased bank stability and contributed to
accelerated erosion following the collapse of the dam. The applicants are
submitting a proposal to reduce this streambank erosion by stabilizing the
banks with natural vegetation and by slightly altering the flow within the
channel.
Plans submitted with the application state that the bank stabilization
proposal incorporates the techniques and stream restoration principles of Dave
Rosgen from Wildland Hydrology Consultants. Proposed activities would result
in fill below ordinary high water in the river utilizing native materials such
as logs, root wads, large boulders, cobble, and gravel to protect stream banks
which are experiencing excessive erosion. In order to stabilize the banks, it
will be necessary to provide a hard structure, resistant to erosion, to
protect the banks until riparian vegetation becomes established. The
preferred method is to use root wad revetments installed into the banks. The
amount of fill for all four sites (for footer logs and root wads) will total
approximately 365 cubic yards below ordinary high water.

-2-
Excavation and removal of gravel and soil materials in the stream channel
will be necessagy,to establish a more stable stream cross section and to
concentrate the stream flow into a defined thalweg (lowest area in channel).
In order to reduce stress in the near bank regions of the outside bend, the
thalweg must be moved away from the bank (by 10-25 feet) and made deeper. The
excavated channel will be approximately 30 foot wide by 1 foot deep by 800
feet long involving 889 cubic yards of excavated material. In addition,
approximately 110 cubic yards of material will be removed from the existing
transverse gravel bars currently obstructing the flow in the river. This will
reduce the current velocities along the stream banks. Some of the material
removed will be placed below ordinary high water with the remainder being
deposited above ordinary high water.
The purpose of the project is to stabilize highly eroding stream banks and
reduce the loss of valuable farm land. Based on actual measurements, at least
10 feet (890 cubic yards) of soil material has been eroded from Site No. 1 in
the past 3 months. This total does not include estimates of erosion from
Sites Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Additional project benefits, upon-completion, will be
the reduction of sediment load and improvement of water quality and fish
habitat in the North Toe River. In addition, the establishment of a
functioning riparian area will bring long term bank stability and improved
aesthetics to the river. Along with'the root wads, native vegetation will be
planted on the banks. This vegetation will include alder, sycamore, and
willow seedlings which will provide long term stability to the banks. The
work will be on private land with several land owners cooperating. The dates
of planned activities are June 1 through July 31, 1993. Plans showing the
work and a narrative are included with this public notice in order to give the
reader more specific details.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine
the need for the applicant.to obtain any required State authorization. No
DA permit will be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal
has been received and reviewed by this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued
until the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has
determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as required by PL
92-500.
The requested DA permit will be denied if any required State or local
authorization and/or certification is denied. No DA permit will be issued
until a State coordinated viewpoint is received and reviewed by this agency.
Recipients of this notice are encouraged to furnish comments on factors of
concern represented by the above agencies directly to the respective agency,
with a copy furnished to the USACE.

j -3-
Approval of this permit will give Federal authorization for maintenance
dredging for a..period of time not to exceed 10 years from the date of permit
issuance. The permittee will be required to present plans to the District
Engineer a minimum of 2 weeks prior to commencement of such maintenance work.
All maintenance would be performed in accordance with Federal, State, and
local permits and regulations governing such activities at the time the
maintenance is undertaken.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the
comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the.reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being eligible
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District
Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources.
Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that
the proposed activity will affect species, or their critical habitat,
designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order
11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water

-4-
supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the
placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit
would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable
guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer
determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The USACE is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to
consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments
received will be considered by the USACE to determine whether to issue,
modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision,
comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine
the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of
the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA permit will not be made
until the DEM issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The DEM considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307-of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of
the Army permit serve as application to the DEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Salisbury Street, Archdale
Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished
to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The DEM plans to take final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act
certification on or after May 1, 1993.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before April 26, 1993, Attention: Mr. John
Dorney.
i
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Steve Chapin, until 4:15 p.m.,
May 8, 1993, or telephone [phone].
W • 4. W, IX 1n S
Q ea t foe 4-s
Or. I V. 4A. Ale;1
19 930 O'S'
10aa e J. 0 ?-, ( S
NORTH TOE RIVER STREAM BANK STABILIZATION AND RESTORATION PROJECT
BACKGROUND
The, problem of- stream bank erosion of the North Toe River in the .
Plumtree area (Figures 1 and 2) is a result of a mill dam just
downstream of the project area and the loss of riparian
vegetation. In the recent past, some of the project area was
partially impounded by a mill dam. This caused a decrease in
stream.velocities and an increase in sediment deposition. The
increased water levels may have contributed to the loss of
riparian vegetation. with the decay of the wooden dam, the river
began to cut a lower channel, water velocities increased, and the
deposited sediments began to erode.

The loss of riparian vegetation is probably the biggest reason
for the current problems of bank erosion. The most important
factor in stream bank stability is the presence of riparian
vegetation, especially trees. Trees and other woody vegetation
are preferred to grasses because their roots grow deeper and
provide the "cement" which.holds the soil in place. The depth
and density of the root mass is critical in stabilizing the
banks. The absence of a 60-100 foot wide buffer zone of trees
and shrubs along the stream banks, especially below Plumtree
Creek, has decreased bank stability and contributed to
accelerated erosion following the collapse of the dam. y
An estimate of the amount of material lost from site 1 (Figure 3)
between November 5, 1992 and February 4, 1993 (3 months) is baoed
on field measurements taken from the location of the barbed wire
fence.
10 ft (horizontal)
6 ft (vertical)
x__400 ft (stream length)
24,000 ft3 = 889 yd _ ~
This total does not include estimates of erosion for sites 2, 3,
and 4. It is also conservative because the landowner at site 1
states that the amount of land lost is closer to 2030 ft
(horizontal).
In order to address the concerns of the landowners in this area,
the U.S. Soil Conservation Service contacted the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (CUE) and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC). This document was prepared by NCWRC personnel as a
service to the landowners and as input to the COE permitting
process. The project's purpose is to stabilize highly eroding
stream banks and reduce the lose of valuable agricultural and
residential land. Additional project benefits include the
reduction of sediment input to the river, and improvement in fish
habitat in the vicinity of the project. Finally, establishment
of a functioning riparian area will.bring long term bank
stability and improve aesthetics of the river.
p-v ae 2 o-F is
The proposed restoration project incorporates the techniques and
stream restoration principles of Dave Rosgen (Wildland Hydrology
Consultants).. Proposed activities would result in fill below the
bankfull elevat.fon utilizing native materials such as logs, root
wads, large boulders, cobble and gravel to protect stream banks.
The removal of materials in the stream channel also will be
necessary to establish a more stable stream cross section and to
concentrate the stream flow into a defined thalweg. This will,
reduce the current velocities along the stabilized stream banks.
SITE DESCRIPTIONS
The bank areas needing restoration were measured on February 4,
1993, and are described as follows:
1. 420 feet of eroded stream bank used as a pasture
located on the west side of North Toe River
2. 230 feet of eroded stream bank on a residential lot
located immediately south of the mouth of Plumtree
Creek or, the east side of river
3. 220 feet of eroded stream bank in a pasture located
immediately north of the mouth of Plumtree Creek on the
east side of river
4. 70 feet of eroded stream bank in a pasture located on
.the east side of river below washed out tree
In order to reduce bank erosion, the impacted section of river
and had to be measured and compared to a relatively stable
section in the immediate vicinity. Transect 1 (Figure 4)
represents the stable section and is located upstream of Plumtree
Creek about 1500 ft. It has a bankfull width of 57 ft and a
cross-sectional area of 145 ft2. Transect 2 (Figure 5) was taken
in the impacted section at sitl 1. Bankfull width is 110 ft and
cross-sectional area is 200 ft .
The difference in bankfull width and area between the two sites
is symptomatic of the ergsional roblems in the impacted section.
Based on the formula (w1 + w2 ) , bankfull width at transect 2
should be only 60 ft even though Plumtree Creek provides
additional flow at the site. An estimate of the appropriate area
is more difficult to obtain, but i? has been estimated that
transect 2 has lost at least 30 ft of area below the bankfull
elevation in the last 3 months. This means tat the original
cross-sectional area was no more than 170 ft .
?V .-
The loss of the eroded material limits the ability to completely
restore this section of river, because proper channel morphology
has been altered. Without massive fills, the cross-sectional
ior- ge. 3 0-C !S
area can only be reduced from 200 ft2 to 190 ft2; a 5%- reduction
(Figure 6). By deepening and reshaping the channel, bankfull
width can be reduced from 110 ft to 85 ft,.but this is still
gonsiderabl, higher than the 60-70 ft appropriate for this
stretch of river.
PROPOSED WORK
Bank Stabilization
When stabilizing a stream bank, it is necessary to provide a hard
structure, resistant to erosion, to protect the stream bank until
riparian vegetation becomes reestablished. The preferred method
is to use root wad revetments. These structures are inexpensive,
quick to install, and natural in appearance (Figure 7).
First, a footer log is dug into the stream bed to the level of
the thalweg and weighted down with large boulders. Next, a 10-15
foot tree trunk with the root fan attached is pushed or dug into
the bank. The root fan is placed perpendicular to the flow
(Figure 8) and below the normal water level, as much as possible,
to prevent rotting. This placement dissipates energy and
provides suitable fish habitat in the form of back water eddies.
The design is stable because as,the flow increases the water
force pushes the root fan into the bank, keeping it in place.
Large trees, of at least 10" DBN (diameter at breast height) will
be needed to provide both the footer log and the root wad
revetments for bank stabilization. Trees resistant to rotting,
such as hardwoods and hemlock, are preferred to pines. Trees
having large diameter root wads would require less trees for the
revetment. Based on a rate of one root wad for every 10-15 ft of
stream bank, the number of trees needed for each site are as
follows: .
Site tre s
1 28-42
2 15-23
3 15-22
4 7-10
65-100
Following the placement of the root wads, clean substrate from
Y the river (see Channel Alterations) will be used to fill behind
the structures to help prevent scouring. Finally, the structure
will need a high flow deflector log located at the bank full
elevation.
The remaining bank, above the bankfull elevation, will be sloped
at 3:1 (Figure 6). This area will then be planted with native
shrubs (such as alder, willow, sycamore, etc.) which will provide
long-term stability to the banks. Livestock should not be
allowed access to the stream banks or the vegetation for a
L??rv?.i r:....-?r.?...;w? ,..,..r:•,•;..:+c:,.w...'.....,.m::--...w?.?'.,'gv:+µ'ArMs+?91ix ??Il.
o0a?e- 4 G -e l 'C'
distance of at least 30 feet from the top of the bank. Once the
banks are stabilized, maintenance of a healthy riparian zone will
be the most important part in the long term'
erm stability of this
area.
...q 1
Channel Alteration
In order to reduce streas in the near bank regions of the outside
bend, the thalweg must be moved away from the bank and made
deeper. If the low flow channel (30 ft wide) is deepened an
average of 1 ft over a length of 800 ft, approximately 889 yd3
will be excavated.
30 ft x 1 ft x 800 ft = 24,000 ft3 = 889 yd'
Of this amount, approximately 300 yd3 will be used for fill below
bankfull elevation. The remaining will be used to narrow the
bankfull channel.
The thalweg currently exists only 7 ft from the outside bend.
This represents a distance that is only 61 of the bankfull width
and 12%- of the width at the current water level. The thalweg
should be about 301 from the outside bend, which means that it
needs to be moved towards the center of the channel 10-25 ft from
its current position.
This aspect of the project-requires the use of large machinery in
the stream. While the NCWRC normally opposes such activities, it
is believed that the long-term benefits far outweigh the short-
term impacts. Disturbance of the stream bed and short-term
increases in turbidity will be considerably less than the massive
amounts of sediment added to the river due to bank erosion.
ORDER OF WORK
This restoration work should begin on the upstream site and
proceed downstream. First, obstructions must be removed which
are contributing to bank erosion by directing stream flow against
unstable stream banks. Second, bank stabilization work should be
completed including cutting and sloping. Finally, the channel
alterations should be completed by moving the thalweg and
removing and sloping the materials found in the transverse bars.
Temporary vegetation of the stream banks will be needed to
minimize erosion followed by the establishment of permanent woody
vegetation. The permanent protection of the stabilized stream
banks by fencing will complete this project.
If materials are not available to complete the entire project in
a short time period (approximately 10 days), the bank
stabilization and channel alteration portions should be completed
for a site before moving to the next site.
P-0 9 e 5 o-C rs
COSTS
The cost of the project should be approximately $10/linear foot
of,stream. Uis cast includes the materials and equipment time
to complete the project. Cost, by site, is shown below.
Site
1 -$4,200
2 2,300
3 2,200
4 700
$9,400
ALTERNATIVE METHODS
if riprap were to be used to stabilize the stream banks the
minimum amount necessary to stabilize 4 ft high banks is based on
a 2:1 slope, and an additional 2 ft.of tap-of-bank protection.
34(8 ft x 4 ft) = 16,0 ft2
(2 ft x 1 ft) = 2.0 ft2
%(1 ft x 1 ft) = 0.5 t2
18.5 ft2.x 930 ft = 17,205 ft3 = 637 yd3
Using class I riprap (® $10/ton delivered), the cost of materials
alone would be about $6,400. Additional costs would include the
equipment time to trench the first row of riprap, and maneuver,
slope,,and properly place the remaining riprap. Based on SCS
estimates, beak stabilization that meets engineering standards
using riprap would cost about $40,000 for this project. in
addition, the riprap would not provide suitable fish habitat and
would not be visually appealing.
7v,.v
6 0 -?` !J
CUT AND FILL CALCULATIONS
Site 1 (4)0 ft linear; 6 ft high bank)
Fill Below Bankfull Elevation
3j ft x 3 ft - 9.0 ft2
34 1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 z
10.5 ft2 x 420 ft = 4,410 ft3 = 163.0 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull Elevation
34(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 420 ft = 630 ft3 = 23.3 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull Elevation
34(2 ft x 6 ft) = 6.0 ft2 x 420 ft = 2,520 ft3 = 93.3 yd3
Site 2 (230 ft linear; 5 ft bank height)
Fill Below Bankfull Elevation
3 ft x 3 ft = 9.0 ft2
34(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 t2
10.5 ft2 x 230 £t - 2,415 ft3 = 89.4 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull Elevation
%(1 ft x 3 ft) 1.5 ft2 x 230 ft = 345 ft3 = 12.8 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull Elevation
34(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 230 ft = 345 ft3 = 12.8 yd3
Site 3 (220 ft linear; 5 ft bank height)
Fill Below Bankfull Elevation
3 ft x 3 ft = 9.0.ft2
%(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1=5 ft;
10.5 ft2 x 220 ft = 2,310 ft3 = 85.6 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull Elevation
%(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 220 ft T 330 ft3 = 12.2 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull Elevation
%(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1,5 ft2 x 220 ft ? 330 ft3 = 12.2 yd3
t -,
7
Y
Site 4 (70 ft linear;
5 ft bank height)
Fill Below Bankfull Elevation
3 f"t x 3 ft - 9.0 ft2
%(1 ft x 3 ft) - 1.5 f
10.5 ft2 x 70 ft = 735 ft3 = 27.2 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull Elevation
%(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 70 ft = 105 ft3 = 3.9 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull. Elevation
%(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 70 ft = 105 ft3 = 3.9 yd3
Total's
Fill Below Bankfull = 163.0 + 89.4 + 85.6 + 27.2 = 365.2 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull = 23.3 + 12.8 + 12.2 + 3.9 = 52.2 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull = 93.3 + 12.8 + 12.2 + 3.9 = 122.2 yd'
. 04-652-327E
TEL?1'f? ?
FAST PRINT
Pa?•e a o? is

f

-) -)C-)s
C
c?
rJ
0
M
U)
co
f:'?>
l?
(D ('r
C?
CL
l'
u
C
L i•-?
Tj
cn ?-
tl?
(n. Cl5
n) (.f)
Cl)
L
co ?
?... Cfj

Cv

U?
i-?
C!) o

N
a?
U)
1
N

u?

02 , J
3L78
TEL-1-704- 52 6
9 0-? (S
Page
FAST pRINT

r
v
a?
N
c
c?
L
r?
?0
(D 6am
>_++
W co
0-
f- 0
Z
d
M
V
7
CD
ow.
U.
c *?
c?a
rt
a?
Cl)
c
4-? ?
in
C
0
a?
Q..> 0
0. CF) (7)
c
0
N
D
0
q4
N
00 a
0
4 00 w
-v+`K+h;.Rl?Y!:1P'^S.i.-.q•?v.l?tx.?... .s,,;... .,.. .:as.... •.;•.t-c^?•:n r•??.. ;..?...:..,?,.v.^r-.-.?.ti++.r a..?.:wurrt.n!+wwyotow-..
10 o f / S
U)

V

N
4-+
V
O
N
co
i
? O
.r
> 0
4)
IM CO
4).1...
H C
= E
O N
Z
F-
L6
41
!L
r.r
G
O
c?
O
WN
O
T
.O
M
O
00
N
co
N
N
O
N
N
O`
O
N
O
00
T
O C
O O
T
V,
CO
N
Y-
O
O
T
O
00
O
(D
0
d'
O
N
N0.'? 0 0 0
0) 000 000 0000 co
C 01
V-
?a0 e 1 oT (s-
0

LO
. N .
4

N
O
M
N
N

N
N
t? N
c?i? td m O
4) co
c0 C1 N
1- ? Q
C)
V

cc 4) Q
CO C
a
o Co

o
N
z o
a Q
ca a
L. c
O LO
T-
CL -

M dS *"
U M
X -
W l1_ U M
w. r
.
. N

O
? r
> r

O 00 Co qt N Q 00 (D d N O
O O) O O Uh C1 00 Q 00 00 00
Y
'?'::YiF:agC Gf•Y:i?+{:.a?x l?4i4vri'(\n?. r?x...r•...•?.. :r. ..Mn ,-nnww?z.+.?:+N4?ti LR'i. .-? - - - ?.aAx•.-erw?o'iiiro
•
104v- 12 a-F rs
Q.)
C-
V)
c,d
cr.,
t13
C13
F-
s.=
.a
s
Co
.a_.J
c
(1)
?Fy
Q7
L_
?C)
!j
4-J
C)
C)
G
l
Q7
Q3
C)

Q?
/o-- a e 13 o f 15-
0

C-
Q)
E
CU
cv
r?
U
T

4--

? cc?
(:).
(DO
LL
wo..awe.i.ey.rA:,s„x_wrr_.r? _.are.,N:?z?!iwavri?r
• t v I I v llri' ' ILW .? 11 ?? _- AIAIIGA 1/ ?'F
J ? J IZl ? V l]!! ' .
.o 9 U Arter 7
:::??_ IIN"L f•4 !SUGAR MOWIT 4> - qtr .,c 1
OUNiAW
fRI Mf M 10
Cranberry 194 ?.4 q t0?. IN (Est.! at •:.;1
Auq:
1311
UTILE HUMP :`Z ^ .... \?•
MOUNTAIN 199 l]!1
Hit 194 ' t:
11 Iw `
:r tl,l ?' ?C '
1 • ?; ? •v ' ..
1122 a ?:,?` 51, fit
E'i rrAAt611 UNf w e
P /???_ •° 2 11? 139111/3 GRAI
?y?r• i. 0 \ 1 .. Ila 'a Cl . c
TENN a 1311
n. C ?s MING YELLOW
all, •-• ' c ? llwt 111 `
?F MIN. 1131 u. Mlnw '1. Sl HIS
e`• .i7
{? 7 sqw Mall, RANDfAINE? Cir.IWWeer
:
•\El Q/'?+ • 1391
h it VILLAGE
•? ? 1132 r +c 4?11Y :?O?.Li.:'
°. !!ss lam sae J :y
.. .. ll
v 22.:- D
roS' .0 1133' ?1 f T ua ,: U .? ?lV 11u SIG HAW lilt 1 • i; ra. -p
22 iQ 12" J CMwerl MOUNTAIN -7 I113
1111 ~ t. 3.: :: - 3r 1313
i''
•? / X111 r lilt .y Dole
! r
3 ^_ Ill Litz NEWLANO «9
;? h ill! y `? .e POI. 722. •7 10
i
LITTLE YELLOW MIN. 11LL N 11Yi ~ ? :Rl
?. ills 2s4 ? ' i??p ?.'_i:
Euv. 5.504 L79 •e .a !?'? tia ° GRANDMOTNNI MIN.
3
? ursr_ Myl:?'CI•?>?. T:. 7_ 1311 Z <_.:. 111 .1 ELEV. 463
fe gal !la 1113 t• ?• .. icy ?` JILL.
•` 1131 `f ? MoW %emaM .?. 1131 .7 NL '?Jt? ?s
LICE IS. } 11 !INAUWSHOIIE Lan pop. 244
r 1171 u !IG ILK M'i a y.a MIN. V r Rw.b
MOUNTAIN JUL iL: 13;
1111
it 1111 • 'r 1 1393
r ` ? 11 .S ? ? •4 .L? V 11 n
•`lleruae Ge.4 f ' s. .1111 > LIZ r4 - 1711
CL P \ 11 y UPkmu U22r 111 57.1 !l? +? rl '^ Pitneola DANIEL 111001,19
.20.1!!Z t ? •° '` 111 „ _ WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
1 11L '•? lilt
r a' s •+ ? AREA
a ?4 ` '22 »: yfo?. It7
-Y? 11JZ
/ R ??ful. ?'PEfi
LIM
4 L? 2. t
S?EAA TOPS SUCK 11RL /yaMe 111! : 194 t•
N?;ELEV. 4,lS r, y 111 r, , ' liiE alit' . •, '.) N Ib Ilarlrrr
36'00'
:J .? " li /• •) 1172 toffs,
• ?p ILLS ?. Alloel9at • 111!
j / 5.1
(? y no LAID Ili :• 11rN,? THREE KNOBS jT IRI b
P j 1
i . s.]o7 tr _ w s?S 6F .w'_'?1] ' ? C2 ?j?, 7!)• ` a ?- ..:, `Y•? ?` ?'?•. "
O G ? ???7
M 1111.6 L, ??/ 1
fi v 194 f 7
In0a?1. Y dry 1113 '`
Z ` ?p? _1191 INr . \
b
!`iln.lw B U R K E UIM
1191 JUL
t.? 6193 1l1D
foW
1192 b y 1111
3.0 9S / V N .
w ?
J, co
l?p?1.141 e_;,;. part
I F
.\t1l1 a ??' ? I?
f? 19E f . ? .4
l?
10 S•
35.55'
r'
RTASLE ROO C
0O
Mitt'
V
NOTE MAP INCLUDES ONLY STATE MAINTAINED ROADS
O J OR IMPORTANT NON-SYSTEM ROADS.
O MR4GE NOT SffOWN ON FRONTAGE ROADS.
0 ROADS SHOWN AS Of AN 1. 1990.
G
AVERY COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
i
\\ ?1 I I I,,
w \ I r \\,r9?j f
Qv.
n ??.,,\ \ I i;i j nN
?? WJ
it m e • ?y \ , / .tee, d o
o .p? _ ee G ? ? ti
? \ o
U • i (?iOn @y - IA
3987
1121301
1 MII E
T'
. Highway
rraryl State Highway
:orrdary State Highway
est Highway
estt toad
PsLI Trail
i ch ]
407
30'30 CARVERS GAP, N.C.-TENN.
N3600-W8200/7.5
1960
DMA 4556 II SE-SERIES V842
PISGAH NATIONAL FOREST
QUADRANGLE LOCATION DIAGRAM
2840 ASH :
Ye w (? main 3p00
urch
n j r
i
? l r /1 y% c. r
ooI ?. I:,
11 r \\ / Q? I ` „ I 3986
l 1 r i t ?? ?l ` ?V I 3zo0 .
i
-47
6°°
I u /3
uCK He
t?ap? I !r \
I(
i i , I I I' 1 I r' ` I 3985000m N.
y(
1 I r 610 000
(.? r ' ((I/ I ?II^? II II I(((( (t??l II,i (? `. , FEET TENN.
36o00'
1 GALLS 2.1 MI,
\S RU"EPINE9.OMl. 409--E.'TENN. 3180000 FEET $2°00'
81 10.
36^30'
L
C?
F
9< <s

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
April 20, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Acting Director
Division of Environmental Management.
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Inland "404" Coordinator
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199301805
dated April 8, 1993 describing a proposed project by Mr-- W. M. ?Willrin , is being
circulated to interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404
and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project
and return this form by May 8, 1993 If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project, please contact me at 733-2293. When 'appropriate, in-depth comments with
supporting data is requested.
REPLY This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
Signed
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Date
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax k 919-733-0513
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% wyded/10% post-consumer p+per
UO&

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID. 199301805 April 8, 1993
PUBLIC NOTICE
MR. W.B. WILKINS, THE BECK HEIRS, AND MRS. GAIL V. MCNEIL, C/O MR. W.B.
WILKINS, Post Office Box 40, Plumtree, North Carolina 28664 have applied for
a Department of the Army (DA) permit to STABILIZE APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET OF
STREAM BANK AT FOUR SITES ON THE NORTH TOE RIVER JUST UPSTREAM OF THE TOWN OF
PLUMTREE, Avery County, North Carolina. In addition, SOME CHANNEL EXCAVATION
WORK AND THE REMOVAL OF TRANSVERSE GRAVEL BARS is proposed in association with
THE STREAMBANK STABILIZATION. The plans and parts of the application were
submitted on behalf of the applicants by the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC). -
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant, from observations made during an onsite visit by a representative
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and from data provided by the
WRC. The problem of streambank erosion of the North Toe River in the Plumtree
area is a result of a mill dam just downstream of the project area and the
loss of riparian vegetation. In the recent past, sites Nos. 1 and 2 (see
Figure 3) were partially impounded by a mill dam. This caused a decrease in
stream velocities and an increase in sediment deposition. Then, with the
decay of the wooden dam, the river began to cut a lower channel, water
velocities increased, and the deposited sediments upstream began to erode.
The absence of a buffer zone of trees and shrubs along the upstream banks,
especially at Site No. 1, decreased bank stability and contributed to
accelerated erosion following the collapse of the dam. The applicants are
submitting a proposal to reduce this streambank erosion by stabilizing the
banks with natural vegetation and by slightly altering the flow within the
channel.
Plans submitted with the application.state that the bank stabilization
proposal incorporates the techniques and stream restoration principles of Dave
Rosgen from Wildland Hydrology Consultants. Proposed activities would result
in fill below ordinary high water in the river utilizing native materials such
as logs, root wads, large boulders, cobble, and gravel to protect stream banks
which are experiencing excessive erosion. In order to stabilize the banks, it
will be necessary to provide a hard structure, resistant to erosion, to
protect the banks until riparian vegetation becomes established. The
preferred method is to use root wad revetments installed into the banks. The
amount of fill for all dour sites (for footer logs and root wads) will total
approximately 365 cubic yards below ordinary high water.
f
-2-
Excavation and removal of gravel and soil materials in the stream channel
will,be neces%ary.to establish a more stable stream cross section and to
concentrate the stream flow into a defined thalweg (lowest area in channel).
In order to reduce stress in the near bank regions of the outside bend, the
thalweg must be moved away from the bank (by 10-25 feet) and made deeper. The
excavated channel will be approximately 30 foot wide by 1 foot deep by 800
feet long involving 889 cubic yards of excavated material. In addition,
approximately 110 cubic yards of material will be removed from the existing
transverse gravel bars currently obstructing the flow in the river. This will
reduce the current velocities along the stream banks. Some of the material
removed will be placed below ordinary high water with the remainder being
deposited above ordinary high water.
The purpose of the project is to stabilize highly eroding stream banks and
reduce the loss of valuable farm land. Based on actual measurements, at least
10 feet (890 cubic yards) of soil material has been eroded from Site No. 1 in
the past3 months. This total does not include estimates of erosion from
Sites Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Additional project benefits, upon completion, will be
the reduction of sediment load and improvement of water quality and fish
habitat in the North Toe River. In addition, the establishment of a
functioning riparian area will bring long term bank stability and improved
aesthetics to the river. Along with the root wads, native vegetation will be
planted on the banks. This vegetation will include alder, sycamore, and
willow seedlings which will provide long term stability to the banks. The
work will be on private land with several land owners cooperating. The dates
of planned activities are June 1 through July 31, 1993. Plans showing the
work and a narrative are included with this public notice in order to give the
reader more specific details.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine
the need for the applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No
DA permit will be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal
has been received and reviewed by this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued
until the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has
determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as required by PL
92-500.
The requested DA permit will be denied if any required State or local
authorization and/or certification is denied. No DA permit will be issued
until a State coordinated viewpoint is received and reviewed by this agency.
Recipients of this notice are encouraged to furnish comments on factors of
concern represented by the above agencies directly to the respective agency,
with a copy furnished to the USACE.
I
4
-3-
Approval of this; permit will give Federal authorization for maintenance
dredging for a-period of time not to exceed 10 years from the date of permit
issuance. The permittee will be required to present plans to the District
Engineer a minimum of 2 weeks prior to commencement of such maintenance work.
All maintenance would be performed in accordance with Federal, State, and
local permits and regulations governing such activities at the time the
maintenance is undertaken.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the
comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being eligible
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District
Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources.
Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that
the proposed activity will affect species, or their critical habitat,
designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive order
11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water
-4-

supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
productions mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the.gegds and welfare of the people. For activities involving the -
placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit
would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable
guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer
determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The USACE is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to
consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments
received will be considered by the USAGE to determine whether to issue,
modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision,
comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine
the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of
the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA permit will not be made
until the DEM issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The DEM considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of
the Army permit serve as application to the DEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Salisbury Street, Archdale
Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished
to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The DEM plans to take final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act
certification on or after May 1, 1993.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before April 26, 1993, Attention: Mr. John
Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Steve Chapin, until 4:15 p.m.,
May 8, 1993, or telephone [phone].
W. 6. w:?k1;s
Qec,? foe ?s
Gay ? ?• /hcNei?
r 993018oS
boa ode 1 0 ? 16,
w
NORTH TOE RIVER STREAM BANK STABILIZATION AND RESTORATION PROJECT
BACKGROUND
The problem ef.stream bank erosion of the North Toe River in the
Plumtree area (Figures 1 and 2) is a result of a mill dam just
downstream of the project area and the loss of riparian
vegetation. In the recent past, some of the project area was
partially impounded by a mill dam. This caused a decrease in
stream velocities and an increase in sediment deposition. The
increased water levels may have contributed to the loss of
riparian vegetation. With the decay of the wooden dam, the river
began to cut a lower channel, water velocities increased, and the
deposited sediments began to erode.
The loss of riparian vegetation is probably the biggest reason
for the current problems of bank erosion. The most important
factor in stream bank stability is the presence of riparian
vegetation, especially trees. Trees and other woody vegetation
are preferred to grasses because their roots grow deeper and
provide the "cement" which holds the soil.in place. The depth
and density of the root mass is critical in stabilizing the
banks. The absence of a 60-100 foot wide buffer zone of trees
and shrubs along the stream banks, especially below Plumtree
Creek, has decreased bank stability and contributed to
accelerated erosion following the collapse of the dam.
An estimate of the amount of material lost from site 1 (Figure 3)
between November 5, 1992 and February 4, 1993 (3 months) is based
on field measurements taken from the location of the barbed wire
fence.
10 ft (horizontal)
6 ft (vertical)
x----400 ft (stream length)
24,000 ft-' = 889 yd
This total does not include estimates of erosion for sites 2, 3,
and 4. It is also conservative because the landowner at site 1
states that the amount of land lost is closer to 2030 ft
(horizontal).
In order to address the concerns of the landowners in this area,
the U.S. Soil Conservation service contacted the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC). This document was prepared by NCWRC personnel as a
service to the landowners and as input to the COE permitting
process. The project's purpose is to stabilize highly eroding
stream banks and reduce the lose of valuable agricultural and
residential land. Additional project benefits include the
reduction of sediment input to the river, and improvement in fish
habitat in the vicinity of the project. Finally, establishment
of a functioning riparian area will bring long term bank
stability and improve aesthetics of the river.
p1*0e 2 o-F rs
The proposed restoration project incorporates the techniques and
stream restoration principles of Dave Rosgen (Wildland Hydrology
Consultants). Proposed activities would result in fill below the
bankfull eleva'f_ion utilizing native materials such as logs, root
wads, large boulders, cobble and gravel to protect stream banks.
The removal of materials in the stream channel also will be
necessary to establish a more stable stream cross section and to
concentrate the stream flow into a defined thalweg. This will
reduce the current velocities along the stabilized stream banks.
SITE DESCRIPTIONS
The bank areas needing restoration were measured on February 4,
1993, and are described as follows:
1. 420 feet of eroded stream bank used as a pasture
located on the west side of North Toe River
2. 230 feet of eroded stream bank on a residential lot
located immediately south of the mouth of Plumtree
Creek on the east side of river
3. 220 feet of eroded stream bank in a pasture located
immediat ely north of the mouth of Plumtree Creek on the
east sid e of river
4. 70 feet of eroded stream bank in a pasture located on
the east side of river below washed out tree
In order to reduce bank erosion, the impacted section of river
and had to be measured and compared to a relatively stable
section in the immediate vicinity. Transect 1 (Figure 4)
represents the stable section and is located upstream of Plumtree
Creek about 1500 ft. It has a bankfull width of 57 ft and a
cross-sectional area of 145 ft2. Transect 2 (Figure 5) was taken
in the impacted section. at sitl 1. Bankfull width is 110 ft and
cross-sectional area is 200 ft .
The difference in bankfull width and area between the two sites•
is symptomatic of the errional roblems in the impacted section.
Based on the formula (w1 + w2 ) , bankfull width at transect 2
should be only 60 ft even though Plumtree Creek provides
additional flow at the site. An estimate of the appropriate area
is more difficult to obtain, but i? has been estimated that
transect 2 has lost at least 30 ft of area below the bankfull.
elevation in the last 3 months. This means tat the original
cross-sectional area was no more than 170 ft .
The loss of the eroded material limits the ability to completely
restore this section of river, because proper channel morphology
has been altered. Without massive fills, the cross-sectional
lor-a0 3 a-r IS

area can only be reduced from
(Figure 6). By deepening and
width can be reduced from 110
._ conssiderab;_% higher than the
stretch of river.
PROPOSED WORK
Bank Stabilization
200 ft2 to 190 ft2; a 5%- reduction
reshaping the channel, bankfull
ft to 85 ft, but this is still
60-70 ft appropriate for this
When stabilizing a stream bank, it is necessary to provide a hard
structure, resistant to erosion, to protect the stream bank until
riparian vegetation becomes reestablished. The preferred method
is to use root wad revetments. These structures are inexpensive,
quick to install, and natural in appearance (Figure 7).
First, a footer log is dug into the stream bed to the level of
the thalweg and weighted down with large boulders. Next, a 10-15
foot tree trunk with the root fan attached is pushed or dug into
the bank. The root fan is placed perpendicular to the flow
(Figure 8) and below the normal water level, as much as possible,
to prevent rotting. This placement dissipates energy and
provides suitable fish habitat in the form of back water eddies.
The design is stable because as the flow increases the water
force pushes the root fan into the bank, keeping it in place.
Large trees, of at least 10" DBI3 (diameter at breast height) will
be needed to provide both the footer log and the root wad
revetments for bank stabilization. Trees resistant to rotting,
such as hardwoods and hemlock, are preferred to pines. Trees
having large diameter root wads would require less trees for the
revetment. Based on a rate of one root wad for every 10-15 ft of
stream bank, the number of trees needed for each site are as
follows: ,
5i a trees
1 28-42
2 15-23
3 15-22
4 7-10
65-100
Following the placement of the root wads, clean substrate from
the river (see Channel Alterations) will be used to fill behind
the structures to help prevent scouring. Finally, the structure
will need a high flow deflector log located at the bank full.
elevation.
The remaining bank, above the bankfull elevation, will be sloped
at 3:1 (Figure 6). This area will then be planted with native
shrubs (such as alder, willow, sycamore, etc.) which will provide
long-term stability to the banks. Livestock should not be
allowed access to the stream banks or the vegetation for a

Fatj&- 4 0 -e / S
distance of at least 30 feet from the top of the bank. Once the
banks are stabilized, maintenance of a healthy riparian zone will
be the most important part in the long term stability of this
area.
Channel A1teron
In order to reduce stress in the near bank regions of the outside
bend, the thalweg must be moved away from the bank and made
deeper. If the low flow channel (30 ft wide) is deepened an 3
average of 1 ft over a length of 800 ft, approximately 869 yd
will be excavated.
30 ft x 1 ft x 800 ft = 24,000 ft3 - 889 yd3
Of this amount, approximately 300 yd3 will be used for fill below
bankfull elevation. The remaining will be used to narrow the
bankfull channel.
The thalweg currently exists only 7 ,ft from the outside bend.
This represents a distance that is only 61 of the bankfull width
and 12* of the width at the current water level. The thalweg
should be about 30% from the outside bend, which means that it
needs to be moved towards the center of the channel 10-25 ft from
its current position.
This aspect of the project requires the use of large machinery in
the stream. While the NCWRC normally opposes such activities, it
is believed that the long-term benefits far outweigh the short-
term impacts. Disturbance of the stream bed and short-term
increases in turbidity will be considerably less than the massive
amounts of sediment added to the river-due to bank erosion.
ORDER OF WORK
This restoration work should begin on the upstream site and
proceed downstream. First, obstructions must be removed which
are contributing to bank erosion by directing stream flow against
unstable stream banks. Second, bank stabilization work should be
completed including cutting and sloping. Finally, the channel
alterations should be completed by moving the thalweg and
removing and sloping the materials found in the transverse bars.
Temporary vegetation of the stream banks will be needed to
minimize erosion followed by the establishment of permanent woody
vegetation. The permanent protection of the stabilized stream
banks by fencing will complete thin nrni.s.-•r
s;.
If materials are not available to complete the entire project in
a short time period (approximately 10 days), the bank
stabilization and channel alteration portions should be completed
for a site before moving to the next site.
pa9 e- 5 of rs
COSTS
The cost of the project should be approximately $10/linear foot
of s.tream..-This cost includes the materials and equipment time
to complete the project. Cost, by site, is shown below.
site
ALTERNATIVE METHODS
1 -$4,200
2 2,300
3 2,200
4 700
$9,400
If riprap were to be used to stabilize the stream banks the
minimum amount necessary to stabilize 4 ft high banks is based on
a 2:1 slope, and an additional 2 ft,of top-of-bank protection.
(8 ft x 4 ft)
(2 ft x 1 ft)
%(1 ft x 1 ft)
= 16.0 ft2
2.0 ft2
0.5 t2
18.5 ft2 x 930
ft = 17,205 ft3 - 637 yd3
Using class I riprap (® $10/ton delivered), the cost of materials
alone would be about $6,400. Additional costs would include the
equipment time to trench the first row of riprap, and maneuver,
slope, and properly place the remaining riprap. Based on SCS
estimates, bznk stabilization that meets engineering standards
using riprap would cost about $40,000 for this project. in
addition, the riprap would not provide suitable fish habitat and
would not be visually appealing.

' h
pa
CUT AND FILL CALCULATIONS
Site l (4R0 £t linear; 6 ft high bank)
Fill Below Bankfull Elevation
3j ft x 3 ft - 9.0 ft2
34U ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft
10.5 ft2 x 420 ft = 4,410 ft3 = 163.0 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull Elevation
M(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 420 ft = 630 ft3 = 23.3 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull Elevation
%(2 ft x 6 ft) = 6.0 ft2 x 420 ft = 2,520 ft3 = 93.3 yd3
Site .2 (230 ft linear; 5 ft bank height)
Fill Below Bankfull Elevation
3 ft x 3 ft = 9.0 ft2
W1 ft x 3 ft) _ .5 t2
10.5 ft2 x 230 ft =. 2,415 ft3 = 89.4 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull Elevation
%(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 230 ft = 345 ft3 = 12.8 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull Elevation
%(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 230 ft = 345 ft3 = 12.8 yd3
Site 3 (220 ft linear; 5 ft bank height)
Fill Below Bankfull Elevation
3 ft x 3 ft = 9.0 ft2
34(1 ft x 3 ft) 1,5 ft
10.5 ft2 x 220 ft = 2,310 ft3 = 85.6 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull Elevation
34(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 220 ft = 330 ft3 = 12.2 yd3
f
Cut Above Bankfull Elevation
34(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 220 ft 330 ft3 = 12.2 yd3

M
7 'S
Site (70 ft linear; 5 ft bank height)
Fill. Below Bankfull Elevation
" 3 "fi! x 3 ft - 9.0 ft2
%(1 ft x 3 ft) - 1.5 ft?
10.5 ft2 x 70 ft = 735 ft3 = 27.2 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull Elevation
%(1 ft x 3 ft) - 1.5 ft2 x 70 ft = 105 ft3 = 3.9 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull Elevation
%(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 70 ft- 105 ft3 = 3.9 yd3
Total's
Fill Below Bankfull = 163.0 + 89.4 + 85.6 + 27.2 = 365.2 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull = 23.3 + 12.8 + 12.2 + 3.9 = 52.2 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull = 93.3 + 12.8 + 12.2 + 3.9 = 122.2 yd3
TEL:[phone]
F4ST PRINT
pale a o? rs
C?
c?
C
M
r.
C f-I
cT? Z
cn. ?q
a? ((j
co ?

c." 10 U`11uUA
U
;s tV
U_
V_
N
u?
,J
U)
c?
N
ar) c-?L)??ilar?ld
?N
4t
W
ill.
a?J
)
cv`a
.{J
U)
cc.;
Cti
U
L. .
c-)
(1)
I
(7)
LL

• 3278
704-652-
TEL 1-
0Gg? g o-?' l S
FAST PPIMT
__ , .
r
V
N
G
cd
r G
L O
(D son
>_
0co
o-
o
?o
Z?
4)
r
7
t7T
...
U.
CO
0)
fi
c:v
Oi
Q?
co ay
?n
G
0
co

O
qe
': ` O
y- N
C
Q
O
C'I
00 00
CY)
r•
10
r

5

;. C
m

N
4-4
V
41
N
i
? O
w?
> v
0
4.
fc E
yr
L
O O
Z '-
H
0
7
LL.
G
O
01
wN
O
w
M
O
00
N
O
co
• = CV
awl* O
d'
N
O
N
N
O
O
N
O
00
7-
O c
o

z

W
T
O
N

O
O
r
O
co
O
(O
O

cm
, , 1 I -1 0
0 w 0 000 w
Q 0 m 0 O
Y-
.TYM,M:M'vY•="(kIL•1' ..-:6?'t1:?l:t.?{ L .-.. ..x-_.. ?-as. ++:-. :.:?tanr. ?x`.J:?1?:1?L.. zA.'.::.+5a?.hWm'R?aav,ar-irn? 6V{,&aC:A3flRf?P111f?i1RY' _..

Fa0 e l l c-( Is
5
O
Ul)

O

N
C7
p}
N
Q
N
N
N _J
? O
N
C 44)1 CC? 0
Rf C1
= N
1
? Q
(p V
> _
i? O G
CO q
a c O Co

d?
0
a
(6 O
C
C) o

r
d CL
Lo
O 4-
CO
0)
x
- ?
O
W lJ_ M

G r
O
ro
r
? r

O 00
O rn
. Co
rn q* N 0 00
o) 0? cA aC1 (o t! N
00 00 00 O T
00
r
YZratif:s?kcY61,rW.4';?au?gatl' rn r-,,,....,... .,,.r?..:•,-x..-.-A,-,n,.::,..:.Ytti:: L.,.,?.lr-?=?. - _. ::?e:.'?tc rrK.n
194 ce 12 o-t' ! S'
v.;
CfY
cd
Ci-)
cl>
Ct>
S._
i?
(.L
nFlY
r?
C)
Cl
U
n.l
Q)
y_..
\_)
(?l..
n

Q?
F
. . w.. 4 •
/BIRO a 13 o-r !S
1-?
C
(jQ)
E
1 ?
cu
F's
?f
U
:T

.j
W
i
s
LL

cN
HUHU W MOUNTAIN IIN
r ???. ,, Cranberry
V
MITE HUMP
}Ew. : MOUNTAIN 191
Y1 ` IIN 1

P
TENN
\
L
W-(. . .
NG YELLOW ..
MM 1111
'\ 1
LUL

LLU' yawy
22 JIM n?1 !!u

' 1! .e '' !Q llu 6.
? / ,. 0.Nnul MO
'A

J _.....
lUl
?
?y

"
NMI,
111

.• .7
L!1
» •1 1 .
.
..
UiT1E YLLLOW MM lliR
NEV. S,S01 L1R :' .?
\
'\ 1lL tr
,
Mount "00.0m
? •,:p...,
P
V
2 ? n w t11P .S
? 111E IIG E1K h
01 1171 : MOUNTAW? II
L17! it
S Y
N
G•ek J ?
! ?
.P
!! 5 ,°.,`?:,, ['A.n1r
1117 an
11.1
I11Z
7 ?.
lllf

ILI '?? laaa s pYw1AUGA 31? •.'••' \ _ .
1717 Illl
A.Nr /n
10 V
Zf 'o > tlb
??
fa P SUGAR MOW T; tt:_ - IU 1
91 .4 POP. 193 KS1. 191 .t?s a
r,:T. ?-
lul y 64 Of
Ila a.r.:
Hit '?•? ?°
? 191 1EFLe 'q u
I •? lY
Q ' .e - ...... GAN
Ei`' jw?A1G\ 11Nf
179f. 'I2U IIJ
'? N c
„"
HI
OS
Crui.l/.r.M
? •Ya / i%': : Sugar MY. VUACA 3
v' n' lil7 ~ •• KW.1 it
J
"' `+ yE 1711
13y ... _ .. n .O
lllL ? I 1: ?a" ' T
wtau
1 av',_ 3S' till
7!!71 Iva
NIEwLAN» v '
ror. 77:. •? " 1 1 •::. ? Itx • i?
`? qq ILK , GILANOMOTNEA 'MTri
!!1 :+ Ilk•Igiwe !1!1 ' 4 Z 1, NEV. a633
JILL
It" I41 z'r.+es#' 44
?t
1 !l]R Z 194
Kw. 244
MAWUK* ant.
tia MTu, - fill 71 Rw•L
w q
1 1191 .6 tau
-
?.? 0- 11 h flu n
1111 '. } Utz w•Iw
r
74 UO <t,..., Par1O1° `. DANIEL i00NE
? .,? WNtHIfE MANAGEMENT
. '+l73L
1 7 ~
A
.. 709. 797 flu 4 ? 'b
77 i 177! ?::?6 'PEI7
191`1 ;? '?C? l7II ';l' N IA flug?w\/ ;?
7
./• > a 'Lill pµ3\
a AJIOngN
L11 / 3 1118 S.1 ,?
111 b
LUI
h
IS1Z/ ?? • --_•
li O1iOMA
' s •rRl. B U R K. E
Ma• /
faW
7t ?` C O U N T Y
Q
1
HAW -
Il1/TAW
flEV.
1,617
t!!Z
N
Ila
u
'A
t
, '- LIZ •• V0.
to
{\ SPEAR TO?S
??.?MCdEV. LAS ': ? NIOC 11R/ pyoIL ? Ill! 1L
36'00' _
h UIR
1
n? NG 9A1D lJU 'M ibr•?? TURF! KNOBS
? l3EV 5 307 " M16 u ? a??
91 1111 -6
G \ ?.par/ f ?ry
9 ,?? 1117 ?;
lLai IlE
hs
ItR! LIN ltli
W
h y Co,
/
Lt71 pod
L1Yi , mod' '°, ? ; •;
\0 Sf red 191 f . IRl r? r \4 '
33'33' _?_ 33'33'
,TAKE ROCK
4 ; MTN.
ri 1
? y
AL.
O J
Q O
NOTE: MAP INCLUDES ONLY STATE MAINTAINED ROADS
OR IMPORTANT NON-SYSTEM ROADS.
MILEAGE NOT SHOWN ON fRONTAGE ROADS.
ROADS SHOWN AS Of IAN. 1, 1990.
AVERY COUNTY
'? ? ? NORTH CAROLINA
i,
??.IJ n;?p
3060
n '?o .\' • , ay
? A\ - o ??-000 W
y ?F
° . JC a
.L 3° ? // r I I 3987
:tag
\ `g, r??\ =i ? 4op0
112'30- 407
1 MI1 E
E7
36'b
Highway
mary State Highway
:ondary State Highway
"est Highway
est Road
30'30. CARVERS GAP, N.C.-TENN.
N3600-W8200/7.5
1960
DMA 4556 II SE-SERIES V842
'estTrail "A6.15' 82"30'
2840 ASH \ \ 1 ' i I
Ye w t?, ntain 3006._.
/ urch n? . ?. =. I r
(('`'1125
t II ? o ? „
a1 ?? \ ii 1 a ?? f , s
39
r' 1 l'.l „ ll , V zoo ` as
? 1 ? Y r(1 (( 1 (1 I ((11, , ?
fill
Hi f,
p 3985OMm.N.
(? I 1e
610000 TENN.
I , :? I j ((S S (?? 1 Ili ( FEET
t i 36°00'
1 ALL 2.1 Ml, i 82000
I,S RUCE PINE 9.O M1. 4090OOm E. TENN. 3 180 000 FEET
6 88130'
L
F
T
!s
PISGAH NATIONAL FOREST
QUADRANGLE LOCATION DIAGRAM

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
WATER QUALITY SECTION
FAX # [phone]
FAX NUMBER:
TELECOPY TO.
G rf-es ?
FROM:__ fit c_ C PHONE:
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THE COVER SHEET: 2
Ct-?k alY, -6 ?
?IkCkG
01 ?? h1P/If 4I- ?r?t

MEMORANDUM PRINT NAMES:
Reviewer
TO: Jahn Dorney WQ Supv.:
Planning Branch DATE:
SUBJECT: WETLAN D STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLI CABLE)
PERMIT YR: 93 PERMIT NO: 0000302 COUNTY: AVERY
APPLICANT NAME: W.B. WILKINS
PROJECT TYPE: BANK STABILIZATION PERMIT-TYPE: IND
COE_#: 199301805 DOT #:
RCD_FROM _CDA: COE DATE FRM CDA: 04/14/93
REG OFFICE: ARO RIVER-AND-SUB -BASIN-#:
STREAM CLASS: STR INDEX NO:
WL_IMPACT?: YIN WL_TYPE:
WL REQUESTED: WL ACR EST?: YIN
WL SCORE(#): WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?: YIN
HYDRO CNECT?: YIN MITIGATION?: YIN
MITIGATION TYPE: MITIGATION SIZE:
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: YIN
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): ISSUE ISSUE/COND DENY
COMMENTS:
cc: Regional Office
Central Files
r
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO April 8, 1993
LAPR 14:1993 4 _ }
WETLANDS GROUP
__eO1,,
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199301805
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Enclosed is the application of Mr. W.B. Wilkins, the Beck Heirs, and
Mrs. Gail V. McNeil, for Department of the Army (DA) authorization and a State
Water Quality Certification to do channel excavation and bank stabilization
work in the North Toe River near Plumtree, in Avery County, North Carolina.
Your receipt of this letter verifies your acceptance of a valid request for
certification in accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our administrative
regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality
certification may be required under the provisions of Section 401 of the same
law. A DA permit will not be granted until the certification has been
obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days after receipt
of a request for certification is a reasonable time for State action.
Therefore, if you have not acted on the request by June 7, 1993 the District
Engineer will deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steve Chapin, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
ne Wri
hie , Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
-2-
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687

" Iotthewtyoti dwwsllsaM .
Public nptmhgWrdsnfwth oobdmet 1111

isdtt0 tffeoNsoron iror?e ?r wattft?ls:
ssrd+NO exMtino data stir[as.9sdfsrinoarrt nnNthftrftRttsi?attNd ani6efwpN?f?a id t8
projs %arthoseinecalogiw*sattsidwatria,couldWwupo.50QhtttmsNd.aott mm."uclbvthishutdames?bt?stearaey?arnenp elwty aeiselattdbfbatdott.
IrdAw tp suggestions for radttektp this btrdett. tp DsporttlMttt of Osfettee. Watthittgbtt Hssdgtmw& Servfaa. Dbectorate for Itdornts-1 OPMMMnOWA Ptajsatr.1215Jeferson
Davis Highway. Suits 1204. Ariitfgron. VA 22202-430x and to the 0Moo of Msttagsment and Budget. Paperwork ROduetion Project (071"=a ftd6 grxr DC 2605 Plssse
DO NOT RETURN your oonnptsted form to either of theee addrm eee. Completed application must be submitted to this Olstrid F.ttgk w havNq Mkdicdm own the
location of the proposed aethrily.
The Department of the Army permit program is authorized by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Section 404 of the CUM Water Ad and Section[ 103 of the Manny
Protection. Research and Sanctuaries Ac L These laws require permits authorizing activities in or affecting navigable waters of the United States. the dltdherge of dredged or fill
material into waves of the, United States. and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it Into ocean waters. lMorn adorn provided an this form will be uses
in evaluating the application[ for a permit. Information in this application is made a matter of public record through issuance of a public notice. Disclosure of the information
requested is voluntary; however. the data requested are necessary in order to communicate with the applicant and to evaluate the permit application. If necessary information is
not provided. the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location[ and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings
and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having ju nsdk:tkm over time location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
ICA! NU?ABERi o be assigned by Corps)
APPLIC - et?- l? t al - or ar?le?t i? 3. NAME. ADDRESS, AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT
. g, w, %k,:ts

Telephone no. during business hours

2. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
A/C (7-76!? - 9?c3 ? (Residence)
VC ( ) (Office)
StatemeAt of Authorization: I hereby designate and authorize .
6 f $ j ki `w s to act in my
Telephone no. during business hours behalf as my agent in the processing of this permit application and to furnish,
upon request, supplemental information in support of the application.
A/CR ) 7174-765-9336 (Residence)
(umcej
c NATUREOF,APPLICAAZIter-' ( • ?
1 DATE
ar
( ) 1 3 -3) ^
4. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY
4a. ACTIVITY
SEE ATTACHED SHEET
4b. PURPOSE
SEE ATTACHED SHEET
4c. DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL
SEE ATTACHED SHEET
ENG FORM 4345_ Son 91 EDITION OF JAN 91 IS OBSOLETE (P «w cF'
010",
i ,
Mr : 'JYUIge."`Ave
Post Office Box 68
Plumtree, NC 28664
6. WATERBODY AND LOCATION ON WATERBODY WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED
North Toe River
7. LOCATION ON LAND WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED
ADDRESS.
Just west of U.S. 19E, Just upstream from the town of Plumtree
STREET, ROAD, ROUTE OR OTHER DESCRIPTIVE LOCATION
Avery NC 28664
COUNTY STATE ZIP CODE
LOCAL GOVERNING BODY WITH JURISDICTION OVERSITE
a. Is any portion of the activity for which authorization is sought now complete? ? YES ? NO
If answer is "yes" give reasons month and year the activity was completed Indicate the existing work on the drawings.
NO
9. List ail approvals or certifications and denials received from other federal, interstate, state or local agencies for any structures, construction, discharges or other
activities described in this application.
ISSUING AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NO. DATE OF APPLICATION DATE OF APPROVAL DATE OF DENIAL
10. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the
application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to
undertake t pro activities or I am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant.
'3?zf 19,
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DA SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent it the statement in block 3 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides thal: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of The United States
knowingly and wiiM* falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a mammal fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent
steternents or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false fi uww or
fraudulent statement or entry.'shall be fined not more than $70,000 or imprisoned riot more than five years, or bofh.
(Raver" at &M MMM 4341111,11
'U,3. GovrrmW Pft tp ante 1991- 528-?'
•t• - _..
Block 4 Continued
4a. ACTIVITY
.Ga;
093 orgoS
The proposed project is the stabil.izat-ion of approximately 1000
feet of stream bank at four sites on the North Toe River near
Plumtree, North Carolina. This restoration incorporates the
techniques and stream restoration principles of Dave Rosgen
(Wildland Hydrology Consultants). Proposed activities would
result in fill below the bankfull elevation utilizing native
materials such as logs, root wads, large boulders, cobble and
gravel to protect stream banks. Fills for bank stabilization
will not exceed four feet in height and may extend waterward u?
to five feet.
The removal. of materials in the stream channel will be necessary
to establish a more stable stream cross section and to
concentrate the stream flow into a defined that Pg. This will
reduce the current velocities along the stabilized stream banks.
Excavations of the stream bottom will not exceed four feet
vett c-a. Some of the materials removed will be placed below the
bankfull elevation with the remainder placed above the bankfull
elevation.
4b. PURPOSE
The project's purpose is to stabilize highly eroding stream banks
and reduce the loss of valuable farm land and protect adjacent
land ow ers. Based on actual measurements, approximately 10 feet
(890 yd ) of pasture and top soil has been eroded in the last 3
months from site )#1. This estimate is conservative when compared
to the land owner's estimated loss of approximately 20 feet.
Additional project benefits, upon completion, will be the
reduction of sediment load and improvement in water quality and
fish habitat of the North Toe River. In addition, the
establishment of a functioning riparian area will bring long term
bank stability and improved aesthetics to the river. The work
will be on private land with several land owners cooperating.
Adjoining land use .is agricultural and residential. The dates of
planed activities are 15 April through 1 September 1993.
4c. DISCHARGE OF DRFDGED OR FILL MATERIAL
The type of fill material will be a combination of logs, root
wads with boles, large rock, cobble and gravel. Fill below
bankfull width is estimated to be 3-3. Tranuportation of
materials to the work site will be by truck.
BACKGROUND
The problem of stream bank erosion •)f t-_he Ncrth Toe Ri,7er in the
Plumtree area (Figures 1 and 2) is a result of a mill dam just
downstream of the project area and the loss of riparian
vegetation. In the recent past, some of the project area was
partially impounded by a mill dam. This caused a decrease in
stream velocities and an increase i.: sediment depoei--ion. The
increased water levels may have contributed to the loss of
riparian vegetation. With the decay of the wooden dam, the river
began to cut a lower channel, water velocities increased, and the
deposited sediments began to erode.
The loss of riparian vegetation is probably the biggest reason
for the current problems of bank erosion. The most important
factor in stream bank stability is the presence of riparian
vegetation, especially trees. Trees and other woody vegetation
are preferred to grasses because their roots grow deeper and
provide the "cement" which holds the soil in place. The depth
and density of the root mass is critical in stabilizing the
banks. The absence of a 60-100 foot wide buffer zone of trees
and shrubs along the stream banks, especially below Plumtree
Creek, has decreased bank stability and contributed to
accelerated erosion following the collapse of the dam.
An estimate of the amount of material lost from site 1 (Figure 3)
between November 5, 1992 and February 4, 1993 (3 months) is based
on field measurements taken from the location of the barbed wire
fence.
10 ft (horizontal)
6 ft (vertical)
x 400 ft (stream ength)
24,000 ft3 = 899 yd
This total does not include estimates of erosion for sites 2, 3,
and 4. It is alao conservative because the landowner at site i
states that the amount of land lost is closer to 20-30 ft
(horizontal).
In order to address the concerns of the landowners in r_hi5 area,
the U.S. Soil Conservar-ion Service contacted the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC). This document was prepared by NCWRC personnel as a
service to the landowners and as input to the C0E permitting
process. The project's purpose is to stabilize highly eroding
stream banks and reduce the loss of valuable agricultural and
residential land. Additional project benefits include the
reduction of sediment input to the river, and improvement in fish
habitat in the vicinity of the project. Finally, establishment
of a functioning riparian area will bring long term bank
stability and improve aesthetics of the river.
NORTH TOE RIVER STREAM BANK STABILIZATION AND RESTORATION PROJECT
The proposed restoration project incorporates the techniques and
stream restoration principles of Dave Rosgen (Wildland Hydrology
Consultants). Proposed activities would result in fill below the
bankfull elevation utilizing nati•re materials such as logs, root
wads, large boulders, cobble and gravel to protect stream banks.
The removal of materials in the stream channel also will be
necessary to establish a more stable stream cross section and to
concentrate the stream flow into a defined thalweg. This will
reduce the current velocities along the stabilized stream banks.
SITE DESCRIPTIONS
The bank areas needing restoration were measured on February 4,
1993, and are described as follows:
1. 420 feet of eroded stream bank used as a pasture
located on the west side of North Toe River
2. 230 feet of eroded stream bank on a residential lot
located immediately south of the mouth of Plumtree
Creek on the east side of river
3. 220 feet of eroded stream bank in a pasture located
immediately north of the mouth of Plumtree Creek on the
east side of river
4. 70 feet of eroded stream bank in a pasture located on
the east side of river below washed out tree
In order to reduce bank erosion, the impacted section of river
and had to be measured and compared to a relatively stable
section in the immediate vicinity. Transect 1 (Figure 4)
represents the stabla section and is located upetream of Plumtree
Creek about 1500 ft. It has a bankfull width of 57 ft and a
cross-sectional area of 145 ft2. Transect 2 (Figure 5) was taken
in the impacted section at sits 1. Bankfull width is 110 ft and
cross-sectional area is 200 ft .
The difference in bankfull width and area between the two sites
is symptomatic of the ergsiona roblems in the impacted section.
Based on the formula (w1 + w2 ) , bankfull width at transect 2
should be only 60 ft even though Plumtree Creek provides
additional flow at the site. An estimate of the appropriate area
is more difficult to obtain, but i5 has been estimated that
transect 2 has lost at least 30 ft of area below the bankfull
elevation in the last 3 months. This means tat the original
cross-sectional area was no more than 170 ft .

The loss of the eroded material limits the ability to completely
restore this section of river, because proper channel morphology
has been altered. Without massive fills, the cross-sectional
area can only be reduced from
(Figure 6). By deepening and
width can be reduced from 110
considerably higher than the
stretch of river.
PROPOSED WORK
Bank Stabilization
200 ft2 to 190 ft2; a 5g reduction
reshaping the channel, bankfull
ft to 85 ft, but this is still
60-70 ft aoDrooriace for this
When stabilizing a stream bank, it is necessary to provide a hard
structure, resistant to erosion, to protect the stream bank until
riparian vegetation becomes reestablished. The preferred method
is to use root wad revetments. These structures are inexpensive,
quick to install, and natural in appearance (Figure 7)-.
First, a footer log is dug into the stream bed to the level of
the thalweg and weighted down with large boulders. Next, a 10-15
toot tree trunk with the root fan attached is pushed or dug into
the bank. The root fan is placed perpendicular to the flow
(Figure 8) and below the normal water level, as much as possible,
to prevent rotting. This placement dissipates energy and
provides suitable fish habitat in the form of back water eddies.
The design is stable because as the flow increases the water
force niishes the riot fan into the bank, keeping it in place.
Large trees, of at least 10" DBH (diameter at breaet height) wili
be needed to provide both the footer log and the root wad
revetments for bank stabilization. Trees resistant to rotting,
such as hardwoods and hemlock, are preferred to pines. Trees
having large diameter root wads would require less trees for the
revetment. Based on a rate of one root wad for every 1+0-15 ft of
stream bank, the number of trees needed for each site are as
follows:
"' FS trees
1 28-42
2 15-23
3 15-22
4 7-10
1
65-100
Following the placement of the root wads, clean substrate from
the river (see Channel Alterations) will be used to fill behind
the structures to help prevent scouring. Finally, the structure
will need a high flow deflector log located at.the bank full.
elevation.
The remaining bank, above the bankfull elevation, will be sloped
at 3:1 (Figure 6). This area will then be planted with native
shrubs (such as alder, willow, sycamore, etc.) which will provide
long-term stability to the banks. Livestock should not be
allowed access to the stream banks or the vegetation for a
Channel Alteration
In order to reduce stress in the near bank regions of the outside
bend, the thalweg must be moved away from the bank and made
deeper. If the low flow channel (30 rat wide) is deepened an
average of 1 ft over a length of Sao ft, approximately 889 yd3
will be excavated.
30 ft x 1 ft x 800 ft = 24,000 4. = 889 yd3
Of this amount, approximately 300 yd3 will be used for fill below
bankfull elevation. The remaining will be used to narrow the
bankfull channel.
The thalweg currently exists only 7 ft from the outside bend.
This represents a distance that is only 6% of the bankfull width
and 121; of the width at the current water level. The thalweg
should be about 301s from the outside bend, which means that it
needs to be moved towards the center of the channel 10-25 ft from
its current position.
This aspect of the project requires the use of large machinery in
the stream. While the NCnIRC normally opposes such activities, it
is believed that the lor_g-term benefits far outweigh the short-
term impacts. Disturbance of the stream bed and short-term
increases in turbidity will be considerably less than the massive
amounts of sediment added to the river due to bank erosion.
ORDER OF WORK
This restoration work should begin on the upstream site a.id
proceed downstream. First, obstructions must be removed which
are contributing to bank erosion by directing stream flow against
unstable stream banks. Second, bank stabilization work should be
completed including cutting and sloping. Finally, the channel
alterations should be completed by moving the thalweg and
removing and sloping the materials found in the transverse bars.
Temporary vegetation of the stream banks will be needed to
minimize erosion followed by the establishment of permanent woody
vegetation. The permanent protection of the stabilized stream
banks by fencing will complete this project.
If materials are not available to complete the entire projecr_ in
a short time period (approximately 10 days), the bank
stabilization and channel alteration portions should be completed
for a site before moving to the next site.
4
distance of at least 30 feet from the top of the bank. Once the
banks are stabilized, maintenance of a healthy riparian zone will
be the most important part in the long term stability of this
area.

COSTS
The cost of the project should be approximately $10/linear foot
of stream. This cost includes the materials and equipment time
to complete the project. Cost, by site, is shown below.
Site
1 $4,200
2 2,300
3 2,200
4 700
$9,400
ALTERNATIVE MET14CDS
If riprap were to be used to stabilize the stream banks the
minimum amount necessary to stabilize 4 ft high banks-is based on
a 2:1 slope, and an additional 2 ft of top-of-bank protection.
%(8 ft x 4 ft) = 16.0 ft2
(2 ft x 1 ft) = 2.0 ft2
l6(1 ft x 1 ft) = 0.5 t2
18.5 ft2 x 930 ft = 17,205 ft3 = 637 yd3
Using class I riprap (@ $10/ton delivered), the cost of materials
alone would be about $6,400. Additional costs wouid include cite
equipment time to trench the first row of riprap, and maneuver,
slope, and properly place the remaining riprap. Based on SCS
estimates, bank stabilization that meets engineering standards
using riprap would cost about $40,000 for this project. In
addition, the riprap would not provide suitable fish habitat and
would not be visually appealing.
?f
t,
CUT AND FILL CALCULATI ONS _
Site l (420 £t linear; 6 ft high bank)
n
Fill Below Bankfull Elevation
3;f ft x 3 ft 9.0 ft2
34(1 ft x 3 ft) 1.5 ft-&
2.0.5 ft2 x 420 ft = 4,410 ft3 = 163.0 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull Elevation
-4(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 420 ft = 630 ft-3 = 23.3 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull Elevation
%(2 ft x 6 ft) = 6.0 ft2 x 420 ft = 2,520 ft3 = 93.3 yd3
ittee2 (230 ft linear; 5 ft bank height)
Fill Below Bankfull Elevation
3 ft x 3 ft = 9.0 ft2
34(1 ft x 3 ft) 1.5 t2
10.5 f*2 x 230 ft = 2,415 ft3 = 89.4 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull Elevation
%(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 230 ft = 345 ft3 = 12.8 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull Elevation
34(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 230 ft = 345 ft-1 = 12.8 yd3
Site 3 (220 ft linear; 5 ft bank height)
Fill Below Bankfull Elevation
3 ft x 3 ft = 9.0 ft2
34(1 ft x 3 ft) - 1.5 ft?
10.5 ft2 x 220 ft = 2,310 ft3 = 85.6 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull Elevation
%(I ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 220 ft = 330 ft3 = 12.2 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull Elevation
34(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 220 ft = 330 ft3 = 12.2 yd3

.
Site 4 (70 ft linear; 5 ft bank height)
Fill Below Bankfull Elevation
3 ft x 3 ft = 9.0 ft2
%(1 ft x 3 ft) - I. ft-Z
10.5 ft2 x 70 ft = 735 ft3 = 27.2 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull Elevation
%(1 ft x 3 ft) z 1.5 ft2 x 70 ft = 105 ft3 = 3.9 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull Elevation
%(1 ft x 3 ft) = 1.5 ft2 x 70 ft = 105 ft3 = 3.9 yd3
Total's
Fill Below Bankfull = 163.0 + 89.4 + 85.6 + 27.2 = 365.2 yd3
Fill Above Bankfull = 23.3 + 12.8 + 12.2 + 3.9 = 52.2 yd3
Cut Above Bankfull = 93.3 + 12.8 + 12.2 + 3.9 = 122.2 yd3
C7
CC, `?
c:n
cn- .15
X77 Cf)
i
in <l? :CS
I--
C.1
cv
c1-?
y?
Cj
cn,
w

u

L
CC5
IJ
)
C?1
(f 1
C
?l
cy-)
C1?

C ?
0
Q
W ?-- - ? N Q 0 CO co 00 CO
pp
w co
O 0 Q O?
T-

> °
?
o

. N

,.

CO

CO ?

N
k- v
N N
,..
V
.., O
N
(1) r-- N
cA
C ?-
?n O

N

.O C?

- O
?
> V r oQ

4) 4-
O
C T VJ
O O O

f
? r
? Q
.? co
LL
o

0
? O
? N

W
L-

z
A

i.

O
N
0 © 00 ?p
0 0? m d'
rn N O OQ <D
o> rn o0 00 ci
00 ° N

N J
O
v? rd m
c 4) Co
ca
t-- co
? V
n C13 I
rV
? O
d N
Z O
a
csi o c
n l?
? X13
W I1_
C
O
t0
O
O 00 (D ? N O co O IRT N
O 0) 0) 0) 0) c) co co a0 co
r

LO
N
0
m
N
O
N
N
,o
N
O
0
N
O
T
C
r .0
O
r ro
O
0
T
Q
r
O
co
T-
O
T
O
r
r
O
O
O ?-
co

CO
S: 1
J
/
1
cr.?
cD
a7
L
s.-
.-
r
tT}
it
(c?
C
L

L?
L
J
l.lJ
Q)
LL
r`.
Q1
i..

r
U
:iT
r

W l_
IJ

C0
<s cv

0
c?

G C-fj

u' (1)

4 LITHE htw w n H 1
MouNrAw •
( ?,,, A 111. ) ''?
L!!L ? 1111
y w 1111 •.,?::;/ ' • ' .
11111 .1 1111 N
WL i ' .-
TENN. H '::, r a :. 4 T Y it Lu
k"'G ir. Ytuow i 1.9 111 j
m8K 1131 FMYn.U '?.. 7? E( S-Q- MY. lOS 1 Alme w•.w.,..•.:
1? ^, 'i N ?' •. VILLAGE'
V'A? : 3? R 119 , „ J c
YaY.Y .7 Ili!- t• 1tl 1111 1]!E ? : 22
G \ Iwo
7p 11711 11L R ??1 1113 " -
'03' ( yG 11AW I11Z 1 ?
MOUNTAIN 11Z1? !1V t. _
', s, 1`• CIw.pW y l 1111 ,? { C IF.: .,:: { ? 1 1117
j 11! a Liu Od. y r 1.017 M ~ '•.7 .?
-fr 117! + f....Y q 111 NEroWr. 777 L722 w
j;:: Fra.Il ,? ?? I1L: a d 1 ;t. S tlu ? ^c?
117E . illl Llli 7 :Ill 1.. " `y 1
ti
UI" YELLOW m1m.
Ila
q '.
EIIV. 5.10{ LL1Q :;,Y .• t .? 13w, Mo1l.slra 11iO ? IiYANDMOtHtI Mlri\
111 +•.:ti t 1111 ?e: w L y 1. HEV. .a]]
po„AI71 .5/(((:?%C1. ' •. 11>y
?t? 1111 1113 Y.C,71? ML
It" (l? ,\ 1 •'rw.9! lM9w lPliww- - 12! 1w ... l. '15 ,t
I 1 L LL..1ss 197 4s.
} ? 1111 V..1!#1 11 1114 ^ f01. 747
,. ?? IIAWSMOIIE °? W.
111E u No FLC a v --Y a MTN 4 _ 21
/ Ms F 1111 ._ -
AlO1N7iAw 1111 • :. ?
ill! 1111 J1lL 1 )M a 1121 - ...-
S s-
"
lilt
`1111 t .. r 113 . ? 11}L
'? %waF 7 1 till 1 11.7'4 11? •. /t' P6wolo ?. DANIEL EOONE
\ 11 .« ?f Llli t!! S?.llu t \ L.:"iu'llssij'. o Lai WNDLIFE M`ANAGEs
r. ' 11! ?'`: 'v 311 7 M ?
STE rl
Lin r
1., 1111 7.5
,AA TOPS
«F
'j?,EtEV. 1.13 SUCK h" ryOn. Ills 191 at I"&' It, 44
?• ? : ill , ?' :i• N flrlF.e. it
91 ? r: a
Se-oo• `?, 1112r a ?• 1137'7 ?-'
'=u FNw
All-W
1111 /' ; .+1 Iul 5.1 3
0 MG SAD !1!L t. TI..i) TtIREE KNOTS • 111 t)
1? ]
T.\ HEv. 3.707 b w_ > 5 sf y' ?r5 slyl
G ` 197 \ ¢ lilt 6 l s /
YpaW YS `Y i o / '?? /
FAP .4
L.J 113L •?-
1121 Ilu U i„.111. B U R K E M
.L 1191 l32I,4 full,
1121. to , 1)11 11119
'\ _a .s •y .a { - i7i ` O U N T Y
o (v 7.0
11 "
?Tyl n,I !j1???G W ? .
Q
AIFPcA / O
1115 1 q`
1111 ,
f • 191 " IY`
?1y0 Fv- 191
_ to
10
73'53' L
` i+TAEIE LOCK
Y 1 ?
Al
O J
Q
Q
L
NOTE MAP INCLUDES ONLY STATE MAIN(AWEJ K( ,
OR IMPORTANT NON•SYSIEM ROADS.
MREAGE NOT 511OWN ON fRONIAGE XGA
ROADS SHOWN AS Of JAN. 1, 1990.
AVERY COUNTY
'? ? ? NORTH CAROLINA
14
_ f 11
r•?
27
7
1,11
r
o -

006
114
?\ \\ - it mile yp Gt ? 2
Con `e vi
t'? •?? I` \?????" ? n ? 'II, III :?„•?
1 \ -!erraY ?. I 3987
2840 ASH C
112839
- Ye lbw M main _
\• •• I Sim 5 \ ?? n 111A ?? 1123
it1 Bch
1 r .) 1 n ? \ifi;
IAA
\ i ? ,\?` ? T 1 =? ` it lit
4, T
2'30' 407
8230
i Mrl E
81
1690'
8.1 15
01.,0_ r .
-I'j-
-S -
i. H1Rhwav f 'O
_ 35 30' -TENN.
? 30
narv Stale I tlKhw:iv CARVERS GAP, N. C.
N3600•W8200/7.5
-ondary Stale I IrKhwav
1960
est H1Rhw,'Y l
-- - - `r DMA 4556 II SE-SERIES V842
Pct Road
15 IN1 I I
PSt Trail At 15' P;' All
PISGAH NATIONAL FOREST
QUADRANGLE LOCATION DIAGRAM
ll
? 1 \\I
° I f Ir' - x' n A 3986
.72C0
g,
l
Ott II j `A Gap J 3985^fl.
!1 0 ) M11'e 5 (
11(?il( 1 \ ( SI T /? V II f 610000 TENN.
FEET
36'00'
I GALLS 2.1 MI.
IIS RUCE PONE 9.0 MI. 82'00'
90 409?'10inE. TENN. 3 180000 FEET
F
T
?S