20051703 Ver 1_Complete File_20070827

O
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 19, 2005
Ricky McDevitt, County Manager
Madison County
Post Office Box 579
Marshall, NC 28753
DWQ Project # 05-1703
Madison County
PWc
oodPD
SEP 2 1 2485
Subject Property: Bailey Branch EWP (DSR Sites -1a, 1b. 2, 3, ?t,V1ATCRaunut`r
3 1: aTO?:,r?'?ATE R biZ1.,1GN
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. McDevitt:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed
below, to place fill within or otherwise impact 355 feet of streams for the purpose of
streambank stabilization and woody debris removal / trash removal at the subject
properties, as described within your application received by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) on September 6, 2005. After reviewing your application, we have
decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number(s)
3367 (3367). The Certification(s) allows you to use Nationwide Permit(s) 37 when
issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, you should obtain or
otherwise comply with any other required federal, state or local permits before you go
ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control,
Non-discharge, and stormwater regulations. Also, this approval to proceed with
your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your
application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
This approval is for the purpose that you described in your application. (Nothing in this
approval should be interpreted as giving permission to remove bedload material
form the existing channel, nor allowing for the construction of berms which
would not allow the stream access to it's floodplain.) If you change your project
beyond the approval here, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a
new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all
conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of wetland
or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in
the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone]/ Internet http://h2o. en r. state, nc. us/ncwetlands
#? r
ac V? ,r
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Madison County:
Page 2 of 6
September 19, 2005
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific
and general conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met.
No other impacts are approved including incidental impacts:
Amount
Approved (Units) Plan Location or Reference
Stream 355 feet Big Pine Creek
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all
specifications governing the proper design, installation and operation and
maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect surface
waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be
designed, installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning
and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and
erosion control measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the
requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on
all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including
contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be
designed, installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most
recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the
reclamation in accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act.
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian
areas beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre-Construction
Notification. All construction activities, including the design, installation, operation,
and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices,
shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes,
or rules occur.

Madison County:
Page 3 of 6
September 19, 2005
4. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters
to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control
devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the
natural grade restored within six months of the date that the Division of Land
Resources has released the project.
5. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification
or applicable Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is
required to return the attached certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1650.
6. Construction in this creek and disturbance within a 25-foot trout buffer should be
avoided during the October 15 to April 15 trout spawning period to avoid adverse
effects of sediment on eggs and larvae, where applicable. However, Wildlife
Resources Commission will not object to construction of Natural Resources
Conservation Service "urgent and compelling" sites during the spawning period
provided these projects are, to the extent appropriate and practical, constructed by:
(1) using flow diversion structures such as sand bags, (2) placing large-sized rock
toes and filter cloth backing for stabilization sites before backfilling, and (3)
excavating new channel alignments in dry areas. Construction at the other non-
"urgent and compelling" sites should not occur during the spawning period to
minimize the potential adverse effects of multiple construction activities on trout
resources in this creek.
7. Sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to construction
and maintained on the sites to minimize sediment in downstream areas. Seeding for
a temporary cover of wheat, millet, or similar annual grain or permanent herbaceous
cover should occur on all bare soil within five (5) days of ground disturbing activities
to provide long-term erosion control. The projects should be accomplished in stages
instead of leaving large tracts exposed to further storm events. Erosion control
matting should be used in conjunction with appropriate seeding on disturbed soils in
steep slope and riparian areas. Matting should be secured in place with staples,
stakes, or, wherever possible, live stakes of native trees. Straw mulch and tall
fescue should not be used in riparian areas. In addition, because of an anticipated
difficulty in establishing ground cover during the winter, reseeding should be
conducted, as necessary, in the spring-time with a native annual and perennial seed
mix with a temporary nursery crop of wheat, millet or other grain.
Madison County:
Page 4 of 6
September 19, 2005
8. Only clean, large, angular rock, large woody material, or other natural stream design
materials and techniques should be used for bank stabilization. Rock should not be
placed in the stream channel in a manner that constricts stream flow or that will
impede aquatic life movements during low flow conditions. Filter cloth should be
placed behind large rock that is used for bank stabilization. Properly designed rock
vanes should be constructed wherever appropriate on bank stabilization and
channel realignment stream reaches to improve channel stability and to improve
aquatic habitat. Root wads should be installed low enough in the bank so that a
significant portion (at least one-third) the root wad is inundated during normal flows.
9. The channel should be restored to a more stable condition. However, under no
circumstances should river rock, sand or other materials be dredged from the
stream channel under authorization of this permit except, if necessary, in the
immediate vicinity of the eroding banks for the explicit purpose of anchoring
stabilizing or flow/grade control structures or for reestablishing the natural
and more stable stream channel dimensions. Stream bed materials are unstable
in flowing-water situations and are unsuitable for bank stabilization. In stream
dredging has catastrophic effects on aquatic life and disturbance of the natural form
of the stream channel can cause downstream erosion problems. The natural
dimension, pattern, and profile of the stream upstream and downstream of the
permitted area should not be modified by widening the stream channel or changing
its depth.
10. Stabilization measures should only be applied on or near existing erosion sites,
leaving other stable stream bank areas in a natural condition. Grading and
backfilling should be minimized and tree and shrub growth should be retained where
possible to ensure long term availability of stream bank cover for aquatic life and
wildlife. Backfill materials should be obtained from upland sites except in cases
where excess stream bed materials are available. Berms should not be permitted
because they block the floodplain, constrict and accelerate flood flows, and often fail
and sometimes impede drainage during large flood events.
11. Repairs to eroded banks should be conducted in a dry work area where possible.
Sandbags or other clean diversion structures should be used where possible to
minimize excavation in flowing water. Channel realignments should be constructed
by excavating the new channel from downstream to upstream before connecting it to
the old channel.
12. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank whenever possible. All
mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be inspected and
maintained regularly to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other toxic materials. Equipment used in stream
channel must be clean, new or low hour equipment.
13. Disturbed stream banks and a 25-foot vegetated zone, or the widest width that is
practical under the site conditions, should be restored where possible along the
construction sites to natural riparian conditions with native trees and shrubs (e.g.,
silky dogwood, rhododendron, dog hobble, red maple, silky willow, tag alder, black
willow, sycamore) to provide long-term bank stability and stream shading. Note,
silky dogwood, silky willow and black willow can be planted as live stakes collected
Madison County:
Page 5 of 6
September 19, 2005
during the dormant growing season. Cuttings should be randomly planted on four
(4) foot centers from the waters edge to the top of the bank. Trees should be planted
on ten (10) to twelve (12) foot centers. Stream banks in these areas should also be
seeded with a native annual and perennial seed mix with a temporary nursery crop
of wheat, millet or other grain.
14. If pasture along the stream is to be used for grazing, a fence must be constructed
outside of the riparian zone and the stream to prevent livestock from entering these
areas.
15. Diffuse Flow
All constructed stormwater conveyance outlets shall be directed and maintained
as diffuse flow at non-erosive velocities through the protected riparian zones
such that it will not re-concentrate before discharging into a stream. If this is not
possible, it may be necessary to provide stormwater facilities that are considered
to remove nitrogen. This may require additional approval from this Office.
16. Riparian Zone Replanting
Replanting of vegetation within disturbed areas located within 25 feet of the
streambank associated with any land disturbing activity, repair, replacement
and/or maintenance must be done in a manner consistant with the Guidelines
for Riparian Buffer Restoration immediately following construction. (Please
see attached.)
17. Deed Notifications
Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all retained
jurisdictional wetlands, waters and protective woody riparian zones in order to
assure compliance for future wetland, water and buffer impact. These
mechanisms shall be put in place prior to impacting any wetlands, waters and/or
buffers approved for impact under this Certification Approval and Authorization
Certificate. A sample deed notification can be downloaded from the
401/ Wetlands Unit web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. The text of
the sample deed notification may be modified as appropriate to suit to this
project.
18. Turbidity Standard
The turbidity standard of 10 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) shall not be
exceeded as described in 15 A NCAC 2B. .0200. Appropriate sediment and
erosion control practices must be used to meet this standard.
19. No Sediment and Erosion Control Measures in Wetlands
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters
to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control
devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the
natural grade restored within six months of the date that the Division of Land
Resources or locally delegated program has released the project.
Madison County:
Page 6 of 6
September 19, 2005
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification
and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your
proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application and
as authorized by this'Certification, shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA
Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the
approved wetland or stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 1508 of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you
ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly in the
Central Office in Raleigh at 919-733-9721 or Mr. Kevin Barnett in the DWQ Asheville
Regional Office at 828-296-4657.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
AW Klkhb
Enclosures: GC 3367
Certificate of Completion
Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration
cc: Micky Clemmons, Senior Scientist
Buck Engineering
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
DWQ 401 Central Office
DLR Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 05-1703.EWP.BaileyBranch.Approval
Triage Check List
Date: 09/12/05 Project Name: Bethel Elementary School
DWQ #:05-1705
County: Haywood
Kevin Barnett, Asheville Regional Office
To:
60-day Processing Time: 9/06/05 to 11/04/05
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone: [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!
SUJCK,?
September 1, 2005
NC Division of Water Quality
Att: Cyndi Karoly
401/Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
I: u.i .1 S u i t U

Subject: EWP permitting information for DSR 2, sites la, lb, 2, 3, and 4 on Bailey Branch,
Madison County, NC.
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Enclosed with this letter are four (4) copies of the Pre-Construction Notification, site plans, and
other pertinent information that are being submitted for regulatory review. I spoke to Kevin
Barnett and he told me to send the fifth copy directly to him to save your office the time and
resources of forwarding it back to him. We have also submitted this information to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and N.C. Land Quality Section
for their review. We are providing this information for your department's consideration and
comments relative to 401 permitting.
We believe that these sites are exempt from the need for an approved erosion control plan
because sites are either on land used for agriculture or will impact less than 1 acre. Even though
an erosion control plan is not required we have completed one for our work in Madison County
and have attached these guidelines with previous submittals. We also don't believe that a trout
buffer waiver is required for these projects since those that are not on agricultural land,are less
than 100 feet in lengthand this is not DWQ trout water. We believe the quick repair of these
damaged stream sites will result in an improvement to existing aquatic habitat and will promote
more stable channel conditions in the long-term.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have any questions, please contact me as
soon as possible at 828-350-1408 ext. 2002 or 828-734-7445.
Sincerely,
Micky Clemmons
Senior Environment Scientist
D
CEP ? 2?0
;,,du
.?dDS 't

Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 37
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Mr. Rickv McDevitt. Madison Countv Manager
Mailing Address: Madison County Courthouse,
Main Street,
PO Box 579,
Marshall, NC 28753
Telephone Number: 828-649-2854 Fax Number: 828-649-1021
E-mail Address: nncdevitt(a,madisoncountync.org
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Micky Clemmons, Senior Scientist
Company Affiliation: Buck Engineering PC
Mailing Address: 797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Telephone Number: 828-350-1408 Fax Number: 828-350-1409
E-mail Address: mclemmonspbucken 'neering.com
Page 1 of 9
111. Project Information
6
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Madison County EWP DSR 2 - Bailey Branch, Sites: la, lb, 2, 3, 4, _
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): See attached Table 1.
4. Location
County: Madison Nearest Town: Marshall
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The location of each site is
attached on the EWP Index Map and provided in each individual site repair plan.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): Attached in site repair plan
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Property size (acres): N/A
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Big Pine Creek
8. River Basin: French Broad River
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: A site specific description is in each site plan. Sites la, lb
2, and 3 are on residential property. Site 4 is on property used for agriculture. The land use
on these sites is some combination of agricultural residential, and road shoulder.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Specific
Page 2 of 9
repair activities for each site are provided in the site repair plans which are attached. Repair
activities proposed for these sites include: removing coarse sediment deposits (rocky debris)
from the channel to return the channel to the proper dimension and profile, installing vane
structures to protect unstable stream banks grading bankfull benches in areas where the
channel can no longer access its floodplain removing unstable woody debris, and grading
and planting unstable stream banks to provide long-term stability. This work will require the
use of a trackhoe with hydraulic thumb and a dump truck to haul boulders to the site and to
remove rock debris from the site.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: This work is being done as part of the
Emergency Watershed Protection program that counties impacted by 2 Hurricanes in the Fall
of 2004 are carrying out. The purpose of the work is to repair damaged stream reaches that
are unstable and continuing to cause losses to personal and public property and to public
resources by degrading water quality and other natural resources.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
To our knowledge permits have not been issued for work at these sites in the past.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
Page 3 of 9
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Impacts from this work will be
minimized whenever possible. However to accomplish these needed repairs impacts maybe
realized from temporary increased turbidity, removal of aggraded bed material and temporary
loss of herbaceous vegetation. Long-term impacts will be an increase in stream bank
stability, stable dimension and profile, and improved vegetative cover.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(cs/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at ht!p://www.ferna.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Length
Stream Impact of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on map) (linear Before Impact (please specify)
feet
la Streambank 90' Big Pine Creek 20' Perennial
stabilization
lb Same as above 70' Big Pine Creek 20' Perennial
2 Same as above 20' Big Pine Creek 20' Perennial
3 Same as above 100' Big Pine Creek 21' Perennial
4 Same as above 75' Big Pine Creek 21' Perennial
Page 4 of 9
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightcning, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 355'
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Watcrbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.
N/A

" List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Access to each site will be over the most stable route possible and movement of vehicles over
access routes will be minimized. Wherever possible equipment work will be done from the
stream bank. Operating equipment within the channel will be done when this is the only way to
Page 5 of 9
accomplish needed work Excavated material will be moved directly to trucks for hauling to
disposal sites when it will not be used on site. When excavated material will be used on site it
will be handled as few times as possible Work at each site will be accomplished as quickly as
possible and the site will be stabilized with erosion control matting and seeding within 5 days of
site completion Trees will be planted during the next dormant season. Equipment leaking any
fluids will not be used and if leaks occur during construction the equipment will be replaced or
repaired immediately. Sediment and erosion control measures including silt fence, stoned
entrances, protected stock pile areas, diversions and check dams, will be employed to minimize
sediment movement off site.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
Page 6 of 9
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 7 of 9
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* (s Im eacfeet) t Multiplier MitRequired
ate n
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
There will be no chance in impervious acreage. Existing nroiect sites are residential or
agricultural lands and will remain in this land use. Proposed repair work will not alter runoff of
storm water from each site. The end result of this proposed work will be stream banks that are
better able to withstand the erosive forces generated by storm flows.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A waste water will not be generated by this project
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
Page 8 of 9
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
j_.? .361 1 0?--
App ant/Agent's Signature 1Jate '
(Agent's sign ture is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
-? s
S2
? foot S Ily9g. f
um .uw
C21 a°t a
a., d
IS2 z
?f ? • ,5•x.1 w .. u,,,,
'gad. "d C20
?r J aR•ll 'r ' 'k'l, q
rrn t> Y r:
i N• Z
s
IN, .: a. gq a
aa•?b ? ? 4?,? ? ?' j A
,a f Ufa aatf? a
C251
w,( 'AA a Ji to •???>
^^,;? w:a >a, A The sites included in this package are circled in red above. Site 4 is
shown as a solid blue circle without the black dot in the center.
l \ s y a ?,.. ?.` 1 t?
C20 C6
9 l n F ???'„? app. ??
` 9u 9 ..

r

1

BUCK I
iND
Madison County EWP
. DSRS
nSR Sims by Group ? 3 ? 6 C) 10 Index Map of DSR Groups

Field Crow: 1 O

• 2 (?
4 O a e
0
0
11
0 0.5 1 2
® Miles
71mNDmt°: 9
5 12
Lat. & Lonq (dd.dddd
DSR SITE PIN NAME 1
ADDRESS 2
CITY/STATE ZIPCODE
Bailey Branch Group
BB1a 9705493323 PONDER, WARREN P.O. BOX 276 MARSHALL, N.C.
BB1a 9705494187 ROBERTS, ELBERT LEE 1881 BAILEY'S BRANCH ROAD MARSHALL, N.C.
BB1b 9705497181 PONDER, WARREN P.O. BOX 276 MARSHALL, N.C.
BB1b 9705494187 ROBERTS, ELBERT LEE 1881 BAILEY'S BRANCH ROAD MARSHALL, N.C.
BB2 9705494187 PONDER, WARREN P.O. BOX 276 MARSHALL, N.C.
BB3 9705485191 OWENBY, RONALD KEITH & AMANDA 580 BAILEY BRANCH ROAD MARSHALL, N. C.
BB4 9705453915 PAYNE, SALLIE & ROBERT 2350 BAILEY BRANCH ROAD MARSHALL, N.C.
28753 35.7802 82.6951
28753 35.7800 82.6950
28753 35.7801 82.6943
28753 35.7799 82.6944
28753 35.7791 82.6941
28753 35.7769 82.6941
28753 35.7732 82.6937
To Whom It May Concern:
I, Ricky McDevitt, County Manager for Madison County, attest to the fact that Madison Count has
entered into a contract with Buck Engineering PC, a North Carolina professional corporation, to
provide engineering services for carrying out the Emergency Watershed Protection Program.
Relative to this contractual relationship Buck Engineering will act as the Counties agent for the
purpose of accomplishing this work. Specifically, Buck Engineering's employees may take those
actions necessary to obtain environmental permits from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, N. C.
Division of Water Quality, and N. C. Division of Land Quality.
C
Ricky McDevitt , G County Manager for Madison County
Date:
Office: Madison County Courthouse, Main Street, PO Box 579, Marshall, NC 28753
Plan Review Checklist
EWP--Madison County, North Carolina
DSR 2 - Bailey Branch, Sites 1a, lb, 2, 3, and 4
French Broad River Basin
I Russell Blevins , the Natural Resource Conservation Service Agent for
Madison County, have reviewed the stream repair plans listed below. These plans have
been prepared by Buck Engineering PC to accomplish stream repair under the Emergency
Watershed Protection Program being administered by Madison County. The following
table summarizes my comments on these plans:
DSR 6 - Little Pine Creek
Site Approve Disapprove Approve with Modifications
BB- la
BB - lb
BB-2
BB-3
BB-4
Additional comments:
Natural Resource Conservation Service Agent
Agtnt's Sigaahua
O.=) •? CM"TMCC'rnI "=TC_C"0_000 MnT-j-jn HCa IjnCTnHl.l!l.ln>to CT :CT CSMP-T-Aqq
USDA/NRCS
4388 Hwy 25/70, Suite 2
Marshall, NC 28753
Subject: Cultural Resources Literature Search and Survey Results for Madison County NRCS Planned
EWP Undertakings
To: Russell C. Blevins, NRCS District Conservationist
From : Jim Errante
USDA-NRCS, CRS SC & NC 1835 Assembly St., Rm 950
Columbia SC 29201
Phone: [phone]
The following list of DSR's were reviewed by Jim Errante, NRCS Cultural Resources Specialist (CRS). A
literature search for each planed practice location took place in the Archaeological Map room of the NC Office
of State Archaeology. Each location was reviewed for the potential of NRCS planned activities to effect
cultural resources (CR's). In addition, photographs of the APE's were often reviewed and discussions were
held with knowledgeable field office staff and/or the engineering staff in order to determine the potential of
planned activities to effect CR's at each EWP practice location. Each practice location received a ranking of
a low, medium or high potential to effect CR's.
All EWP practice locations receiving a medium or high ranking to effect cultural resources were
archeologically surveyed by the NRCS CRS. Archaeological survey procedures included reconnaissance
survey of all visible soils in the area including river bank profiles and shovel testing. All shovel tested soils
were screened through V4 inch hardware mesh. The following Excel file list of EWP locations includes a
statement describing the results of this survey work. The NRCS CRS maintains the field work details of the
archaeological survey at each APE. Any questions concerning the results of these survey results as listed
below should contact the NRCS CRS for further explanation.
DSR # Topo Comments
1 Spring Creek No previously recorded CR's along this planned APE. NRCS planned
assistance along this APE appears to have a Low Potential to effect CR's.
Recommendation: F.O. to survey this location.
2 Marshal Three areas associated with this DSR were surveyed by CR Specialist on
4/28/05. No CR's were observed. No high probability landforms are in these
APE's. The locations have been very disturbed by agricultural practices and
reveal no evidence of cultural resources.
3 Marshal Location has a low potential for CR's to exist. F.O. to survey this location
4 Spring Creek Location has a low potential for CR's to exist. F.O. to survey this location
5 Spring Creek Location has a low potential for CR's to exist. F.O. to survey this location
6 Spring Creek Location has a low potential for CR's to exist. F.O. to survey this location
7 Spring Creek Location has a low potential for CR's to exist. F.O. to survey this location
8 Spring Creek Location has a low potential for CR's to exist. F.O. to survey this location
9 Sandy Mush Five location associated with this DSR were surveyed by CR Specialist on
4/28/05. No CR's were observed. No high probability landforms are in these
APE's
10 Sandy Mush Several areas associated with this DSR were surveyed by CR Specialist on
4/28/05. No CR's were observed. No high probability landforms are in these
APE's. The location is has been extrememly disturbed by past flooding
episodes and agricultural activities.
11 Leicester Location has a low potential for CR's to exist. F.O. to survey this location
12 Marshal This location was surveyed by CR Specialist on 4/28/05. This APE has a very
low potential to effect CR's.
Madison SWCD
4388 US Hwy.25/70, Suite 2
Marshall, NC 28753
[phone]
Subject: Cultural Resources Survey Results for Madison County EWP Undertakings
Bailey Mundy, Soil Conservationist, Madison County reviewed available information on
DSR sites on 4-28-05 with Jim Errante, USDA-NRCS CRS SC & NC.
On 5-2-05 and 5-3-05, Bailey Mundy, inspected DSR's 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11. The visual
inspection and on site survey of all visible soils in the area including river bank profiles
found no evidence of cultural resources at any location.
Bailey Mundy or SWCD representative will continue to monitor sites as EWP projects
are undertaken.
_E;7 0-?U ?r?
Bailey Mundy
Soil Conservationist
Madison County SWCD

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
June 16, 2005
Mr. Bailey Mundy
Madison County Office
Natural Resources Conservation Service
4388 Highway 25/70, Suite2
Marshall, North Carolina 28753
Dear Mr. Mundy:
On June 1, 2005, we received the Emergency Watershep Protection (EWP) Site Environmental
Review Checklists for the following sites in Madison County:
Sites
BB I BP7 LP4 SM7
BB2 BP8 - LP5 SP1
13133 BP9 LP6 SP2
BP1 CFI LP7 SP3
BP 10 CF2 LP8 SP4
BP 11 CF3 LS 1 SP5
BP 12 CF4 LS2 WL1
BP13 CF5 LS3 WL10
BP 14 FR1 LS4 WL11
BP 15 FR2 RB 1 WL 12
BP 16 FR3 RB2 WL 13
BP 17 FR4 RB3 WL2
BP 18 FR5 R134 WL3
BP 19 FR6 RB5 WL4
BP2 FR7 SM1 WL5
BP20 FR8 SM2 WL6
BP3 FR9 SM3 WL7
BP4 LP I SM4 WL8
BP5 LP2 SM5 WL9
BP6 LP3 SM6
We have reviewed the site locations and discussed the EWP measures with design consultants at
Buck Engineering. The following comments are provided in accordance with the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703, et seq.); section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act); and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C.
661 et seq.).
Emergency Watershed Protection. Flood damage to stream banks and channels occurred in
the watersheds of several streams in western North Carolina from extreme flows during and
following extensive rainfall associated with two storms in September 2004. Assistance to North
Carolina counties is proposed under the EWP Program of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). According to 7 CFR, Part 624.2, "The objective of the EWP program is to
assist in relieving imminent hazards to life and property from floods and the products of erosion
created by natural disasters that cause a sudden impairment of a watershed."
We previously provided the following recommendations to minimize and avoid potential adverse
impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
Stream Channel and Bank Reconstruction/Restoration Activities. These
guidelines are the criteria that we believe need to be met in order to minimize
environmental impacts. If an applicant agrees to follow these guidelines, this
letter may serve as evidence of consultation under the FWCA, and further
consultation with us under the FWCA will not be necessary (unless the NRCS
desires additional input).
• Recommended Native Plant Species for Stream Restoration in North Carolina.
We recommend the use of native plants in restoration and erosion-control
efforts. This document provided a list of suitable species and sources.
We found the maps helpful for pinpointing the location of each proposed EWP project site. We
do note that each of the sites is located within the French Broad River basin.
Endangered Species. According to our records and a review of the information you provided,
no listed species or their habitats occur on the sites described. We concur with the determination
that the activities proposed at these sites will not affect endangered or threatened species or their
habitats. Therefore, we believe the requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled.
However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was
not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that
may be affected by the identified action.
If we can be of assistance or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
Mr. Mark A. Cantrell of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-05-236.
Sinc rely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Scott McLendon, Chief, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Mr. Michael J. Hinton, EWP Program Manager, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, Raleigh, NC 27609
Mr. Mickey Clemmons, Buck Engineering, 797 Haywood Road, Suite 201, Asheville, NC 28806
797 Haywood Road
BUCK Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Phone: [phone]
E N G I N E E R I N G Fax: [phone]
www.buckengineering.com
I.J1 1:4 jil*,A
To: Review Agencies
From: Micky Clemmons
Date: September 1, 2005
Re: Erosion Control Plans and Details and Specifications
Please note that we have not attached our Erosion Control Plan or Details and
Specifications with this permit submittal. We have submitted this information with a
number of our earlier submittals and felt that it was a waste of resources and your
time to continue to submit the same information repeatedly.
Even though this information has not been submitted with the PCN and request for
review, we will be applying the same erosion control practices and attention to this
detail, as before. The Details and Specifications will be the same for this work as
what you have already seen and this information has been, and will continue to be,
supplied to all of our sub-contractors.
If this approach is unsatisfactory to you or your agency, please let me know and I will
quickly forward this information to you for this submittal and return to including it with
all future submittals.
Micky Clemmons
Senior Scientist
828-350-1408 x2002
Or 828-734-7445
EWP-Madison County, North Carolina
DSR 2 - Bailey Branch
French Broad River Basin
1.8 square mile watershed
Site ]a - 35.7802'N, 82.6951 ° IV
Site lb - 35.7801-N, 82.6943- TV
Site 2 - 35.7791 ° N, 82.6941 ° TV
Site 3 - 35.7769°N, 82.6941 ° TV
1.26 square mile watershed
Site 4 - 35.7732°N, 82.6937° IV
Scope of Work
These sites are on Bailey Branch off of Bailey Branch Road (SR 1001) about 1.5 miles south of
downtown Marshall.
The right bank of Site 1 a is owned by Warren Ponder of Madison County. There is a home on
this side of the creek and the land use is lawn. As a result of the floods of 2004, the right bank
has eroded dangerously close to the home. Elbert Lee Roberts of Madison County owns the left
bank of this site, which is grown up with brush and trees. The design approach at this site will be
to remove storm debris, both woody and sediment, from the stream channel. Boulder toe
protection shall be installed and the banks graded, seeded, matted, and live staked in the area of
the bank failure.
The left bank of Site lb is owned by Elbert Lee Roberts of Madison County and the right bank
belongs to Warren Ponder of Madison County. High flows through this meander have eroded
the right bank, leaving it bare, vertical, and unstable. The right bank at this site is wooded hill
slope and the left bank is adjacent to residential property. The approach at this site will be to
install boulder toe protection, seed, matting, and live stakes on the right bank of this reach. In
areas of coarse sediment deposition, sediment deposits shall be removed and the thalweg
centered in the channel.
Both banks of Site 2 belong to Warren Ponder of Madison County. Land use on the both sides of
the creek is residential. There is a condemned church building on the property adjacent to the
left bank at a culvert outlet. Flood flows from the 2004 hurricanes washed away a stream-side
rock retaining wall, the soil behind the retaining wall, and a large section of the basement wall of
the building. Repair measures at this site will be to install a backfilled boulder wall to replace
the retaining wall destroyed by the storms. No work will be done on the church structure.
The banks of Site 3 belong to Ronald and Amanda Owenby of Madison County. Both sides of
the creek are residential property. High flows have caused erosion on the right bank immediately
downstream of a concrete retaining wall and on the left bank about 100 feet downstream of a
retaining wall. The design approach at this site will be to install a boulder toe with backfill
immediately downstream of the concrete retailing wall. About 100 feet downstream in the area
of left bank erosion, sediment deposits shall be excavated from the channel, the eroded left bank
shall be graded to a stable slope, and a bankfull bench shall be excavated on the right bank.
Trees will not be removed for bench excavation.
The banks of Site 4 belong to Robert and Sallie Payne of Madison County. The right side of the
creek is road shoulder and the left is used for agricultural purposes. During the floods of
September, 2004, a 75 linear foot section of the left bank at this site slid into the channel and was
washed downstream. This left a steep vertical bank that has almost undermined one corner of
the Payne's barn. This site will be repaired by installing a boulder toe up to the bankfull
elevation. This will reduce the width to the proper cross-section which is proposed as the
typical. Filter fabric will be placed behind the boulders and this area filled and sloped to match
the bank upstream and downstream of the site.
Quantities - Site la
Item Unit Quantity
Channel cut cy 20
Channel fill cy 10
Boulders 2x3x4 in size tons 50
100% Coconut fiber coir matting yds 90
Filter fabric yds 60
Seeding Sq.ft. 1,200
Live stakes ea 200
Quantities - Site lb
Item Unit Quantity
Boulders 2x3x4 in size tons 40
100% Coconut fiber coir matting yds 50
Filter fabric yds 50
Seeding Sq.ft. 420
Live stakes ea 210
Quantities - Site 2
Item Unit Quantity
Boulders 2x3x4 in size tons 20
100% Coconut fiber coir matting yds 25
Filter fabric yds 15
Seeding Sq.ft. 200
Trees - bare root or containerized ea 5
Quantities - Site 3
Item Unit Quantity
Channel cut cy 115
Boulders 2x3x4 in size tons 15
100% Coconut fiber coir matting yds 200
Filter fabric yds 15
Seeding Sq.ft. 2,400
Live stakes ea 40
Quantities - Site 4
Item Unit Quantity
Channel cut cy 50
Boulders 2x3x4 in size tons 31
100% Coconut fiber coir matting yds 83
Filter fabric yds 133
Seeding Sq.ft. 1125
Live stakes ea 90
1, - imp
" '?. ? s??"`' +1 ? a .? ,. '?, ? • _
Site vp ._?
Y_
41 1 It
r !.
10
j4?
441 ?' . Site 2? . r y=-
?_.' r,€
Oil
a T ? OF
r Lp r
40
ite 3
Bailey B ch ?, -
DSR 1`
SuNNfa
3
cu ,
47
•
_ E
44 Site,
.
T F
*i a
! !? r* 7
?? o,
27.7

1005
1004-
1003
1002
1001
1000
0 999
998
W 997
996
995
994
993
992
0.0

Grade bank failure to
_ LI blend with upstream and
i - downstream conditions.
Remove rocky and Live stake at a 4 foot
woody debris in
h
l
d
t spacing.
anne
an
cen
er
c
thalweg \
I
N

Bank full

...... .. . ..... .... .......
Boulder toe

man '- protection ---
0 5 10
Bailey Branch Site 1a
iV1UU1 Dnr LJC UI LJE: U1 VV/U Dri MdUU CI"[ Dnr r-MV
18.3 1.5 2.2 12.1 0.000 1.4 994.7
Proposed Typical Cross-section (blue) overlaid on Cross-section 1a (pink)
Annly for annroximateiv 90 linear feet
15 20 25
Station (ft)
30 35 40 45
Looking upstream Bailey Branch
Notice the tree stump in the
stream
Bailey Branch
Site la
Looking upstream Bailey Branch
with the main problem area
near the corner of the house
Looking across Bailey Branch
at the main problem area
caused by the tree falling during
the hurricane and the root mass
and stump directing flow into the
right bank.

BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
24.2 15.74 1.54 2.99 10.25 1.9 1.7 994 996.64

1000 Cross-section at Site 1 b
Install Live Stakes at a
99$ 2 foot spacing in bare
C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - areas above boulder ----- -------------
,°
- 996 toe
„
m 994 Boulder toe
W for 70
protection
t
,
992
ear ear (feet
lin
+{`
990
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station Bankfull O - - Floodprone
I ? -
.S:r mob.
a,
Looking downstream
from the left bank
Bailey Branch Site 2
Boulders shall be placed and backfilled with soil to fill the gap in the wall caused by 2004 storms.
Boulders and backfill shall be placed no higher than the basement floor elevation.
r ???
BKF Area
28.0

1001
1000
999
998
0 997
996
W 995
994
993
992

Remove sediment
deposits and center
thalweg
Rock
wall
Bankfull

2:1 slo
bankfu pe from
ll to existing
ground. Seed, mat,
and live stake at 4' Bench, then
slope at 3:1 to
LI spacing. 4 base of wall
0 5 10
Bailey Branch Site 3
Max BKF
BKF
20.0 1.4 1.9 1 14.3 1 1.6 1 994.1
Proposed Typical Cross-section (blue) overlaid on Cross-section 2 (pink)
Apply for approximately 80 linear feet
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Station (ft)
2 )? I fi11t.? ! `y 1stm •s. I i r
A 41
4.. 0.v >r '? t-•. .f?-?+.y"' tt `?'? ? 1 , / ? ?fl ??? °
24
';" Bailey "-
- Branch
w r)
vn, A,
' CR
j IF Stt .4 '~ 1- - f
Bailey Branch Site 3
Install a boulder toe in this
_ area and backfill with
ltv"-:? stream bed material, 30,x
? Yom` .A? `?F?? ' ?.-a,. ?,{ ?' ?,;' ?F??' r? ,ty-., a ?. ,3='?° ' i?' _ ? J?i1? ` '• { ?.q:
d-
t? ` . Bailey Branch
y,rr
t
Ip? t , I " N
i „y s
1004
1002
C
1000
R
998
W
996
994
am BKF Max BKF
?e BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio
c 21.6 18.01 1.2 1.6 15.03 1.6
Cross-section 1 at Bailey Branch site 4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station Bankfull o - Floodprone
BKF Max B KF
BKF Area BKF Width Depth Dept h W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
23.86 15.0 1.6 2.5 9.4 1.004 2.0 997.4 1001.1
Proposed Typical Cross-section overlaid on Cross-section 1 at site 4, Bailey Branch
1003

1002 Slide area where the bank will
1001
1000 be constructed with a boulder
toe and fill sloped from the top

0 999
998

W 997
ti
7
?
T

996 E i
l
995 ?

994
0 5 10 15 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 50
Station (ft)

Vj, 71r,, 171
4+ Li.»- j <.yji
View upstream from the end of the site. The stream bank on the right side of this photo
slid into the channel and washed away during the floods of 2004.

r!r $•
A ?J y
It, 4
VA6
View upstream from the middle of the site showing the over wide reach where the
left bank slide into the channel, almost undermining the corner of the barn.
x t,

View downstream showing the end of the slid
be the end of the boulder toe protected bank.
K•
47 *41
F
area near the bedrock. This will
OL'T F, @[Rowlm n
C\-ka-os Q -
Certification of Completion JAN 6 -.2006
DWQ Project No.: 05-1703 County: Madison t4 DENR"wATER^QUHLITY
Applicant: Mr. Ricky McDevitt, Madison County Manager / agent Buck Engineering PC
Project Name: Bailey Branch EWP (DSR - 2; sites 1 a, 1 b, 2, 3, and 4)
Date of Issuance of Isolated Wetland Permit: Sentember 19. 2005
Certificate of ComDletion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, and any
subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401 /Wetlands Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent or the project engineer. It is not necessary to
send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was
used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Date:
Agent's Certification
I y l I t f C k y i fi l I ? pit it is W- 1-S hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was
used in the bservation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Date: / ,? 1 -? -3' 0 -,
i
If this project was designed by a Certified Professional
I , as a duly registered Professional (i.e., Engineer,
Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe
(periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permittee hereby state that, to the best of
my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was
observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer
Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date: