19931066 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19951115

I State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources m 4
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan S. Howes, Secretary
N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 25, 1994
r
Mr. Bob Hunter, Director
Buncombe County Solid Waste Dept.
30 Valley Street
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Dear Mr. Hunter:
Subject: Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
Buncombe County sanitary land fill
Buncombe County
DEM Project # 931066
--A
Upon review of your request for 401 Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in 1.77 acres of wetlands or waters which are
tributary to French Broad River for landfill development located at
N.C. 251 & French Broad River in Buncombe County as described in your
submittal dated 29 December 1993, we have determined that the proposed
fill can be covered by General Water Quality Certification No. 2671.
A copy of the General Certification is attaohed. This Certification
may be used in qualifying for coverage under Corps of Enginoersr
Nationwide Permit No. 26.
if this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right
to an adjudicator?y hearing upon written request within thirty (30)
days following ftooipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the form of a wkiMen petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General statutes atM,fiied with the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O-4ox 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless such
demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-
1786.
Sincerely,
stt>1S Howard Jr . P . E .
X e
931066.itr Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DEN! Regional Office
Mr. Do
CentralnFilesey t1 ? l7 E' L W _ L
Joseph Wiseman, CAM
j< FEB 3 1994
P.O. Box 29535, Weigh, North Carolina 27626.0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equol Opportunity Affrmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer poper
c0'd 6 JIii-VIM aSildm 0i &I-13Q 08 at t T nay su W08=1 6z:Lti b66T-GT-6U4
L,EM M:
ACTION ID:
d• Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #):
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILNiTNGTON T)ISTRIr7 FNGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF-ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Box 29535
A= CESAW-CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: $vntom& C"o So(,W Vos,?e Z eWoe Ewe,-i Aler1Ki Co re It 4o-
2. Owners Address: 30 I/a!/ey S4t ?4slrer?l?e /?C ZS'Q°(
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): (704) Z9S //?8 (Work): C704) z sue= so 6-6
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number.
I. 14w kw D, •rc for C70Y) ZS'.S SO 6G GUr </a?+? E ?c E /rn/ ,rGoN+?j'/?14 v'
g0 1/a!/QX Sf?-+ce 1?" oR ?,?e k P148a.?.,? /oS'
A WC zs so i AAff,?,tglle,, A16 Zg so j 07o 4) Zsz = sb SO
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). Count,: 8....c..«toe- dp&"+ .?rpr .9/eao?da^ Cjo....,ro.. fy
Nearest Town or City: lVeaeerra llf ? IVC- ?e .4A4:c4."t 3
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): M..-lteri A-co,"be for..+f e on Ag eas><r.-? ba.?ks
o? '?t Fre.n.?i a.-w.o0 ?'ver NG z sl ? FrrNO?i Bran?O R.'??' co.+..or? c...er ?'r.? d s??7`1vvri
?,.qOe,• do?,?a6.?'ef ??f? a.'+4.IclI ,Pal CSR /7fS)? 8/C?/., B-•..•?G l'C,..r ..e•Y?trrt Or9?d?'{Y /:??.
6. Name of Closest Stream/River. .91irr,'o Bro.+olr ?r?KCli 8,v0? Aelllw
7. River Basin: lr: pIIc`t 61- woe
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS II? YES [ ] NO KI
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this properry? YES [ ] NO X
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
Z, S 7 sac hCS r?j• N 74t p M/ -a t- area 444,64 morel-Wer 7ta 300' e to C'.•'AL
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: /. 7 7 oe''rs

Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
Total Impacted:
, 7 -7 a ces
0

m W
0 (!)
wa
cn 3
O
a- _
O J
x O
a- cn
a_
a
s
z z
o O
u ?
m Q
I. U
o O
Z J
co W
V-
N
:i
i
?t?

1

II
a A
i
f
} (V
w w F-
mc F_ -? Z
G
z w LL
m z
C o o w
w `n
cn >- w
C) F- cD
o D a
Z
?M Q
0- O
i
N O
N N
? N
$ '? u` t?
a,, z
\ by a.
T Z
c D }
Cl ?` h O
7 D T V H-
v ?'' G7 ?'+ '''?? z
v o ??
o co
Gv 1 U
° >
In U
M me' co
N
N
N
C ?
4 N
C
? N V
N C
V Y
U
? O
u c
0
?E
e 06
o Y
? c
' o
u v
r
4
ATTACHMENT #2
J
a

r
Jfii? 77
All"
. <<
k(l
? I( $ m
?rr
?I

.

Q
If
ATTACHMENT #3

PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY
BUNCOMBE COUNTY LANDFILL
NORTH CAROLINA
Report To:
BUNCOMBE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
and
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
August 18, 1992
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
[phone]
FAX [phone]
Project Number 92034
1.0. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 5
2.0. SITE DESCRIPTION ........... .............. . . . . .. ... ... .... . . 7
3.0. BACKGRGUN? INVESTIGATIONS ................................. 9
4.0. SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS AND HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS ............. 16
4.1. Piratebush ............ .. .... ........... . . ..... . . . .. . . . 16
4.2. Cain's reedgrass ....................................... 16
4.3. Spreading avens ........................................ 16
4.4. Rock-gnome lichen ...................................... 16
4.5. Mountain heartleaf ...................................... 16
4.6. Golden seal ........................................... 17
4.7. Carolina highland rush ................................. . . . 17
4.8. Gray's lily ............................................ 17
4.9. Fraser's loosestrife ...................................... 17
4.10. Ginseng ............................................. 18
4.11. Bunched arrowhead .................................... 18
4.12. Mountain sweet pitcher plant .............................. 18
4.13. Virginia spiraea ....................................... 18
4.14. Appalachian elktoe ..................................... 19
4.15. Spotfin chub ......................................... 19
4.16. Blotchside logperch .................................... 19
4.17. Longhead darter ....................................... 19
4.18. Paddlefish ........................................... 20
4.19. Mole salamander ...................................... 20
4.20. Eastern spiny softshell .................................. 20
4.21. Bog turtle ........................................... 20
4.22. Hellbender ........................................... 21
4.23. Four-toed salamander ................................... 21
4.24. Mudpuppy ........................................... 21
4.25. Zig-zag salamander ..................................... 21
4.26. Northern saw-whet owl .................................. 22
4.27. Bachman's sparrow .................................... 22
4.28. Black vulture ......................................... 22
4.29. Black-capped chickadee ................................. 22
4.30. Appalachian Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii aitus) .......... 23
4.31. Eastern cougar ........................................ 23
4.32. Carolina northern flying squirrel ........................... 23
4.33. Gray bat ............................................ 24
4.34. Eastern small-footed bat ................................. 24
4.35. Rafinesque's big-eared bat ............................... 24
4.36. Long-tailed shrew ...................................... 24
4.37. Southern pygmy shrew ............................... • .. 25
4.38. Southern water shrew ...................... '. . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.0. SURVEY RESULTS AND EXPECTED IMPACTS ....................... 26
5.1. Piratebush ............................................ 26
5.2. Cain's reedgrass ....................................... 26

5.3. Spreading avens ........................................ 26
5.4. Rock-gnome lichen ...................................... 26
5.5. Mountain heartleaf .... ........................ ......... 26
5.6. Golden seal ................................. ..... ..... 26
5.7. Carolina highland rush . . ...... .. . . . . .. .......... . .. . 27
5.8. Gray's lily ............................................ 27
5.9. Fraser's loosestrife ...................................... 27
5.10. Ginseng ............................................. 27
5.11. Bunched arrowhead .......................... ..... ..... 27
5.12. Mountain sweet pitcher plant ............. ............ ..... 28
5.13. Virginia spiraea ............................. .......... 28
5.14. Appalachian elktoe ..................................... 28
5.15. Spotfin chub ......................................... 28
5.16. Blotchside logperch .................................... 29
5.17. Longhead darter ....................................... 29
5.18. Paddlefish ........................................... 29
5.19. Mole salamander ...................................... 30
5.20. Eastern spiny softshell .................................. 30
5.21. Bog turtle ......................... ..... ............. 30
5.22. Hellbender ........................................... 30
5.23. Four-toed salamander ................................... 30
5.24. Mudpuppy ........................................... 31
5.25. Zig-zag salamander ..................................... 31
5.26. Northern saw-whet owl .................................. 31
5.27. Bachman's sparrow .................................... 31
5.28. Black vulture ........................................ .
32
5.29. Black-capped chickadee ................................. 32
5.30. Appalachian Bewick's wren ......... ...................... 32
5.31. Eastern cougar ........................................ 32
5.32. Carolina northern flying squirrel ............................ 33
5.33. Gray bat ............................................ 33
5.34. Eastern small-footed bat ................................. 33
5.35. Rafinesque's big-eared bat ............................... 33
5.36. Long-tailed shrew ..... ............................... 33
5.37. Southern pygmy shrew .................................. 33
5.38. Southern water shrew .................................. 34
6.0. LITERATURE CITED .......................................... 35
Figure 1.1. Location of Buncombe County and the proposed landfill site, North
Carolina ............................................. 6
Figure 2.1. Topographic map of the proposed Buncombe County landfill including all
areas surveyed for protected species, Buncombe County, North
Carolina ............................................. 8
Table 3.1. Protected species reported from Buncombe County, N.C ........... 10
Table 3.2. Natural plant community types listed by NHP (Schafale & Weakley,
1990) .............................................. 12

1.0. INTRnr)UCTION.
Buncombe County has proposed construction of a new municipal solid waste landfill
c . 50-acre site northwest of the City of Asheville, on the western side of the Blue Ridge
Mountainq in North Carolina IFi(jure 1 .1 ). The site is on the east bank of the French Rroad
River, and is bordered by the river along the southern and western boundaries. Panther
Branch Road (SR 1745) forms part of the northern boundary of the site, and Murray Debruhl
Road (SR 1744) serves as the northern half of the eastern boundary. Lower Flat Creek Road
(SR 1742) borders the southeast corner of the site. The project sit i surrounding area are
depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute serie, 3phic quadrangles of
Leicester and Weaverville, N.C.
Permit applications for proposed landfills must provide documentation under Title 1 5A,
Subchapter 13B, Rule .0503 of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Siting and Design
Requirements, that ...
"Disposal sites... shall not cause or contribute to the taking of any endangered
or threatened species ( : plants, fish, or wildlife... shall not result in the
destruction or adverse r:-,odification of the critical habitat of endangered or
threatened species... shall not damage or destroy an archaeological or historical
site-shall not cause an adverse impact on a state park, recreation or scenic
area, or any other lands included in the state nature and historic preserve... shall
not cause a discharge... in violation of...(NPDES), under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act...shall not cause a discharge of dredged or fill material into
waters of the state that is in violation of...Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
as amended..."
Rare plant and animal species may be protected by the Federal Endangered Species
Act, administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and by two North Carolina
laws: the Plant Protection and Conservation Act, administered by the N.C. Department of
Agriculture's Plant Conservation Program (PCP), and the State Endangered Species Act,
administered by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). Federally protected species
are those listed by FWS as Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed
Threatened. State protected species are those listed by WRC or PCP as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern.
Some species not protected under federal or state law may be listed by the agencies,
as "Candidate", "Status Review", or "Significantly Rare", indicating consideration for legal
protection in the future.
This report describes a search of the proposed project area for protected species
known from Buncombe County and addresses the likelihood of adverse impacts on those
species if the project is constructed.
5
4
I
2.0. SITE DESCRIPTION.
The northern half of the site is drained by Blevin Branch and its tributaries, which flow
we .: avard it the e,. Broad River (Figure 2.1). Several steep ravines drain the southern
!" cif tl-•- ? .. --1 flow --u0, - {rd the French Broad River. N.C. highwav 251
(Riverside Unve) tr the site alongsit--1 the French Broad River -olating a narrow strip
of riverbank less than 100 feet wide in most places, and containing re_ _ ences and fragments
of riparian forest.
Ecologically, the site is classified as low elevation mountains (Schafale and Weakley,
1990), with elevations ranging from 1740 feet at the mouth of Blevin Branch to 2140 feet
on a hill in the west-central portion of the site. The southern, western, and northwestern
edg-s of the property (proposed buffer zones) contain narrow ridges, bluffs, and ravines, and
support mixed hardwood forests. The central and eastern portions of the site (proposed cells
and borrow areas) contain wide ridges, wide drainage heads, and relatively deep soils, and are
predominantly in residential, pasture, agricultural, and silvicultural uses, with fragments of
natural forests.
Three geologic mapping units converge at the project site (Division of Land Resources,
1985). The western side is dominated by amphibolite, comprised of metamorphosed intrusive
and extrusive mafic rock. The central portion is biotite granitic gneiss, including interlayered
amphibolite, calc-silicate rock, and marble. The eastern portion is underlain by migmatitic
biotite-horneblend e gneisses, amphibolite, and calc-silicate rock.
Dominant soils on the site include the Walnut-Oteen-Marshill complex, Evard-Cowee
complex, and Hayesville clay loam on ridges and moderate slopes. Rock outcrop-Oteen
complex occurs on the steepest slopes. Tate gravelly loam and French loam occur along
stream floodplains. French loam is occasionally flooded and may contain hydric inclusions
(U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Buncombe County, unpublished maps and soil descriptions).
7

??? ?•
i Y+ ? ?
_ _?,_--
In? ? _--
.• ?,
l
3.0. BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS.
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates (RJG&A) ecologists consulted with FWS, WRC, PCP,
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP), and the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences (MNS)
to determine which protected species may occur in the project area. Thirty-eight protected
species (4u animals ano i u piaias) have peen repu(luu it unl Buncombe County (Table ,.
Diagnostic features of each protected species, habitat requirements, locations of
previous sightings within a few miles of the project area, and flowering and fruiting seasons
(plants) or breeding season (animals) were compiled from Radford et al. (1968), Weakley
(1990), Grimm (1966), Menhinick (1991), Martof et al. (1980), Potter et al. (1980), Webster
et al. (1985), Clark et al. (1987), and personal communication with federal and state
biologists. Natural community types are based on the classification system of Schafale and
Weakley (1990), and are capitalized where they appear in this report (Table 3.2).
Suitable habitats for protected species were located and surveys conducted during
June 15-30, 1992. Ecologists walked transects through suitable habitat for each species.
Survey methods followed recommendations of regulatory agency and other biologists with
expertise in each of the species. For species unlikely to be detected except by trapping or
long-term surveys, habitat quantity and quality were assessed, and a professional judgement
made of the probability of occurrence of the species on the project site.

9
J
Table 3.1. Protected species reported from Buncombe County, N.C.
Scientific Name
PLANTS
Buckleya distichophylla
Calamagrotstis cainii
Geum radiatum
Gymnoderma lineare
Hexastylis contracta
Hydrastis canadensis
Juncus trifidus carolinianus
Lilium grayi
Lysimachia fraseri
Panax quinquefolius
Sagittaria fasciculata
Sarracenia jonesii
Spiraea virginiana
INVERTEBRATES
Alasmidonta raveneliana
BFI HES
Cyprinella monacha
Percina burtoni
Percina macrocephala
Polyodon spathula
AMPHIBIANS and REPTILES
Ambystoma talpoideum
Apalone spinifera spinifera
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Hemidactylium scutatum
Necturus maculosus
Plethodon dorsalis
BIRDS
Aegolius aradicus
Aimophila aestivalis
Coragyps atratus
Parus atricapillus
Thryomanes bewickii altus
C'nmmon Name
Piratebush
Cain's reedgrass
Spreading avens
Rock gnome lichen
Mountain heartleaf
Golden seal
Carolina highland rush
Gray's lily
Fraser's loosestrife
Ginseng
Bunched arrowhead
Mountain sweet pitcher plant
Virginia spiraea
Appalachian elktoe
Spotfin chub
Blotchside logperch
Longhead darter
Paddlefish
Mole salamander
Eastern spiny softshell
Bog turtle
Hellbender
Four-toed salamander
Mudpuppy
Zig-zag salamander
Northern saw-whet owl
Bachman's sparrow
Black vulture
Black-capped chickadee
Appalachian Bewick's wren
State
'tatus
E
E
E,SC *
T
E
E,SC *
E
T,SC *
E
Sc
E
E,SC *
E
Federal
States
E
E
E
T
E
T
E
SC
E
T
SC
SC
T
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
E'
10
.
Table 3.1, continued.
Scientific Name
Cnmmon Nmme
State Federal
StatUS Status
Iv lMIv Ivit -_1
Felis concolor couguar
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Myotis grisescens
Myotis leibii leibii
Plecotus rafinesquii
Sorex dispar
Sorex hoyi winnemana
Sorex palustris punctulatus
Eastern cougar E E
Carolina northern flying squirrel E E
Gray bat E E
Eastern small-footed bat SC
Rafinesque's big-eared bat SC
Long-tailed shrew SC
Southern pygmy shrew SC
Southern water shrew SC
E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern
" Plant species that are commonly exploited may be designated Special Concern in addition
to a designation of Endangered or Threatened.

11
Table 3.2. Natural plant community types listed by NHP (Schafale & Weakley, 1990).
TERRESTRIAL SYSTEM
A. High Mn,-taro m t
1. Fraser fir forest
2. Red spruce-fraser fir forest
3. Grassy bald
4. Heath bald
5. High elevation red oak forest
6.. Montane white oak forest
7. Northern hardwood forest
a. Typic subtype
b. Beech gap subtype
8. Boulderfield forest
B. Low Elevation Mesic Forests
1. Rich cove forest
2. Acidic cove forest
3. Canada hemlock forest
4. Mesic mixed hardwood forest
a. Piedmont subtype
b. Coastal plain subtype
5. Basic mesic forest
a. Piedmont subtype
b. Coastal plain subtype
c. Montane calcareous subtype
C. Low Elevation Dry and Dry-Mesic Forests and Woodlands
1. Carolina hemlock bluff
2. White pine forest
3. Pine-oak/heath
4. Chestnut oak forest
5. Piedmont monadnock forest
6. Montane oak-hickory forest
7. Dry oak-hickory forest
8. Dry-mesic oak-hickory forest
9. Basic oak-hickory forest
10. Xeric hardpan forest
11. Piedmont longleaf pine forest
D. Rock Outcrop Communities
1. High elevation rocky summit
2. High elevation granitic dome
3. Low elevation rocky summit
4. Low elevation granitic dome
5. Montane acidic cliff
6. Piedmont/coastal plain acidic cliff
12
7. Piedmont/coastal plain heath bluff
8. Montane mafic cliff
9. Piedmont mafic cliff
10. Montane calcareous cliff
1 1. Piedmont calcareous cliff
12-. Coastal plain marl outcrop
13. Granitic flatrock
14. High elevation mafic glade
15. Diabase glade
16. Ultramafic outcrop barren
E. Communities of the Coastal Zone
1. Dune grass
2. Maritime dry grassland
3. Maritime shrub
4. Maritime evergreen forest
5. Maritime deciduous forest
6. Coastal fringe evergreen forest
7. Coastal fringe sandhill
F. Sandy Woodlands of the Coastal Plain
1. Mesic pine flatwoods
2. Pine/scrub oak sandhill
3. Xeric sandhill scrub
II. PALUSTRINE SYSTEM
A. River Floodplains
1. Sand and mud bar
2. Rocky bar and shore
3. Coastal plain levee forest
a. Blackwater subtype
b. Brownwater subtype
4. Cypress-gum swamp
a. Blackwater subtype
b. Brownwater subtype
5. Coastal plain bottomland hardwoods
a. Blackwater subtype
b. Brownwater subtype
6. Oxbow lake
7. Coastal plain semipermanent impoundment
8. Coastal plain small stream swamp
a. Blackwater subtype,
b. Brownwater subtype
9. Piedmont/mountain levee forest
10. Piedmont/mountain swamp forest
11. Piedmont/mountain bottomland forest
13
12. Floodplain pool
13. Piedmont/mountain semipermanent impoundment
14. Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest
15. Montane alluvial forest
d. Non-Alluvial Wetlands of the Mountains and Piedmont
1. Swamp forest-bog complex
a. Typic subtype
b. Spruce subtype
2. Southern Appalachian bog
a. Northern subtype
b. Southern subtype
3. Southern Appalachian fen
4. High elevation seep
5. Spray cliff
6. Upland pool
7. Upland depression swamp forest
8. Hillside seepage bog
9. Low elevation seep
C. Wet Non-Alluvial Forests of the Coastal Plain
1. Wet marl forest
2. Nonriverine wet hardwood torest
3. Nonriverine swamp forest
D. Pocosin and Peatland Communities of the Coastal Plain
1. Low pocosin
2. High pocosin
3. Pond pine woodland
4. Peatland Alantic white cedar forest
5. Bay forest
6. Streamhead pocosin
7. Streamhead Atlantic white cedar forest
8. Small depression pocosin
E. Wet Savannas of the Coastal Plain
1. Wet pine flatwoods
2. Pine savanna
3. Sandhill seep
F. Coastal Plain Depressions and Water Bodies
1. Vernal pool
2. Cypress savanna
3. Small depression pond
4. Natural lake shoreline
14
G. Nontidal Coastal Fringe Wetlands
1 . Maritime wet grassland
2. Maritime swam forest
3. Maritime shrub swamp
4. Interdune pond
5. tstuJnne trinye iuoiouy P1 1'U surest
H. Freshwater Tidal Wetlands
1 . Tidal freshwater marsh
2. Tidal cypress-gum swamp
III. ESTUARINE SYSTEM
A. Salt marsh
B. Brackish marsh
C. Salt flat
D. Salt shrub
IV. MARINE SYSTEM
A. Upper beach
15
4.0. SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS AND HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS.
4.1. Piratebush (Buckleya distichophylla).
Piratebush is a dioecious, opposite leaved shruh up to '0 feet tall. Pale lenticels are
prominent on tl e :. vish-green hranChlels. The smau, yieeni; PIU' ier?, a uom during
Ap; i and May; main: ;lowers are clustered in umbels; female flowers oc,.:. r singly. The single-
seecied ellipsoid fruit is yellowish to dull orange, and ripens in August (Radford et al., 1968).
Piratebush is parasitic on the roots of hemlock (Tsuga ), generally on bluffs and slopes
in open stands where sunlight reaches the forest floor int populations c l piratebush are
known from several locations within three miles of the p elect site.
4.2. Cain',, ass (Calamagrostis cainii).
Cain's reedgrass is an erect, rhizomatous, rough-textured, perennial grass. The
purplish-tinged panicle blooms in late summer. Cain's reedgrass occurs on High Elevation
Rocky Summits above 4,000 feet elevation (Radford et al., 1968; Weakley, 1990). No sites
are known within three miles of the project area.
4.3. Spreading avens (Geum radiatum).
Spreading avens is a ground-cover perennial herb with a rosette of hairy basal leaves.
Each leaf has a reniform, slightly lobed, serrate terminal lobe and very small lateral lobes. The
`flower stalk bears two to five small, sessile stem leaves. The bright yellow flowers are three
to four cm in diameter and bloom from June through August (Radford et al., 1968).
Spreading avens occurs on Heath Balds and High Elevation Rocky Summits above 4,000 feet
elevation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). No sites are known within three miles of the project
area.
4.4. Rock-gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare).
Rock-gnome lichen has a squamulose thallus which lacks a lower cortex and rhizines
(hyphae on the lower surface). The squamules, long and narrow and blackened at the base,
attach to the soil or rock surface and do not curl (Hale, 1969). Rock-gnome lichen occurs on.
High Elevation Rocky Summits and Granitic Domes, and occasionally on rocks in humid gorges
above 4,000 feet elevation (Weakley, 1990). No sites are known within, three miles of the
project area.
4.5. Mountain heartleaf (Hexastylis contracta).
Mountain heartleaf is a perennial herb with basal, non-variegated, orbicular-cordate
leaves. Its greenish brown flowers appear at ground level, often under leaf litter, during June.
The calyx tube is broadly flask-shaped and contracted just above the base, and contains
reticulations of low relief. Two sympatric species, Hexastylis shuttleworthi and H. virginica,
16
are distinguished from H. contracta by their variegated leaves. A third species of heartleaf,
H. arifoiia, has more triangular or sagittate leaves than those of H. contracta. Hexastyiis
heterophy//a, the fourth sympatric species, is distinguished by its smaller, more bell-shaped
calyx tube (15-27 mm long in H. contracta; 8-15 mm long in H. heterophylla) and longer calyx
lobes (4-5 mm long in H. contracta; 7-10 mm long in H. heterophylla). Mountain hcartlpaf
occurs in rich slope forests, including Canada Hemlock Forests and Acidic Cove Forests, often
beneath Rhododendron spp. (Radford et al., 1968; Schafale and Weakley, 1990). No sites
are known within three miles of the project area.
4.6. Golden seal (Hydrastis canadensis).
Golden seal is an erect, herbaceous perennial that grows up to 0.5 meter tall from a
yellowish rhizome. It usually has a single pubescent basal leaf and a pair of stem leaves, each
with three to seven lobes and serrate margins. The solitary flower has three petaloid yellow
to greenish-white sepals, no petals, no spurs or hood on the perianth, and numerous stamens
and pistils. It flowers in April, and dark berries are visible in May and June (Radford et al.,
1968). Golden seal occurs in Rich Cove Forests and basic mesic forests (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990). It is exploited for folk medicinal uses. No sites are known within three miles
of the project area.
4.7. Carolina highland rush (Juncus trifidus caroiinianus).
Carolina highland rush grows to 30 cm tall and has non-septate leaf blades and a
terminal inflorescence appearing from June through September. This rush has flat leaf-blades,
clusters of one to three flowers, and deeply fringed auricles on the leaf sheath (Radford et al.,
1968). It occurs on High Elevation Rocky Summits, and in North Carolina is known only from
Buncombe County (Weakley, 1990). No sites are known within three miles of the project
area.
4.8. Gray's lily (Liiium grays).
Gray's lily is a spectacular perennial herb with large, red, spotted flowers and leaves
in whorls of five to eleven. It is distinguished from other lilies by its finely serrate or rough
leaf margins, and by perianth segments less than 5.5 cm long (Radford et al., 1968). It
flowers from June through early July. Gray's lily occurs on Grassy Balds and beneath canopy
openings in Northern Hardwood Forests at elevations above 3,500 feet (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990). No sites are known within three miles of the project area.
4.9. Fraser's loosestrife (Lysimachia fraseri).
Fraser's loosetrife is an erect perennial up to 1.5 meters tall with stout stems and
lanceolate to slightly elliptic leaves in whorls of three to five. The yellow or white flowers
1 appear in June on leafy terminal panicles (branching racemes) with purple calyx margins

17
..I
(Radford et al., 1968). This loosestrife occurs in alluvial meadows, Rich Cove Forests, and
in rich, moist habitats along roausides (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). No sites are known
within three miles of the project area.
4.10. Ginseng (Panax qumquefolius).
Ginseng is a perennial herb, 20 to 60 cm tall, with three or four palmately compound,.
dark green leaves in a whorl, each with three to five leaflets. Very small flowers with white
to greenish petals are borne on a terminal umbel during May and June. The red drupes are
one cm in diameter and ripen durii;q August through October. Ginseng occurs in Rich Cove
Forests and Acidic Cove Forests. IL is heavily exploited for folk medicinal uses (Radford et al.,
1968; Schafale and Weakley, 1990). No sites are known within three miles of the project
area.
4.11. Bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata).
Bunched arrowhead is a perennial aquatic herb, usually less than 1.5 feet tall, with a
basal rosette of long, narrow leaves. The emersed leaves are wider and more spatulate than
the submersed leaves. Its distinctive fruit has compact median resin ducts forming a
convoluted surface on the mature achene. White-petaled blooms appear in May through July
(Radford et al., 1968). Bunched arrowhead occurs in swamps and bogs (Weakley, 1990).
No sites are known within three miles of the project area.

4.12. Mountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia jonesii).
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an herbaceous perennial with erect leaves modified to
hold water and capture small insects. This pitcher plant is distinguished by its exposed
orifice, a small hood (one to three cm wide) with margins not reflexed, and maroon petals
(Radford et al., 1968). It flowers duribng April and May, and occurs in bogs, beneath canopy
openings in swamps, and along streams (Weakley, 1990). No sites are known within three
miles of the project area.
4.13. Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana).
Virginia spiraea is a slender, branching, rosaceous shrub growing to 1.5 m tall. The
simple, alternate, serrated leaves are narrowly elliptic with a smooth underside and a
mucronate apex. Small white flowers appear during June and July on a corymbose
inflorescence approximately five cm across. Virginia spiraea occurs along streambanks and
adjacent moist slopes (Radford et al., 1968; Grimm, 1966; Weakley, 1990). No sites are
known within three miles of the project area.
18
,.
ATTACHMENT #4

V

-mole

i
R
C
An Archaeological Survey
of the
Proposed Buncombe County Landfill,
Alexander Vicinity,
Buncombe County, North Carolina.
An Archaeological Survey of the
Proposed Buncombe County Landfill,
Alexander Vicinity,
Buncombe County, North Carolina.
Thomas Hargrove
April 1993
ER 91-8259
ER 92-7350
ER 93-7457
A Report Submitted to Camp Dresser & McKee, Engineers,
by
i Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc.,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
I

I
Contents
1
Management Summary ..................................................
Introduction ..... .....................................................................
Physical Environment .......................................................................3
Prehistoric and Ethnohistoric Background ................................................5
........................................
Historical Background """"""""""' 9
Field Methods ...............................................................................10
Results of the Survey ....................................................................... 11
Standards of Significance .................................................................. 20
Recommendations ...........................................................................21
References Cited ...........•.••.......•••••..22
................................................
Appendix One: The Survey Proposal ......................................................24
Appendix Two: Comments of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation 31
Officer ........................................................................

J
1
ii
List of Figures
Follows
Page
i;

I
Figure 1: North Carolina and the project area .................................................... 2
Figure 2: Buncombe County and the project area ................................................. 2
Figure 3: The project area, with sites ............................................................... 2
Figure 4: Soil types in the project area ............................................................. .3
Figure 5: Typical uplands in the project area, overlooking Blevin Branch ..................... 3
Figure 6: 31BN571 (looking northeastward) ...................................................... 12
Figure 7: The chimney fall at 31BN572 (center) .................................................. 13
Figure 8: The front (northern) side of the pole cabin at 31BN574 .............................. 15
Figure 9: The back and eastern side of the pole cabin at 31BN574 ............................. 15
Figure 10: The log and frame barn southeast of 31BN574 ...................................... .15
Figure 11: 31BN575 (looking southward) .......................................................... 16
Figure 12: The rockshelter at 31BN576 from Lower Flat Creek Road ......................... 17
Figure 13: 31 BN576 (looking southward) ......................................................... 17
Figure 14: 31BN576 (looking northward) ......................................................... 17
Figure 15: The log cabin at 31BN577 .............................................................. 18
Figure 16: The barn northwest of 31BN577 ....................................................... 18
Figure 17: The log and frame barn at 31BN578 ............................................. 14
Figure 18: Cinderblock and frame outbuildings at 31BN578 ................................... 19
Figure 19: Sites and impact areas ....................... .................................
............ 19
Management Summary
The archaeological survey of the proposed Buncombe County landfill covered 557 acres on
the east side of the French Broad River and west of the town of Weaverville in northern Buncombe
County, North Carolina. The purpose of the survey was to examine the project area for prehistoric
or historical archwological sites with significant remains that might be eligible for nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places.
Since much of the project area is in forest or pasture, the survey relied heavily on screened
shovel tests at intervals of 30 meters (100 feet) in transects along the more level areas (ridgecrests,
floodplains). In areas with exposed ground surfaces (plowed fields, farmroads, treefalls, etc.), the
surveyors closely examined the area for prehistoric and historic artifacts.
The survey recorded eight sites:
31BN571 -- isolated prehistoric artifact, unknown age; minimal research potential,
in impact area;
31BN572 -- house site, late nineteenth century? low research potential;
in impact area;
31BN573 -- isolated prehistoric artifact; unknown age; minimal research potential;
in impact area;
31BN574 -- standing structure; early twentieth century pole house; low research
potential; in buffer zone;
31BN575 -- prehistoric Early Archaic and Early Woodland site; moderate research
potential; in buffer zone;
31BN576 -- prehistoric rock shelter, unknown age; moderate to high research
potential; in buffer zone or outside of project area
31BN577 -- standing structure, log cabin of unknown age; in sediment pond;
31BN578 -- standing outbuildings and foundations, twentieth century; low research
potential; in sediment pond.
We do not recommend additional archaeological work on the following low-density,
disturbed prehistoric sites: 31BN571 (isolated find), 31BN573 (isolated find).
' We do not recommend additional archaeological work on the following historic-period sites:
31BN572 (very low density, probably late nineteenth century house site), 31BN574 (early
twentieth century pole house), 31BN578 (twentieth century farmstead).
Two prehistoric sites with some potential for archaeological research are 31BN575 and
31BN576. Both of these sites are in the buffer zone, which should allow them to be preserved in
place.
I IIC lU8 ?,dullI d[ 01DIN-) I i Z:4wuIu tic: 1C?_uiuc:u uuuugi, w,, aectural photor,,,A'- ..
drawings before its removal.

2
Introduction
Project title: An Archwological Survey of the Proposed Buncombe County Landfill,
Alexander Vicinity, Buncombe County, North Carolina (ER 91-8259,
ER 92-7350, ER 93-7457).
Lotion of the prQiect: The proposed landfill tract covers an area of about 557 acres on the east
and north side of the French Broad River in northern Buncombe County. On the south and west
sides are the French Broad River and NC 251. On the north side is Blevin Branch. On the east
side are Lower Flat Creek Road (SR 1743) and Murray DeBruhl Road (SRI 744) (see Figures 1,
2, and 3). The total lined landfill area would be 120 acres, the tire monofill site would be 5 acres,
the asbestos disposal area would be 8 acres, and the 300 feet wide buffer zone would be 174 acres.
Contracting organization: Camp Dresser & McKee, Engineers (Raleigh, NC),
for Buncombe County.
Principal Investigator and Field Director: Thomas H. Hargrove.
Field Crew: Sara Bon and Alicia Wise.
Dates of survey: November 12 - 15, 1992.
one of archxological work: See Appendix One.
The following sections follow the format of the Guidelines for Preparation of
Archaological Survey Reports Reviewed by the Archaology Branch, Division of Archives and
History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources. The sections include a description of
the project's physical environment and its probable influences on past settlement choices and site
preservation; an outline of the area's prehistoric and historic background; a description of field
techniques; an inventory of sites recorded during the survey; a discussion of the archzeological
significance of the sites recorded; recommendations for archxological management; and a list of
sources consulted for the background research, survey, and evaluation.

(? ( ? t ? t i 1? j j fr O
i 1 r t I =
i
\
• r' 1 i
g> I
r \
.? i
3
0
t
cC
cv
Q?
RS
U
Q?'
.O
R
c
0
U
0
z

a
cU
CL
5
U
L
V
O
Q
m
0
0
z
E
ca
Kon?a. Ledge, ?.?
t Pant Rfl k r' Bdva ?/_ Big Laurel \ 1 A N C J° ? Y? pT ? nnlen 7? C \
S C Faust Swiss Burnsville Winm
nt ch ? _,?_. t « o---- r,. cfy - Spruc G!
i ` 4' HotRevere,) ?'? Said Creek ` Micavilld} i statoe
t Span W A L H U T ooo• M T S I J 8nwd ch Al taiaass
a Stackh:)use V Paint Gap , r Vixen
NBu$kner 1 .. V
i
M n Cato C
i oWalnut 1Vsver'y1' i
Pensacolis0 W w tie C
Switzerland
• O ?PBluti V Murchison I
_, `\ ` ^^o ~f Petersburg p p Mars-HIII -T
N/, -?-?
?JOe -O Spring' Marshall
Spring' _.
l /. -GDemocr?.-- / m - Woodlawn0 Z
Creek1
1 r$prnardsvills ? MT MITCHELL ? C -
( o1upiter \ _660I • [? BIisIC
oe Trust L.ir• l
t = p i o piUin¢ham?\
Stocksvilleo ^ Paint Fork ? ?-
?4 d uck -J Cr cL each % Pleasant /R?ve
1- _ . a o Weaverville .i Gardens Harlon
i - Alexander
GraDhitei !'Greenlee- W I,
?- - Sandymush Leicester Q :J Montrpat ^ A Soa1f"1 O \ /l /
I a {? U- N M B Fr 1 I V' LJ Y Y
M t L-+ Woodhn ?Ricewlle ?? ?I Rid es Id Fort Providert
"oa Mothtt J 3lenwoc
Em ASHEVILLE G-rovestone Buck tn' ,C
ree I (l? 1 Oteanp i Swannanoa ?? Hdlg c ?y C
-,i? Sugar
7 ,-' H,1? Hill
Fv.alea Swannaooa ,.a.0 -- % `j?
1 (1? l Enka
o h Bilt re L r / ; Whitehouse
G ndler
Clyde S Canto F re IpFairview
iska / C >
Busbee Lrtlte Pisgah Mtn •dsia 1` 1
Ile / oSouth Hominy Skyland
Germno T Shin&
oodrow I West Haven C -: tiiv Royal Pines' _ H I w
/ pStpnyFO;k ?tI ArdCn,
w 0 Chimn Lake v \
\ i
o Rock ` t ure \Gi?
pGoodluck BaFCave
rl \ Fie crier Hoopers - °jd ` Uree
c s»i • _ _ Cr Su;arloaf
^ 1
o, Crusoa _ tr \ 7D65 Mtn La, Lu re
l v•eo30 , Fruitland Ji
tl Mtn l Mills,??iver-- Naples oEdneywllei Sunny
\O// o Mountain Home 'IV- w \?.Rutherfo
H. E D R-?S O pN A.!ge s l
`. A
Horse Sho Pea
Balfour Blue E?idge
6 Jo::Dani _ / /' ""-2n RidBe. ,
I SSG' Black Mitt
N ' ? ~fgti ? ?Hendersonville?
1 p \
\ t ah :i.u ' r 1i Mill
Slantvre l rii•N )`
Figure 2: Buncombe County and the project area (arrow).
Hate map: U.S.G.S. Roe ofNarth Cer»//tu.
Scale: one inch - eight miles
I
;Oo
- "if
dN v?t 01
L? J 1 ri
4 11) 'r- 1V
71
u 31 BN574 ") ?. i --
:IT
8
Y? y,?"'31 BN344?
51 575
1UI
1? ' 115 e?? ( 31 BN578" ` - _
D!_ , Md 31 BN576 1 rr
U., BN571
31
SCALE 1:24 000
1 5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2
1000 0 METERS 1000 2000
t 5 _ 0 i
MILES
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 6000 9000 loam
° FEET
Figure 3: The project area (outlined), with sites.
t Base maps: U.S.G.S. Leicester and Wesra?rl//t quads.

3
Physical Environment
The project area is in the "intermountain plateau area" of Buncombe County, the broad,
low, rounded mountains, and deeply cut valley of the French Broad River (Goldston et al. 1954:4:
Daniels et al 1984:52). The terrain in the project tract consists of narrow, steep-sided ridges,
dropping sharply to the French Broad River and its tributary creeks. Level ground in the tract is
limited to hilltops (Figure 5) and narrow floodplains. Elevations in the project area range from a
low of about 1,750 feet near the French Broad River, up to about 2,150 feet on the highest
elevation. From a geological perspective, the area is a patchwork of biotite granitic gneiss,
amphibohte, and migmatic biotite-homeblend gneisses (N.C. Geological Survey 1985). The
major soils of the project area (Figure 4; taken from Goldston et al. 1954) tend to be steep and
eroded upland soils:
Wilkes gravelly loam, steep phase (slopes of 30 - 60%)
Wilkes gravelly loam, eroded steep phase (loss of 25 - 75% of surface soil through
erosion)
Wilkes gravell to severely eroded steep phase (little or no remaining
surface soil)
Stony, rough land (Porters series)
Rough, gullied land (very severely eroded Hayesville and Halewood series)
One exception is the small section of colluvial Tate silt loam on the banks of Blevin Branch.
The area is drained by Blevin Branch, Flat Creek, and the French Broad River. Under
natural conditions, the local forests would have been deciduous forests, including cove
hardwood forests, hemlock forests, oak-hickory and oak-chestnut forests (Cooper et al. 1975:
134.
The tract is in a rural section of the county. Current land uses include farming (mostly
pastureland, with a few acres in cultivation), residences, and logging (the western half
belongs to Champion International, and has been logged within recent years).
In his analysis and synthesis of prehistoric research in the Appalachian highlands of North
Carolina, Burt Purrington (1983:117) divided the terrain into several landform ty pes for studies of
prehistoric settlement patterns. The landforms with an asterisk are found in the project area:
Main Valley, fertile bottoms (floodplains and levees of the larger streams);
* Main Valley, Limited Bottoms (backswamps, stony areas along larger streams);
*Main Valley Margins (terraces, alluvial and colluvial fans, associated rockshelters less
than 80 Feet above the stream);
* Main Valley Uplands (slopes and low knolls or ridge spurs, rockshelters more than 80
feet above the main valley stream);
Upland Valley Bottoms and Margins (along the smaller streams -- bottomlands,terraces,
fans, level heads of streams or hollows, rockshelters less than 80 feet above the
nearest stream; see 31BN576, below, for a description of a rock shelter in the project
area, and 31BN574 and 31BN575 for sites in upland valley bottoms or terraces);
€l
V"
ti
Figure 4: Soil types in the project area.
:J
ar
i
1
s.?
1 Figure 5: Typical uplands in the project area, overlooking Blevin Branch.
z.
1

4
Upland Va_lleyUplands (slopes, ridge spurs. md low knolls less than 80 feet above the
nearest stream; rock shelters more u,.,,, nO feet above a main valley or an upland
valley bottom);
* Ridget= (ridges, saddles, gaps, and peaks more than 80 feet above permanent water,
for example, 31BN571, 31BN572, 31BN573).
j Some landforms, according to Purrington, were favored over others during different periods of
prehistory and history. For instance, uplands seemed to be favored during the Early Archaic
period. Middle and Late Archaic and Early Woodland peoples seemed to range more broadly over
both uplands and lowlands, whereas later prehistoric settlements, dependent on arable farmland,
focused on better-drained floodplains. Early historic farm houses tended to be located near springs
at the junctures of floodplains and hillslopes.
:f
a,

w
5
Prehistoric and Ethri-'i1storic Background
A review of the site files in the Office of State )gy shows that no prehistonc sites
had been recorded in the project area before this survey. "i ia; nearest recorded site was 31BN344
(see Figure 3), a small lithic site on a ridgetop of Wilkes gravelly loam (severely eroded steep
phase) overlooking Blevin Branch to the south.
The most relevant synthesis of regional prehistory in this section of Appalachia is Burton
Purrington's Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of Prehistoric Archaology of North Carolina's
Western Mountain Region (Purrington 1983). The following description comes largely from his
work.
The earliest known humans in the area were probably small bands of nomadic hunter-
gatherers of the Clovis period (10,000 - 8,500 B.C.). Clovis-like points have been found on rare
occasions in North Carolina's Appalachian region, so it seems likely that the study area was
sporadically occupied or at least visited by bands of Late Ice Age hunters 9,500 to 12,000 years
ago. At that time, the Appalachian environment was radically different. From about 18,000 B.C.
to about 13,000 B.C., the highlands were covered with tundra, while the lower elevations of the
Appalachians were covered in boreal forests. The animals of these grasslands and boreal forests
included mastodon, mammoth, musk ox, elk, caribou, and ground sloth. From 13,000 B.C. to
l about 8,000 B.C., the tundra was gradually replaced with boreal forests, while northern hardwood
forests of beech, birch, hickory, and elm invaded the lower elevations. Eventually, oak-chestnut
2 forests covered the Appalachians in all but the highest elevations (Carbone 1974:89-91; Gardner et
al. 1976:29-30). We know almost nothing about these earliest North Carolinians. They were
probably nomadic hunters and gatherers, but we do not know whether these eastern Paleo-Indians
! resembled their Paleo-Indian contemporaries west of the Mississippi River, who were hunters of
now-extinct big game animals such as mammoth and bison. No intact Paleo-Indian sites have been
excavated in the Appalachian highlands, but some of the locational information on fluted point
finds suggests that these people were hunting among the herds of grazing animals in the upland
tundras (Purrington 1983:107-109).
The Hardaway-Dalton period (8,500 - 7,500 B.C.) is the next phase of hunter-gatherer
development in the Appalachian region. Again, we know almost nothing about the culture of
these early mountaineers, since their remains in the region are represented so far only by
points found in surface collections, and not by excavated campsites. As in the preceding
Paleo- Indian period, these sites are very scarce, suggesting either that the highland's
resident population was sparse, or that the region was only visited, not occupied, by small,
transient groups such as hunting parties (Purrington 1983:109-110).
The following Archaic period of prehistory is somewhat better known, but still the subject
of a great deal of speculation because we lack information about major aspects of subsistence and
social organization. Overviews of the Archaic period have suggested that the Archaic cultures of
"i eastern North America show an evolutionary sequence in which nomadic or semi-nomadic hunter-
gatherers, fishers, and shellfish collectors developed regional adaptations to the warmer climates,
„ j expanding deciduous forests, and smaller game animals of the post-Ice Age Holocene (Willey
1966:60; Caldwell 1958). In Purrington's outline of Appalachian prehistory, the Early Archaic
Kirk period (7,500 -6,900 B.C.) is represented by Palmer and Kirk points (normally corner
notched) and by Big Sandy I and Kessel side-notched points. Evidence of Early Archaic
L. settlements in the highlands is still scarce, but these sites are much more common than sites of the
preceding Late Ice Age periods. Purrington has suggested that this period was the first to see
i
6
permanent settlement of the upland Appalachian region by very mobile groups of hunter-gatherers.
Early Archaic Kirk sites occur throughout the region's vallevs and uplands, but thev em
area ee to how
a strong bias towara upland terrain (Purrington 1983:110-1 i a). In our project Early
Archaic period is represented at 31BN575.
The Earlv Archaic LeCroy period (6,900 - 6,000 B.C.) is represented by bifurcated-based
points such as the LeCroy, St. Albans, MacCorkle, and Kanawha types. Sites of this type are
extremely rare in the highlands. In some parts of the Appalachian region of North arolina Cheese
sites seem to show a trend toward occupation of the floodplains and adjoining valley margins,
trend that continues throughout the rest of the Archaic (Purrington 1983:120).
Middle Archaic Stanly period sites (6,000 - 5,500 B.C.) tend to be rare in the Appalachian
Summit region, and Purrington suggests that the area was almost depopulated at the time. In
contrast, the contracting-stemmed points of the following Morrow Mountain period (5,500 - 4,000
B.C.) are common in the region's bottomlands and uplands, suggesting a larger population and
greater success in exploitation of the mountain environment. Like the Morrow Mountain period,
the succeeding Guilford period (4,000 - 3,000 B.C.) is well represented throughout a wide range
of terrain in the Appalachian Summit (Purrington 1983:121-125).
Late Archaic Savannah River sites (3,000 - 1,000 B.C.) are common in North Carolina's
Appalachian region. In the Great Smokies area, Late Archaic sites have been found mostly on the
valley floors, but in the Watauga River basin, Late Archaic peoples used a wide range of lowland
and upland terrain. The Great Smokies pattern of heavy use of the lowlands suggests shat s me
Late Archaic groups were focusing on nverine and lowland resources, grog
becoming more settled and less nomadic. On the other hand, the Watauga River basin data suggest
that at least some Late Archaic mountaineers still followed a Middle Archaic subsistence strategy as
nomadic hunter-gatherers, widely ranging over the lowlands and uplands in pursuit of broad C )
spectrum of plant and game resources. The Terminal Archaic, or Otarre phase (1,000
is represented by small, stemmed points resembling small variations of the Savannah River point
type. Although archmological evidence from Tennessee suggests that some Otarre populations in
the Appalachians had domesticated crops (sunflowers), the locational information on Otarre sites
from the Watauga River valley suggests that Otatre groups in the area were still exploiting the full
range of the landscape, following a nomadic hunter-gatherer strategy similar to that followed in the
Middle and Late Archaic periods (Purrington 1983:125-131).
The Woodland period begins with the Swannanoa phase (700 - 300 B.C.), featuring
t , pottery for the first time. The diagnostic artifacts are ceramics featuring cord-marks and fabric-
impressions (rarely with simple stamps, check stamps, or smoothed, plain surfaces) and
projectile points classified as Swannanoa stemmed, Transylvania triangular (relatively large
and crude), and Plott short-stemmed. Although farming and more sedentary village life were
becoming common throughout much of southeastern North America at the time, the
settlements of the Swannanoa period occur across a wide range of upland and lowland terrain,
much like their Archaic hunter-gatherer predecessors or ancestors. Swannanoa settlements
e seem to show no particular preference for the farmable bottomlands, in contrast with the Woodland
hlo Fi-Anininc
farming cultures of later centuries, when villages
(Purrington 1983:131-135). In the project area, the Early Woodland period is represented by one
Plott short-stemmed point near Blevin Branch (31BN575).
tith shift on .I,he
The Middle Woodland Pigeon phase (300 B.C. - A.D. 200) demonstrawere tes
lowland village settlements, although upland hunting and gathering camps
diagnostic artifacts of the Pigeon phase are pottery with crushed quartz temper, smoothed or
burnished interiors, check-stamped or smoothed exteriors (rarely simple stamped or complicated
stamped), and a variety of points, including large Garden Creek triangulars, Camp Creek

.r
7
triangulars, narrow Copena triangulars, and side notched Pigeon points. The Middle Woodland
Connestee phase (A.D. 200 - 600) is marked by sand-teii1p red ceramics with simple-stamped,
brushed, or plain surfaces, and Connestee and Haywood triangular points. The Connestee peoples
built long-term villages on the arable floodplains, and sometimes added platform temple mounds
(e.g., the Garden Creek site in Haywood County). To judge from the high number of small
Connestee sites in the uplands, hunting and gathering was still important. Influences from areas
outside Appalachia, such as Ohio and Georgia, become noticeable in the archxological record
(Purrington 1983:135-141).
Purrington describes an "Unnamed Late Woodland Phase" (A.D. 600 - 1000), possibly
featuring Haywood triangular points and Southern Appalachian pentagonal points and Connestee-
like ceramics. Much clearer evidence exists for the Mississippian Pisgah phase (A.D. 1000 -
1450), characterized by small, isosceles triangular points and fabric-impressed, smoothed, cord-
marked, or complicated stamped pottery. The Pisgah phase has been intensively studied through
archaeological excavations, yielding evidence of farming and palisaded villages, sometimes
equipped with civic/ceremonial structures such as earth lodges and platform mounds. Pisgah
villages and farmsteads in the Watauga River basin are apparently almost always found on
floodplains and main valley margins, with small campsites scattered throughout the lowlands and
uplands. The succeeding Qualla phase (A.D. 1450 - 1838), which grew out of the Pisgah phase,
is the archwological aspect of the Cherokee culture of the Appalachian Summit. Qualla artifacts
include pottery with folded rim fillets, curvilinear complicated stamping, incising, and occasionally
cob-impressions, check stamps, cord-marks, and brushing. Small triangular arrowpoints are also
common. Like the Pisgah phase, Qualla peoples built semi-permanent farm villages in the valleys,
occasionally with platform mounds as civic/ceremonial centerpieces. Unlike the Pisgah villages
'.' with their stockades and tight clusters of houses, Qualla villages tended to lack enclosing stockades
and were spread out along wide riverbanks. Qualla sites in the uplands are relatively rare
(Purrington 1983:142-151).
The Cherokee Indians were formerly the largest tribe in the Southeast. The Cherokee were
known to Europeans as early as the 1500's, when Spanish conquistadores under De Soto and
Juan Pardo travelled into the Appalachian region. The English colonists of the Carolinas
apparently became aware of the Cherokees by that name in the last half of the 1600's. South
Carolina signed a treaty with some of the Cherokees in 1684, and some Cherokees sided with the
English in the Tuscarora War in 1713, but Indian relations with English explorers, traders, gold
E? seekers tendea to ae rocky. Unlike most southeastern Indians, however, the Cherokees
maintained much of their land, language, and culture well into the historic period, because their
€ population was large, well-organized, and settled in defensible mountain t terrain. Around 1738,
smallpox from the European colonies broke out among the Cherokee, with devastating results. (In
4 1729, one English estimate put the number of Cherokee warriors at around 6,000, a number that
dropped to around 2,590 by 1755, suggesting a population loss of over 50%.) During the French
and Indian War, the Cherokees were initially allied with the English, who treated the Indians badly
and turned them into enemies, however. In one incident, Virginia frontiersmen killed and scalped
several Cherokee warriors and collected bounties on their scalps, which were passed off as enemy
scalps. Some of the Cherokee warriors began raiding frontier settlements, but Cherokee leaders
who sought to re-establish peace with the English were taken hostage by South Carolina and later
massacred by their captors. The Cherokee defeated an English army in a battle near Franklin,
North Carolina in 1760 but eventually lost the war when their Middle and Lower Towns were
destroyed by Anglo-American troops. The peace treaty, concluded in 1763, led to massive
immigration of colonists into Cherokee territory, and the resulting friction led to a Cherokee
alliance with the British Crown at the outbreak of the Revolution. 1776 was a particularly bad year
for the Cherokee, who suffered from the invasions of four Revolutionary expeditions and saw
scores of their towns levelled. Peace was re-established in 1794, but the Cherokee continued to
lose territory throughout the ante-bellum period. In the 1820's, the eastern band of Cherokee
established a constitutional government based on the U.S. government, and in 121, Sequoyah
9
Historical Background
Background research on the project area included a review of maps and secondary
historical sources in the North Carolina State Archives, in the North Carolina Collection at UNC
Chapel Hill, and in the local history collection in Asheville's main public library.
The first permanent Anglo-American, Scotch-Irish, and Gc:r;:.an settlers in the area that is
now Buncombe County probably settled there in the early 1780's near the Swannanoa River,
Hominy Creek, and the present-day Weaverville vicinity. By 1792, the population of the area had
grown to the point where a new county, Buncombe, was created from Burke and Rutherford
Counties. The first Buncombe County was vast, including all or parts of 12 modern counties
(Swaim 1981:9-10)
One rvent that took place within the project area was the construction of the Buncombe
Turnpike (now the route of NC 251), which opened as a toll road in 1827 to connect Greenville,
South Carolina and Greenville, Tennessee. One of the road's construction contractors was James
Mitchell Alexander, who built a small settlement with a hotel, a store, a blacksmith shop, a grist
mill, a ferry, and other businesses and amenities on the east bank of the French Broad River,
several miles below the project area. The hotel burned in 1924 (Swaim 1981:63-64; 122).
Between 1870 and 1890, Buncombe experienced a boom in farming and tourism with the
construction of the county's first railroads (including the rail line parallelling the west bank of the
French Broad River, opposite the project area) (Swaim 1981:22).
Weaverville, the nearest sizeable town, began around 1832 as a Methodist camp meeting
ground called Salem. The settlement accumulated a Methodist church (1844) and became the
location of Buncombe County's first college in 1873. Weaverville was formally chartered as a
town in 1875 (Swaim 1981:25).
On Flat Creek, across Lower Flat Creek Road from the project area and near the road's
intersection with NC 251, Thompson's grist mill and miller's house were built sometime during
-? the nineteenth century. The mill was renovated during the Depression and operated until 1958,
when the dam broke (Swaim 1981:122). The Thompson's Mill site will not be affected by the
t landfill construction.
The 1901 Asheville quad provides a detailed view of the project area, based on survey data
1 collected from the 1890's. Most of the project area structures shown on that map seemed to be
1 spaced along the east and north side of the Turnpike. Remains of those structures were probably
removed when the present highway was built, since the highway in most sections of the project
area is directly adjacent to nearly vertical slopes and stone outcrops.
i
I
10
Field Methods
Since much of the project area is in forest, pasture, or clearcut secondary growth, the
survey relied heavily on screened shovel tests at intervals of 30 meters (100 feet) in transects along
relatively level areas with slopes of 2001o or less (ridgetops and floodplains). The shovel tests
measured about 35 to 45 centimeters (14 to 18 inches) across and were excavated into the
underlying clay subsoil. The soil from the shovel tests was screened through 1/4 inch hardware
cloth. Whenever a surveyor uncovered an artifact in a shovel test, the survey crew dug additional
shovel tests at 15 and 30 meter intervals along the transect and at right angles to it. In areas with
exposed ground surfaces (plowed fields along Blevin Branch, farmroads, treefalls, cattle paths,
etc.), the surveyors closely examined the area for prehistoric and historic artifacts.
We defined a prehistoric site as an area where we found at least one artifact dating to the
prehistoric period (for example, a flake from manufacturing or repairing stone tools, a stone
projectile point, or a potsherd). We defined an historic site as an area containing patterned
evidence of settlement (house foundations or concentrations of building debris and domestic
artifacts, for example) or industry (a mill or still site, for example) dating between colonial
settlement in the mid-eighteenth century and 1942 (the minimum age for National Register of
Historic Places eligibility is 50 years). Practically applied, we would classify, for instance, the
remains of a house, a mill, a bridge, or a foundry dating before 1942 as an archxological site. An
isolated fragment of whiteware or bottle glass would not be recorded as a site.

11
Results of the Survey
This section presents the inventory of archeological sites recorded during our survey of the
project area. Under each site, we include information on the site's period of occupation (if
known), the artifacts collected, the techniques used to locate and define the site, some of the
relevant environmental details, indications of preservation or disturbance, potential for future
research, and speculations on the effects of project construction on the sites. The site forms
submitted to the Office of State Archaeology list additional environmental information (elevation,
distance from water, etc.). Later sections address the question of each site's significance and
recommendations for each site.
The survey recorded eight sites. Figure 3 shows the location of each site.
31BN571 -- isolated prehistoric artifact, unknown age; minimal research potential;
in impact area;
31BN572 -- house site, late nineteenth century? low research potential;
in impact area;
31BN573 -- isolated prehistoric artifact; unknown age; minimal research potential;
in impact area;
31BN574 -- standing structure; early twentieth century pole house; low research
potential; in buffer zone;
31BN575 -- prehistoric Early Archaic and Early Woodland site; moderate research
potential; in buffer zone;
31BN576 -- prehistoric rock shelter, unknown age; moderate to high research
potential; in buffer zone or outside of project area
31BN577 -- standing structure, log cabin of unknown age; in sediment pond;
31BN578 -- standing outbuildings and foundations, twentieth century; low research
potential; in sediment pond.
The site numbers are assigned by the Office of State Archaeology under the national system of site
identification, in which "31" stands for North Carolina, "BN" stands for Buncombe County, and
the last numbers represent the order in which the site was entered into the OSA site files for that
county. The accession numbers are also assigned by the OSA, and each number is inked onto the
artifacts to help in future identification after curation.
12
31BN571 (Project BCLF #1) (Accession #92-514)
Type of site: This prehistoric lithic site is represented by an isolated find -- one retouched blade of
dark brown chert. The lgck of diagnostic artifacts makes it impossible to assign a date to the site.
Now recorded: During a surface inspection of an exposed road (Figure 6), the surveyors found
the single blade exposed on the surface. Surface visibility was good -- about 80%. Two shovel
tests (one in the forest east of the road, one to the west of the road) turned up no additional
artifacts, but did reveal a thin (10 cm deep) level of eroded soil over clay subsoil.
Environment: The site is on the northwestern slope near the crest of the tract's central ridge, on
rough, gullied land (Hayesville and Halewood series).
Signs of preservation or disturbance: Road traffic and soil erosion are the major sources of
disturbance.
Research potential: The low density of artifacts and the high degree of disturbance diminish the
potential for additional research.
Impact of the project: The site is in the proposed tire monofill landfill.
Figure b: 31BN571 (looking northeastward).
13
31BN572 (Project BCLF #2) (Accession #92-515)
Type of site: This historic house site is represented by a low pile, about eight feet in diameter, of
roughly rectangular granite stones with traces of mortar -- probably the remains of a chimney
(Figure 7). A smaller pile of squared granite, possibly a foundation pier, is about 10 yards
downslope (east) of the probable chimney fall. Yucca plants (probably surviving ornamentals) are
scattered around the site. The 1901 Asheville quad and the 1942 Leicester quad show a house in
this vicinity. The only artifacts recovered from seven shovel tests on the site were two fragments
of non-diagnostic window glass (test #1) and one small fragment of clear bottle glass (test #6).
Now recorded: During a shovel testing transect along this ridge, the surveyors saw the exposed
rock of the chimney fall and dug seven shovel tests in the vicinity of tim chimney fall and probable
foundation pier. Only two tests produced artifacts.
Environment: The site is on a narrow ridge of Wilkes gravelly loam, steep phase. Most of
the ridge is overgrown with vines and brambles.
Signs of preservation or disturbance: There are no signs of major disturbances.
Research potential: The very low density of artifacts diminishes the potential for additional
research.
Impact of the project: The site is in the proposed borrow area.

Figure 7: The chimney fall at 31BN572 (center).
14
31BN573 (Project BCLF #3) (Accession #92-516)
Type of site: This prehistoric ELM, ?i?,::, -pi-esented by an isolated find -- one quartz secondary
flake. The lack of diagnostic artifacts makes it impossible to assign a date to the site.
How recorded: During a shovel testing transect along a north-trending ridgecrest overlooking
Blevin Branch, the surveyors found a single flake in one shovel test. Additional tests 10 meters
north, east, and west of the first find spot yielded no other artifacts. The area 10 meters south of
the find spot was an exposed roadbed.
Environment: The site is on a wide ridgecrest of Wilkes gravelly loam (severely eroded
steep phase), in open woodland pasture.
Signs of preservation or disturbance: Soil erosion is the major source of disturbance.
Research potential: The low density of artifacts (one flake) diminishes the potential for additional
research.
Impact of the project: The site is in the proposed lined landfill area.
15
31BN574 (Project BCLF #4) (Accession #92-517)
Type of site: This structure is a one-story, four-room pole house with saddle-notched corner
joints, built between 1909 and 1920 by Harley Snelso:;, a former landowner. It was built to
replace an earlier house (''the white house"), built after he bought the land from the Buncombe
County commissioners in 1909. According to the present landowner, Mr. Kimsey Ball, the "white
house" burned, and Snelson built the pole house on the spot before he sold the land to James A.
Collins in 1920 (Buncombe County Deed Book 242, page 554; Kimsey Ball, personal
communication). Figures 8 and 9 show different aspects of the house. Figure 10 shows a log and
frame barn southeast of the house.
Now recorded: Most of our information o:. the house was provided by the landowner, Mr.
Kimsey Ball (supplemented by a deed search to find the period of construction). Shovel tests
along the floodplain directly in front of the house turned up two small fragments of clear glass in
one test. A shovel test in the front yard of the house produced one small sherd of alkaline-glazed
stoneware.
Environment: The site is on a low terrace of Tate silt loam at the juncture of the Blevin Creek
floodplain on the north and the uplands to the south.
Signs of preservation or disturbance: The house is not occupied, but it seems well-preserved.
Research potential: Although the house's age (between 70 and 80 years, approximately) and fair
preservation qualify it for evaluation according to the criteria of the National Register of Historic
Places (National Park Service 1986), it may not qualify for nomination to the Register. In the
context of Buncombe County's historic buildings (Swaim 1981), the twentieth century pole house
as a type of structure does not seem to be considered significant, or even particularly important for
recording in most cases. Pole structures were apparently usually constructed to make expedient,
temporary houses and outbuildings, rather than outstanding examples of vernacular architecture.
In spite of the numbers of pole structures in Buncombe County, few of them were recorded for the
county's inventory of historic architecture (Swaim 1981:55,89, 97).
Impact of the project: The house is in the project buffer zone and will not be directly affected by
the project construction.
t

i
f Figure 8: The front (northern) side of the pole cabin at 31BN574.
ti
t

' Figure 9: The back (southern) and eastern side of the
pole cabin at 3 iBN574.
Figure 10 : The log and frame barn southeast of 31BN574.
16
31BN575 (Project BCLF #6) (Accession #92-518)
Type of site: This prehistoric Archaic and Woodland site is represented by a moderately dense
scatter of artifacts (mostly of quartz), from an area measuring about 30 meters from east to west
and about 120 meters from north to south.
Points
Kirk points, quartz (2) (Early Archaic period; 7,500 -6,900 B.C.)
Plott short-stemmed, quartz (1) (Early Woodland S wannanoa
phase; 700 - 300 B.C.)
Other tools
Drill, quartz (1)
Biface fragments, quartz (4)
Biface, thick, quartz (1)
Flakes
Primary flakes, quartz (19)
Secondary flakes, quartz (55)
Thinning flakes, chert (2)
Thinning flakes, quartz (53)
Fire-cracked quartz (1)
How recorded: During a surface inspection of a recently plowed field, the surveyors found the
139 artifacts exposed on the surface. Surface visibility, improved by recent rainfall, was excellent .
- about 100%.
Envirorwwnt: The site is Tate silt loam on the toe of a slope (Figure 11) at the confluence of Blevin
Branch and an unnamed tributary from the south. The soil profiles of the shovel tests showed an
upper level (surface to 30 cm) of very pale brown silt loam, over a lower level (30 cm to 40 cm) of
yellow clayey loam.
Signs of preservation or disturbance. Plowing and soil erosion are the major sources of
disturbance.
Research potential: Given the site's moderate density of artifacts, the presence of diagnostic
artifacts, and the possibility of some preservation under deposits of colluvium, the site may have
research potential in the areas of Early Archaic and Early Woodland studies.
Impact of the project: The site is in the proposed buffer zone.
f'.
Figure 11: 31BN575 (looking southward).
17
31BN576 (Project BCLF #7) (Accession #92-519)
Type of site: This rock,shelter site is represented by a single quartz thinning flake from a shovel
test in the floor of the shelter. The lack of diagnostic artifacts makes it impossible to assign a date
to the site.
The overhanging granite rock (Figures 12, 13, 14) creates a dry, sheltered space with a
maximum height of 2.5 meters, a maximum depth of 3 meters, and a length (from north to south)
of about 16 meters. The roof of the shelter has been blackened with soot, and charcoal flecks were
found in the single shovel test placed in the shelter.
How recorded: The shelter was found while the surveyors were climbing down the very
steep slope on the southeastern corner of the project area. Only one shovel test was placed
in the shelter because of its small size.
Environment: The site is on a very steep slope (Figure 12) of rough, stony land (Porters series)
overlooking Flat Creek to the east.
Signs of preservation or disturbance: The site shows no obvious signs of disturbance.
Research potential: The potential for preservation in rock shelters is high. Depending on whether
the site has experienced recent disturbances (pot-hunting, etc.), it might have good potential for
future archaeological excavation. Test excavations would be needed to determine whether such
disturbances have affected the site.
Impact of the project: The site is very close to the property line, so it is either in the proposed
buffer zone of just outside of the project area. The project, as it is now designed, will have no
impact on the site.
Figure 12; The rockshelter at 31BN576 (near the top of the ridge),
seen from Lower Flat Creek Road.
Figure 13: 31 BN 5 7 6 (looking southward).

Figure 14 31gN5
76 (loo
?8 norms
Ward ?
18
77 (Project BCLF #8)
Type of site: This small, one-story log cabin (Figure 15) is probably the best example of
local vernacular architecture in the project area. According James Pike, whose family owned the
cabin before the current landowner, the house might have been built about 1918 (Linda Ramsey,
personal communication), an unusually recent date for this type of construction. However, such a
late construction date might explain why the house does not appear on the 1901 Asheville quad.
The present landowner has not co-operated with the evaluation of the area for landfill construction,
so additional information on the cabin is not available. A log and frame barn (Figure 16) stands
northwest of the cabin.
Environment: The cabin is near the head of a hollow on Wilkes gravelly loam (severely eroded
steep phase).
Signs of preservation or disturbance: The cabin, which appears to be used for storage, seems to
be in fair condition.
Research potential: Given the landowner's refusal to co-operate with investigations, the
cabin's history and research potential are difficult to evaluate. The cabin appears to be a good
example of vernacular architecture. However, as the published inventory of historic
structures in Buncombe County points out, such cabins are "typical of what is to be found at the
heads of coves and hollows around the county" (Swaim 1981:111). If the cabin has to be
removed for landfill construction, we recommend recording the structure with architectural
photographs and drawings.
Impact of the project: The cabin is on the site of a proposed sediment pond.
Figure 15: The log cabin at 31 5N577.

g!/ N C dlv? ?c ?('iy(? ? (? ?C ??fS l'C ?CQO ??C
??v??lc°? r?C' z88o/

Figure 16: The barn northwest of 31BN577.
19
31BN578 (Project BCLF #9)
Type of si- This,group of twentieth century farm buildings and foundations may actually be too
recent for inclusion in this inventory, since the 1942 Leicester quad does not show any structures
here. The surviving structures and foundations are strung out along the road and creek that follow
the bottom of the hollow. The main standing structure is a log and frame barn on cinderblock
foundations (Figure 17). Upslope from the barn is a concrete and cinderblock foundation,
probably formerly a small house, adjacent to two small outbuildings.
Environment: The site structures are spaced along the bottom of a hollow of Wilkes gravelly
loam (eroded steep phase).
Signs of preservation or disturbance: Preservation of the site and the structures appears to be fair.
Research potential: The recent age of the site diminishes the potential for additional research.
Impact of the project: The structures are on the site of a proposed sediment pond.
Figure 17: The log and frame barn at 3 1 BN 578.

TRIBUTARY
6.
7
8
9
10
11.
CONTOUR LINEAR
INTERVAL DISTANCE WIDTH
(feet) (feet) (feet) ACREAGE
1810-1820 130 25 0.07
1820-1910 680 15 0.23
1910-1970 270 2 0.01
1870-1920 200 15 0.07
1920-1960 210 5 0.02
1960-1980 170 2 0.01
TOTAL: 1660 0.41
1830-1880 150 10 0.03
1880-1950 610 5 0.07
1950-1990 250 2 0.01
1955-1990 350 2 0.02
TOTAL: 1360 0.13
1930-1990 460 5 0.05
TOTAL: 460 0.05
1910-1920 100 15 0.03
1920-1950 300 5 0.03
1950-1970 300 1 0.01
1950-1980 400 1 0.01
TOTAL: 1100 0.08
1935-1940 140 4 0.01
TOTAL: 140 0.01
1930-1935 90 6 0.01
TOTAL: 90 0.01
4, ``
R
TRIBUTARY
,Q 12.
13
CONTOUR LINEAR
INTERVAL DISTANCE WIDTH
(feet)
1 (feet) (feet) ACREAGE
1950-1990 1000 8 0.18
1990-2010 280 4 0.03
TOTAL: 1280 0.21
1985-1990 300 10 0.07
1990-1995 20 4 0.002
TOTAL: 940 0.07
POTENTIAL IMPACT TOTALS: 16,590 Linear Feet
2.87 Acres
AVERAGE STREAM WIDTH PER LINEAR FOOT: 7.5 Feet

Iq
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 5,4m ?y nfxy n5 j
Applicant/Owner: !_n/1
Investigator: 7Wb f APS ES I Date: Saar 1S
County: 7wAzorlwc-
State: NL
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? a No Community ID: u iA-,d
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. 1 H YU rot FAL_ CA rVV'f 9.50)11Acant nscb""w fALtf
2. 61K" WS 4 A FA t rao'ran;
3. nS ru rA F CL4 11.
4. 0, ra YK f? 12.
5. 13.
6. /' rite P AI-- / m 14.
7J 'P)^ AW t^ LIM 15.
S. (ai nu U,w11h,bM? 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
< S rj
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Date (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inumdated
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: -
_Drainege Panama in Wetlands
Secondary kKdicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in,) -Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Sod: (in,) -Local Soil Survey Data
_FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks: r .?

4
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
11987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: $Hnwr? 1"" 1A'tJ ) >•xelsikn Date: 560} y3 ,
r
Applicant/Owner: f,D T Runu +p?
County-
Investigator: jWV +-Af?l S State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? N Community ID: o?rNlin N.
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Ye Transect ID.
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse)
vcr_Prerln1U
Dominant Plant S ecies
1
imr Stratum
t Li?J Indicator
[A"°1Q' Dominant Plant Species
9. Bhe ' r?'1? A U /11 h a+1!/ ? Stratum Indicator
z
.

2. lY I t

FAL 1

?r

10.TAYt;llun
t T
F1L-
3. n I ?i
4. Fh!-?l - 11.
12. Omm% rA4IUA; ;
L Yir t

t^!^
6. SA )"X
p?_
D
13. I IN?`1 ^rh?'?'?C«1
f C,
6. 14.
7. E t"A G} ?7 16.
8. o N1 t wA.-+ r L_ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Date (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs Inumdated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_
X No Recorded Data Available Z:Watar Marks
X Drift Lines
Ssdiment Deposits
)?
'
_
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators 12 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pk: (in.) _Watm-Stainod Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
_FAC-Neutral Test
plain in Remarks)
Ottw (E
x
Remarks:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources LTKAA
/ • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C) E ?--? "F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 10, 1996
Buncombe County
DEM Project # 931066
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Bob Hunter, Director
Buncombe County Solid Waste Dept.
30 Valley Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Dear Mr. Hunter:
You have our approval to place fill material in 1.60 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of
constructing a landfill at NC 251 and French Boad River, as you described in your application dated
26 March 1996. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 2671. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
Number 26 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. This Certification replaces one issued on 25
January 1994.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, 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 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-
1786.
Sincerely,
s o ow r. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
L. Bernard Garrett; CDM
931066.1tr
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
RECoNEQ
MAR 2 61991
;.NUi12.ON1dEN1 AL SC??NCE.S
891-i44awop \ag4uoaunq\: u
•pilen si uoitLDi;u.xa? Atileno aateM t0t, aut
gxi.Im gSnozllt a;up allt uzzguoa aseald '.zananioH •awq silt to pajinbaz 2uiaq uoisuatxa
we atedtague tou op any 'azo;aiaLU '9661 jaquxaaaQ ui patalduioz) aq of palnpagDs
si uopan4suoa pue 1661 'SZ A enuL j uo panssi sum. uoyuai3p,zaJ AjilLnb aa4eM 10t au.L
saea?i aaallt zo; pilen si uoiteai;itaaD A4ilen0.iajeM 10;, alit 4eq4 2uipue4szapun zno si 41
•aseild u2isap Ieui; alit of u2isap Ientda:)uoz) alit Luoz; suogL,:)gipolu
ueid atis ;o ;Insaz v su stauduii ui aSuella au; taagaz of payipow aq uoitLagpzaJ ilenCj
zatLM L0t allt tent 2uusanbaa si WQD uzatsAs Ieuopxpsunf q:)ea zo; spuduzi t:)afozd
alit sazijeununs paLl:wttu 1 algej •sazae 09.1 o4 saiau ZZ•1 Luox; paanpaa uaaq anell
ISMS alit Aq pattnujad A4i1iaL; alit ;o u2isap luui; alit uo pasuq 'st:)Ldun ;aafo id Ietot ally
•salrlu aienbs 0•£ of S•Z uuip ssal;o sewe a2uuieap pue puoaas zad taa; aigna q
ut,llt ssal igIm saizL4ngi4 se paui;ap we Llaiqm 'saijgnq!.4 aa4Lmpeaq anoge se pagissula
aau (Laze a2ruit,zp alms-azLnbs Zt,•0) gDuuag ialltueg put, (eaae a2euiejp alms-axenbs
Z/.'0) IIZ)UP q uinalg 'AlsnolAaid noA LItiM passnasip sV •asugd u2isap IentdaDuoz) alit
2uunp papeduzi aq o; swatsAs se pai;puapi tou a.zam q:)ut,zg .zalltuLd puu qauuag uinalg
•suzatsAs tuawa2eueuz
Jatumuzzots Pup pLOa ssaaae alit .2uiteaol io; pasn uaaq sell Laze ja;;ng too; 00£
alit 'aao;aaatU •atsum ;o a2pa alit of sailddl as;;nq too; 00£ alit tullt si u2isap luug zo;
sisLq alit put, 'uopLtazdzatui tuaiana allt 'zanamoH •aa33nq paq.zntsipun ue st,.za;;nq too;
00£ a zo; tuauzazmbaz Q altugnS alit pataidzatui SMS alit 'asegd Apnts atis alit 2uiznQ
•LI:)uLZg .1all4ueg pue tlauezg uinaIq 2uolu sj:wdwi Mods of pue auil as;;nq ;oo; 00£ alit ;o
wva.4sumop staudwi ateaipui of pai}ipow uaaq sell 1-1 azn2id •asegd LLSisap leug atp of
asLlld u2isap Ientdaauoa alit woz; u2isap atis alit of apeui uaaq aAU'q sa.2ut,LID •taafoad
alit zo; paut;ap staLduzi ILUOitaipsizn[ allt of uopLai;ipouz e stsanbaa XIln3taadsaz WQJ
:iiauaoQ .xw ieaQ
9901£6 -ON taafoag WaCl
uopeauitzaJ Atilunb aatuM lot,
A4i1iau3 tuauia2LULW atseM pi1oS A4unoJ aquzoaung :taafgnS

Z09ZZ LuiloauD LIt-IoN 'LI2ia1UN
puo21 ?Iaa'D ApaaX 10f1f,
/aote.iogeZ X.tilLnb zateM
WaGDN
xauzoQ uqo j JW
9661 '9Z LIJZLW
0EL9-L9L 6L6 :xeJ OZ991BL 616 :lal
ZL9LZ eulloa O 41JoN 'y6lalea
0O£ ailnS 'anuany poonnualJ OObS
SBOIA/BS
IBJUGWU04AUO
9.9 40 I C / aax:)N -PR Jasszu(j dwUD wao
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Mr. David K. Baker
March 26, 1996
Page 2
The landfill construction contract is underway, therefore, a timely response in providing
the modification to the 401 Water Quality Certification would be greatly appreciated. If
you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
L. Bernard Garrett, Jr., P.E.
LBG/nb
cc: Mr. David K. Baker
Bob Hunter, Buncombe County
Joe Wiseman
n: \ buncombe\ domeltr.lbg
09' l LL' l saaoy lelol
VVO 0 'a8 aaylued
£Z'0 0 'a8 UTA818
00'0 LO'0 £ L
0£'0 LZ'0 Z L
t,0'0 LO'0 i i

9Z'0 80'0 6
9l'0 ££'0 £
60'0 2'0 Z
tl£'0 98'0 i
acese(] Odd IDES
leu!d lenidaouoo
sloedwi s o, ,
eu!loaeO 4PON 'Alunoo agwooun8
Al!!!oed luawa6eueW elseM p!log Alunoo agwooun8
L TISVi

'91'AI?a?R9\?9??9\v
atp sazueuxiuns paILPRW 1 aigRl •saaoe 09.1 04 sain LL•1 uioi; paonpaa uaaq anpq
ISMS atp Aq paupmad A4i pp; aip ;o u$tsap ieug agp uo paspq 'spedlui 4oa[oad jejo} atU
-sajtua aaenbs 0-£ of S•Z ump ssaj ;o suaap a2vuteap pup puooas aad ;aa; otgno S
uuq; ssajtM saueIngta? se pauyap aap ?mm 'saueingta? aa4eNtppaq anoge se paytsspp
an, (ease a2vuteap ajnu-aaunbs Zt-0) goueag zaipued pup (eaau ageuteap ajtua-aaenbs
ZL'0) uPueag Haig 'AlsnoiAald noA g4lm passmsip s V •asegd u$isap jen}daouoo aqj
Suunp papudwi aq of sma4sAs su paypuapi tou aaam goupag as pupd pup goueag utnajg
-smalsAs 4uatua$euuuz
jawmuiao;s pup peon ssaxm agl.2u4eooj io; pasn uaaq seq pane za;;nq 4oo3 00£
aq} 'aao;aaatU •a;slem ;o aSpa aq4 o} saijdde aa;jnq 4oo; 00E aq4 }uqg si uSisap jeug io;
sispq aq4 pup 'uope;aadaa;ui ;uaaanz) aip 'aanaMOH •aa;;nq pagan4sipun up se as;;nq 4oo;
00£ a ao3 4uauzaambaa Cl aj}pgnS aq} pap idaa4ui SMS atp 'asegd Apn4s a4ts aq; $utanQ
•goueag aag4ued pup gauuag uinajg $uoje spedmi niogs o4 pup auij as;;nq ;oo; 00£ aq4 ;o
uua4sumop s4auduii alempui o; payipoui uaaq sug 1-1 am213 •asugd uStsap jeug aq} o;
asegd u2isap jpn4daauoa atp tuoa; uSisap alis aip o4 appuz uaaq anuq sa2uugJ •;oa(oad
aq4 ao; pauyap speduxi jpuopoipsunt aqj o} uopeoytpotu a 2upsanbaa osje si WCIZ)
•sauaA Z ipuogTppe
up ao; papua;xa aq dMN aq; lpg} Suysanbaa si WCID 'sniU '9661 aaquzaoaQ g2noaq}
anupuoo o4 papadxa si pup 9661 11 iagiuaz)aCl uo ue2aq uopona}suoo ;o asegd ;say aqs
'9661 'Z aaquzanoN uo SMS aq4 Aq panssi sem jon4suoa o4 4iuuad atU • 661 Iagolap ui
pa;ut}tui spnA'sgquoux :pZ-Zi sale; Ajjuoidfj goigni 'asugd uopex dde pm4suoo o1 jtuUad
u 'asegd Apn.}s alts aq} 2uimojjo3 •aa44aj Ajijtqu;ms alis p anssi pjnoni a}u;S aqj aao;aq
paambaa sung dMN uH '(SMS) uopoaS alsuM ptioS UNHaQJN aq; Aq paialspanupp
ssaooad 2tri}lnuaad Cl ai4pgnS aq4 ;o asegd Aprys alts aq; 2uunp paambaa sem
dMN juuduo aip ;o aoupnssj -paaidxa sug 1,661 `E Aaunagad uo panssi 'dMN juutSuo
alp asneoag paisanbaa si uozsua4xa atiy goafoad paouaaa;aa aq} ao; 9Z 'ON UMN)
4?maad apuvtuot}eN aql o; uoisua;xa ue s;sanbaa Ajjr4padsaa aa)i:)W 2p aassaiG dine'
ualpg aj^i aeaQ
9Z 'oN inuaaa ap!muowN
.p:)L ;uauza2eueW a;seM piioS rL}unoJ agtuooung :patgnS
euijoauJ 141ION 'aiiinatisy
Evi uzooH
anuand uol}ed 191
aoy;p ' aO4UM2aX ajjtnagsy
aaauL2ug ;o sdaoJ AuiiV -S-fl
aalleq •)i ptneQ •aW
9661 '9Z goapW
0CLS-lSL M :xe=1 N99-L8L M :lal
ZL9LZ eulIoaeO WJO 'OPIEa
00£ aling 'anuany POOMUGIE) 004S
as aye -19 .zass3lG dw
SBJINBS
1Q)UGWUa/nue
Waa 1
8gfAp&ijvq\aqw-q\v
ueuzasiM ao j
A4unoJ aquioaunq 'ta}unH qog
UNHaaJN 'Aauioa uqo j :aa
qu/E)fl'I
•a•d "If '}}aaze f) pxeutaq • I
HH)Pw 22 Hassaxa JWVD
'sznox Alazaauis
•lle) o} a}e}isai.I }ou op aseald 'uopeuzzo;ui leuoi}ippe paau zo suopsanb Auu aneq
nod ;I pa}epasdde AI}ua aq plnom dMN au} o} uopeayipouz au} pue uoisua}xa au}
Buipinoad ui asuodsaz ?ilauzp 'azo;aIau} 'Aunuapun si }auz}uoa uopan4suoa III puul ails
ssaaozd Mainaz anisuagazduioa a }nog4pm auop aq uea }nuzad
au} o} uoi}ea?ipolu alp 'sazau ZZ•I pa}}nzujad au} tAolaq Ili}s an any aau.9 'sq}uouz n?a;
}sul aq} Jano suoi}esIanuoJ ano uo paseq •asuqd u2isap Iuui; au} o} u8isap len}daauoa
aiI} uzoz; suopuai;ipoux ueld a}is ;o }Insai a se s}auduii ui a2uuqa aq} }aapax o} paglpoui
aq dMN atI} }uq} 2ui}sanbaz si WaJ uza}sus Ieuopaipsun[ yaua ao; s}auduzi }aafozd
z asud
9661 '9Z 1I3-IeNt
Jaileg •>I pinua *JW
aaxpy j -ig .iassajG dweo Mao

MFMORANDITM PRINT NAMES:
Reviewer: •/ E(z
TO : John Dox neY WQ supv. _
Planning Branch DATE:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE) ***
PERMIT YR:
APPLICANT NAME:
PROJECT-TYPE:
COE_#:
RCD_FROM_CDA:
REG_OFFICE;
93 PERMIT N0: 0001066 COUNTY: BUNCOMBE
BUNCOMBE COUNTY LANDFILL
SANITARY LANDFILL PERMIT TYPE: NWP26
APP
ARO
STREAM_CLASS : ?? "'?
WL_IMPACT?: Y( )
WL_R.EQUESTED : M
WL_SCORE (# : ig-
HYDRO_CNECT?. Y/
MITI GAT I ON-TYPE:
DOT_# :
DATE_FRM_CDA: 22/30/93
RI VER_AND,__SUB_BASIN_# : Vxey eZcA (6004
o 4-o3-o x.
STR_INDF.X_NO: G .ga..(- ?-?-30 9Lvia> qg,e,
G-C( 7. 5) - u?.Toa.c4.??e QWL_TYPE : ?' UMt
WL._.,ACR_EST? : Y N('jL??? rJ
WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?- Y/ sQ?`J
MITIGATION?: IN
MITIGATION SIZE: N14
I WETLAND RATING SHEET AT^I ?. :(/ )
RECOMMENDATION (Cir•lo One) : ISSUE
1S_,UEE/CCOND DENY
COMMENTS: NPS2-4„AWos.4 ccAAi,.4f/ -!wtgr- S
fury "-ow) ?t
. Zl /}Gtto . c 7 46[sc,.-,W ux? , fly i??rx ??!a u+C !r . ? AMC.
Ott ?'1` -.-G? `-1.. Q 4-..!!?/2Qd?C d ". ! L• AW 4y-St* -a..?P4, t4wLr '1 A;1 c -6 tLt AV,w
""fe
(j,/NC«st w?7.?- p?Pc?eGt, Le?.c?-.r0`-?- hmuclCs.?I,? ?7 is ?2?arx.??CR+,C "f
?:r`t:;::' .i. } 1 ... :? 'Dq^" ? 3?(L lG/x.?C[11.//".Q+11-dL `a'Kdt,'1-- 4444 $k 24 7' 1
20'd d Ail-mm >.RI "1 Ol &UM Od aI I t naysd W06d 6Z:LZ KZT-SS-W4
if/
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SEC'T'ION
P.

TO:
Fa7c #: Z 3 3 1 3 3 d'
FROM: VA-e¢,SL
FAX 704J251-6432
DATE: ?-
## OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COWER:
?;i J?
LA??.
.
MESSAGE: _If questions, please call 704/251-6208.

T0'd d )dI-km 2Blk:f'I 01 &#-M Od aI I i naysb WOdJ 6Z:LT b66T-ST-6'dd