20120626 Ver 1_401 Application_20120612

?® 1 2062
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM
SUBJECT
Gordon Myers Executive Director
June 20 2012
Cyndi Karoly NCDWQ
Tasha McCormick USACE
Mark Fowlkes NCWRC
SUN 2
2 2012
wc+� n
8ta!u
Permit application for Boone Fork stream rehabilitation and habitat enhancement site
Caldwell County North Carolina
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ( NCWRC) is submitting the enclosed plan
for 778 linear feet of stream enhancement on Boone Fork Deep Creek and an Unnamed
Tributary to Boone Fork Catawaba County for your approval for a 401/404 permit (Nationwide
Permit number 27 NCDWQ # 3399) The project is being implemented through a partnership
with the U S Forest Service National Wild Turkey Federation and NCWRC and is located
within Grandfather Ranger District Pisgah National Forest
The $570 Pre Construction Notification Application fee required by NCDWQ has been
electronically transferred (electromc warrant # 57349) The email notification for the transfer is
enclosed Also enclosed are the U S Forest Service Decision Notice and Finding of No
Significant Impact and the Agent Authorization letter
A copy of the plan has been submitted to the NCWRC for their review
If I can bL of any further assistance please let feel free to contact me at 336 527 1547 or by email
at mark fowlkes @ncwildlife org Thank you for reviewing this plan in a timely manner
CC Brian Mcrae NCWRC 7 F\
s
Mailing Address Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1721
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]

� &FaRY, C5%ti$1 Z
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon S Myers, Executive Director
June 18 2012 / . I A
ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFER REQUEST
VENDOR EIN 56 6000372 ) 4'
NC Division of Water Quality T
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
Attn Ian McMillan
1650 Mail Service Center ' JUN _ 2" 7
Raleigh NC 27699 9650 f
AMOUNT $570 00
PURPOSE Application fee for Section 401 water quality certification permit for
Boone Fork stream rehabilitation and habitat enhancement site
Caldwell County
RAIf j 41 PERMIT, &ME T =69t! sTRc-AM Rte. 0,ALbW6LL 0WW y
ACCOUNTICENTER 535890 :� 2141 `111 1801
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS To allow Water Quality to identify this transfer, please
enter 401 Cert in the RCGL field and WRC — Boone Fork stream rehabilitation and
habitat enhancement site in the memo field of the transfer system Please notify
Christian Waters and Mark Fowlkes (mark fowlkes @ncwddlife org) Division of Inland
Fisheries when the transfer has occurred so we may include a confirmation of the
transaction as proof of payment with the permit application The Division of Water
Quality requires this as a part of the application package
REQUESTED BY M Kyle Brggs DATE 18 -Jun 12
ol
APPROVED BY DATE
Mmling Address Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1721
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]

Jun 19, 2012 8 10 07 AM
OCP AP DOCUMENT PAYMENT GENERAL INFORMATION
DPG
NEXT FUNCTION
ACTION
HISTORY _
06/19/2012 08 10 03
BROWSE
PAY ENTITY
17PT
VEND /EMP NBR
566000372 40
VEND /EMP SHORT
NAME DENR
DOCUMENT NBR
BOONEFORK061812
DOCUMENT DATE
06/18/2012
PAYMENT NBR
001 PRTL PYMT NBR 000
IND AMOUNT
SALES TAX /VAT
SALES TAX 2
SALES TAX 3
FREIGHT
ADDITIONAL COST
GROSS INVOICE
PAYMENT AMOUNT
AMOUNT PAID
PAYMENT TERMS
PAYMENT DATE
PAYMENT ROUTE CD
FACTOR NUMBER
REASON CODE /DESC
VAT INCLUSIVE N
EXPENSE IND
GL EFFECTIVE DATE 06/18/2012
EXTRACT DATE
ACCRUAL CANC DATE
570 00 CURRENCY CODE
570 00 DISCOUNT TYPE NOT TAKEN
570 00 DISCOUNT TAKEN
PAYMENT STATUS PAID
NET PAY IMMEDIATELY PAYMENT REF NBR 0000057349
06/18/2012 PAYMENT TYPE ELECTRONIC
HANDLING CODE
ONE INVC PER PYMT YES
BANK ACCT PYMT CD IGO
NI

-0
Office w A -r
r
20120626
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no
Form Version 13 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A Applicant Information
t
1
Processing
1a
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number NW 27 or General Permit (GP) number
1 c
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply)
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non 404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ Yes ® No
1f
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in lieu
fee program
El Yes
®No
1g
Is the project located in any of NC s twenty coastal counties If yes answer 1h
below
❑ Yes
® No
1h
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2
Project Information
2a
Name of project
Boone Fork Stream Rehabilitation and Habitat Enhancement
2b
County
Caldwell
2c
Nearest municipality / town
Mulberry
2d
Subdivision name
N/A
2e
NCDOT only T I P or state
project no
3
Owner Information JUN
2 2 2012
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed
U S Forest Service National Forests in North Carole a
3b
Deed Book and Page No
LACNK
Not listed Date 1 / 1900 ylfetlande
P QU�'�L ITy
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable)
Kristin Bad NSF NC Forest Supervisor
3d
Street address
160 A Zdlicoa St
3e
City state zip
Asheville NC 28801
3f
Telephone no
828 257 4214
3g
Fax no
828 257 4263
3h
Email address
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a
Applicant is
❑ Agent ® Other specify Contact person for the U S Forest Service
4b
Name
Brady N Dodd
4c
Business name
(if applicable)
U S Forest Service National Forests in North Carolina
4d
Street address
160 A Zillicoa St
4e
City state zip
Asheville NC 28801
4f
Telephone no
828 257 4214
4g
Fax no
828 257 4263
4h
Email address
bdodd @fs fed us
5
Agent(Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
Mark Fowlkes
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
5c
Street address
PO Box 387
5d
City state zip
Elkin NC 28621
5e
Telephone no
336 527 1547
5f
Fax no
336 527 1547
5g
Email address
mark fowlkes @ncwildlife org
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

B
Project Information and Prior Project History
1
Property Identification
1a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
Parcel ID# 022411 NCPIN 280316415
lb
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
Latitude 36 006703 Longitude
81 614914
(DD DDDDDD) ( DD DDDDDD)
1c
Property size
43 380 67 acres
2
Surface Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water (stream river etc ) to
proposed project
Boone Fork
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
Class B HQW
2c
River basin
Catawba
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

3 Project Description
3a Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application
The Boone Fork enhancement site is located on the U S National Forest The land is managed for timber and
recreational purposes There is a forest service campground adjacent to the lower portion of the site Relic impacts from
historic agricultural and logging practices have impacted Boone Fork Deep Cove Creek and an unnamed tributary (UT)
to Boone Fork Thirteen sites on Boone Fork totaling 528 If have been identified with eroding stream banks and
degraded aquatic habitat The U S Forest Service determined the culvert on Deep Cove Creek in the Boone Fork
campground is impeding fish passage Four relic log culverts and 150 If of eroding stream banks on an intermittent UT to
Boone Fork are causing excess sedimentation in the Boone Fork Pond Public Fishing Area In addition bank scour has
occurred behind Boone Fork Pond outfall pipe See attached Boone Fork stream rehabilitation and habitat enhancement
plan for more details
3b List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
No wetlands were identified within the Boone Fork Stream rehabilitation and habitat enhancement site
3c List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
Approximately 898 If of prennial and intermittent streams are being proposed for enhancement at the Boone Fork stream
enhancement site Total linear feet of stream on the U S Nation Forest property is unknown
3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project
The purpose of the project is to remiediate the historic impacts by stabilizing stream banks improving aquatic habitat and
fish passage
3e Describe the overall project in detail including the type of equipment to be used
All proposed enhancements are described in further detail in the attached Boone Fork stream rehabilitation and habitat
enhancement plan The stream channel s design dimensions are based on the mountain and piedmont regional
hydraulic geometry curve data for riffles and onsite conditions Eroding stream banks and habitat will be enhanced on the
thirteen sites totaling 528 If of stream on Boone Fork Stream banks will be reshaped a bankfull bench will be created
and in stream structures (J hook cross vanes wood toe root wads etc ) installed in order to stabilize the stream banks
and improve aquatic habitat
To improve fish passage through the culvert on Deep Cove Creek we propose to decrease the water velocity through the
culvert by raising the water elevation within the culvert A rock cross vane will be installed to raise the head of the riffle
downstream of the culvert by approximately one foot The elevation of the stream channel will be stepped down to the
existing stream channel elevation through two additional cross vanes The stream channel will be reshaped based on the
regional hydraulic geometry curve values and onsite conditions
Eroding stream banks on the UT to Boone Fork will be stabilized and aquatic habitat enhanced by removing the 4 existing
culverts and reshaping 150 If of stream banks The bank behind Boone Fork Pond s outfall pipe will be stabilized by
installing non woven filter fabric with a layer of rip rap on top
Disturbed stream banks will be reshaped to 1 2 to 1 3 slopes and stabilized with coir fiber matting The clearing of riparian
vegetation will be minimized and primarily limited to eroding stream banks Salvaged woody vegetation and sod mats will
be used to re vegetate the disturbed stream banks wherever possible These areas also will be seeded with a temporary
and permanent native riparian seed mix and mulched with straw Two hundred and fifty live stakes and 200 one gallon
containerized trees and shrubs will be planted on disturbed stream banks Trees and shrubs will be planted in higher
densities along the outside of meander bends and at structures
During construction heavy equipment (track hoe) will only access the stream when absolutely necessary For this project it
is anticipated that most of the track hoe work can be accomplished from the top of the bank All construction materials
including rock root wads logs and erosion control materials will be stockpiled at a central location at the site To limit
disturbance of soils all equipment will travel along existing USFS roads and identified travel corridors
Disturbance of soils will be limited to only what work can be accomplished and stabilized on a daily basis As a structure is
completed the site will be sloped stabilized with sod mats or re seeded Any stockpiled soils or disturbed areas on steep
slopes will have erosion control fencing installed as needed
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments
❑ Yes ❑ No ® Unknown
4b
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c
If yes who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known)
Agency /Consultant Company U S Forest Service
Other
4d
If yes list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
5
Project History
5a
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
5b
If yes explain in detail according to help file instructions
6
Future Project Plans
6a
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b
If yes explain
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

C Proposed Impacts Inventory
1 Impacts Summary
1a Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
❑ Wetlands ® Streams tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2 Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps 404 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P)
(if known)
DWQ —non 404 other)
(acres)
or Temporary
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g Total wetland impacts
2h Comments
3 Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number
(PER) or
(Corps 404 10
stream
length
Permanent (P)
intermittent
DWQ — non 404
width
(linear
or Temporary
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
(T)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Remove 4 culverts and
UT to Boone
❑ PER
® Corps
4
60
enhance stream
Fork
® INT
® DWQ
S2 ® P ❑ T
Stabilization /enhancement
UT to Boone
Fork
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
® DWQ
4
150
S3 ®P ❑ T
Stabilize outfall
UT to Boone
❑ PER
® Corps
4
10
Fork
® INT
® DWQ
S4 ® P ❑ T
Enhancement
Boone Fork
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
1317
528
S5 ®P ❑ T
Improve fish passage
Deep Cove
® PER
❑ Corps
12
30
through culvert
Creek
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
778
31 Comments
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

4 Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes ponds estuaries tributaries sounds the Atlantic Ocean or any other open water of
the U S then individually list all open water impacts below
4a
4b
4c
4d
4e
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
number —
Permanent
(P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f Total open water impacts
4g Comments
5 Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed then com lete the chart below
5a
5b
5c
5d
5e
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose of
(acres)
number
pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f Total
5g Comments
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required
❑ Yes No If yes permit ID no
51 Expected pond surface area (acres)
51 Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

6 Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer then complete the chart below If yes then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar Pamlico ❑ Other
Project is in which protected basin?
® Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b
6c
6d
6e
6f
6g
Buffer impact
number —
Reason for
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent
impact
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
(P) or
required?
Temporary T
131 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P
El Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P
❑Yes
❑ No
6h Total buffer impacts
61 Comments The site is not on the Catawba River and is outside of the nparfan buffer rule
D Impact Justification and Mitigation
1 Avoidance and Minimization
la Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
Only areas with active bank erosion channel instability and poor habitat will be targeted for enhancement work with the use of
heavy equipment The use of in stream structures will be minimized Work within the existing channels was preferred over
excavating new channels The length and location of new haul roads were minimized by using existing U S Forest Service
roads and campground parking areas
1b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
During construction heavy equipment will only access the stream when absolutely necessary It is anticipated that most track
hoe work can be accomplished from the top of the bank The enhancement work will be completed in the dry to minimize
sediment getting in the stream channel The clearing of riparian vegetation will be minimized and primarily limited to eroding
stream banks All disturbed areas will) be covered with temporary and permanent seed mixes straw mulch and coir matting
to reduce erosion Only the amount of stream bank that can be stabilized by the end of the work day will be disturbed All
staging areas and soil stockpile areas will be on high ground and surrounded by silt fencing Equipment will be inspected and
maintained to prevent any pollutants from leaking into surface waters Additional sediment and erosion control practices will
be implemented when needed
2 Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
❑ Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
2b If yes mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c If yes which mitigation option will be used for this project?
❑ Payment to in lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3 Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank
3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

3c Comments
4 Complete if Making a Payment to In lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in lieu fee program is attached
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested
linear feet
4c If using stream mitigation stream temperature
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
square feet
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4f Non riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
acres
4h Comments
5 Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
6 Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b If yes then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the
amount of mitigation required
Zone
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
15
6f Total buffer mitigation required
6g If buffer mitigation is required discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g payment to private mitigation bank
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration payment into an approved in lieu fee fund)
6h Comments
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

E Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1 Diffuse Flow Plan
1a Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b If yes then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no explain why
Comments
❑ Yes E] No
2 Stormwater Management Plan
2a What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
00%
2b Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan explain why We are proposing to enhance stream
banks and aquatic habitat on streams within a U S National Forest This project does not involve the addition of
impervious development will disturb less than one acre of land and therefore a Stormwater Management Plan is not
required This project is not subject to the NWPs that require submittal of a Stormwater Management Plan
2d If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan then provide a brief narrative description of the plan
❑ Certified Local Government
2e Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3 Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a In which local government s jurisdiction is this project?
Caldwell County
❑ Phase II
3b Which of the following locally implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply)
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
3c Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4 DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
4a Which of the following state implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ HQW
❑ ORW
(check all that apply)
❑ Session Law 2006 246
❑ Other
4b Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5 DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

F
Supplementary Information
1
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b
If you answered yes to the above does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
® Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c
If you answered yes to the above has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter )
® Yes
❑ No
Comments See attached Mulberry Decision Notice and Finding Of No Significant
Impact
2
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500) Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300) DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 26 0200)?
2b
Is this an after the fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c
If you answered yes to one or both of the above questions provide an explanation of the violation(s)
3
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
El Yes
No
additional development which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b
If you answered yes to the above submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy If you answered no provide a short narrative description
4
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a
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
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

5 Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c If yes indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
El Raleigh
® Asheville
5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFS NEPA process NC Wildlife Resources Commission and NC Natural Heritage program (NCNHP) GIS data
6 Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
USFS NEPA process NC Wildlife Resources Commission and NC Natural Heritage program (NCNHP) GIS data
7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes No
status (e g National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
U S Forest Service Archeologist reviewed the project and determined there would be no impacts A visual assessment
of the site was completed Any impacts to cultural resources would have been addressed on site See attach Mulberry
Decision Notice and Finding Of No Significant Impact
8 Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a Will this project occur in a FEMA designated 100 year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b If yes explain how project meets FEMA requirements
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Caldwell County FEMA NFIP maps
Mark Fowlkes NCWRC
June 20 2012
Applicant/Agent s Printed Name
Date
App Agent s Signature
(Agents signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

® Noith Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
24 Ap ►►12012
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
The undersigned iesponstble patty for the properties identified below, hereby authoiiies the
North Cat ohna Wildlife Resources Commission to act as the agent to obtaining pe►mits needed
to conduct a stream restoration piolect for the United States Forest Service on the identified
property in Caldwell County, N C Specifically, the Commission may act as the agent in
obtaining all necessary permits fiornn all units of goveinnnent including but not limited to, the
United States Army Corps of Engrnce►s and the State of Not th Carolina, which arc needed to
accomplish this project
Responsible Party K ►tstin Ball, NFsNC Forest Supetvrsoi
Address U S Forest Service
106 A Zrllrcoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone Number 828 257 4269
Ptoperty Location and PIN # Pa►cel ID# 022411, NCPIN 280316415
Signatu►e
Date
Marla ►g Addy ess Division of Inland fisheries 1721 Marl Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1721
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]

l
r
I �
United States
Forest National Forests in North Carolina
109 E Lawmg Dr
Department of
Service Pisgah National Forest
Nebo NC 28761 9827
Agriculture
Grandfather Ranger District
828 652 2144
File Code 1950 1
Date September 27 2007
Dear Interested Citizen
I have signed the Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact ( FONSI) for the
Mulberry Project Environmental Assessment (EA) within the Grandfather Ranger District
Caldwell County The DN discusses in detail my decision and rationale for reaching it
Copies of the DN and FONSI are enclosed The August 2007 Preliminary Analysis (PA) has
been modified and clarified to correct typographic errors and address issues and concerns raised
by members of the public during the 30 day notice and comment period and to be more
responsive to new information The September 2007 EA is the result of this effort and is
available on our web site (http / /www cs unca edu /nfsnc /nepa /nepa htm) or upon request
This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215 11 A written appeal including
attachments must be postmarked or received within 45 days after the date this notice is
published in The McDowell News The Appeal shall be sent to National Forests in North
Carolina ATTN Appeals Deciding Officer 160 Zillicoa Street Suite A Asheville North
Carolina 28802 Appeals may be faxed to [phone] Hand delivered appeals must be
received within normal business hours of 8 00 a m to 4 30 p m Appeals may also be mailed
electronically in a common digital format to appeals southern north carolina @fs fed us
Those who provided comments or otherwise expressed interest in a particular proposed action by
the close of the comment period may appeal this decision (as per the recent The Wilderness
Society v Rey ruling) Appeals must meet content requirements of 36 CFR 215 14 For further
information on this decision contact Greg Van Orsow Project Leader Grandfather Ranger
District at 828 652 2144 or Michael Hutchins Pisgah National Forest NEPA Coordinator at 828
682 6146 Thank you for your continued interest in management of the Pisgah National Forest
Sincerely
la //ory W 7 &4& ae
JOY W MALONE
District Ranger
Enclosure
Caring for the Land and Serving People Pn led on Recycled Pape

USDA Mulberry
Decision Notice
United States
Department of And
Agriculture
Southern Region Finding Of No Significant Impact
Forest Service
September Grandfather Ranger District Pisgah National Forest
2007 Caldwell County North Carolina
S

Mulberry Creek
Decision Notice
& Finding of No Significant Impact
Mulberry Project
USDA Forest Service
Grandfather Ranger District Pisgah National Forest
Caldwell County North Carolina
Decision and Rationale
Decision
Based upon my review of the alternatives I have
decided to select a modified Alternative C
(Selected Alternative) of the Mulberry Project
Environmental Assessment (September EA - see
Section 12 Chapter 1) on the Grandfather
Ranger District Pisgah National Forest and the
Project Design Features listed in Section 2 4
Appendix A and Appendix F of the EA The
Selected Alternative is within the Lower
Mulberry Forest Plan Analysis Area (AA) and
specifically within Compartments 2 5 7 16 21
and 23 (project area) The modification is to
Stand 6 and is a 1 acre exclusion to meet Forest
Plan standards The Selected Alternative will
Harvest about 274 acres using the two age
regeneration harvest prescription (average
minimum of 15 30 ft2 basal area retained per
acre) The ten harvest units range in size
from about five acres to 40 acres with the
average size about 28 acres
Perform road maintenance on the existing
roads that access the area
Utilize and reconstruct about 18 miles of
existing old woods roads (unauthorized
roads) and develop about 2 0 miles of new
temporary roads to access harvest stands
Following harvest activities the 18 rules of
old woods roads will be placed on the
Forest s transportation system as authorized
(system) roads stabilized (i a shaped
waterbarred and seeded) and accessed for
motorized administrative use only —they
will be available for future access needs The
new temporary roads will be disked seeded
and permanently closed (about 15 acres of
temporary roads will serve as permanent
wildlife linear openings)
0 Selectively apply herbicides to
control /manage non native invasive plant
species along roads
0 Selectively apply herbicides and use hand
tools to ensure successful regeneration of a
variety of native tree species in harvested
areas especially oaks by controlling
competing vegetation
0 Designate at least 50 acres of small patch old
growth communities within Compartments
3 18 20 and 21 (224 total acres designated)
0 Apply erosion control measures to protect
water quality These measures will be for all
activities including roads and log landings
0 Perform stream rehabilitation on 1/2 mile of
Boone Fork Branch along the drainage above
and below the Boone Fork Reservoir and at
the crossing on Deep Cove and Forest Service
Road 2055 Rehabilitation on Boone Fork
Branch will include placing about 16 rock
and log vanes Rehabilitation above and
below the reservoir includes sloping back
stream banks planting trees/ shrubs along
stream banks and placing rock below the
culvert below the reservoir Rehabilitation at
the crossing on Deep Cove includes
modifying the crossing to allow fish passage
(a more detailed description is located in the
project record)
Daylight along either side of a portion of
Forest Service Road (FSR) 189 (Spencer
Branch Road) to allow more sunlight to
reach the roadbed by harvesting trees within
fifteen feet either side of the road (so the road
would dry out more quickly thus reducing
rutting) The entire six mile length of the
road will not be daylighted - only those
Decision Notice & Appendix H
2

Mulberry Creek Project
portions where sunlight does not adequately
reach the roadbed
0 Develop a 2 acre wildlife field from a log
landmg in Unit 11 to native grasses and forbs
to enhance wildlife food sources Plant an
old variety apple trees in log landings after
harvest is completed to enhance wildlife food
sources in the area There may be
opportunities to plant advanced oak
seedlings in Units 5 9 and 12
MonitorinQ
The following monitoring will be implemented
for the Selected Alternative
1) National objectives include reducing impacts
from invasive species and improving the
effectiveness of treating selected invasive
species on the Nation s forests and
grasslands Survey areas would be
established to monitor control efforts
Survey areas would be established before
control treatment checked during treatment
and within nine months after treatment A
post treatment evaluation report would be
completed and filed in the project file
(Purpose is to monitor effectiveness of
treatments)
My decision is based on a review of the project
record that shows a thorough review of relevant
scientific information a consideration of
responsible opposing views and the
acknowledgment of mcomplete or unavailable
information scientific uncertainty and risk
Rationale
The Forest Plan Amendment 5 (1994) designated
the Mulberry Project AA as Management Areas
(MA) 2A 3B and 18 MA 2A places an emphasis
on [v]isually pleasing scenery for forest visitors
Roads are generally open with the adjacent forest land
managed to provide that pleasing visual experience
Timber production is permitted but modified to meet
visual quality objectives (Forest Plan page III 63)
MA 3B places an emphasis on [a] sustainable
supply of timber with few open roads while permitting
road construction for resource management and to
manage habitat of mixed ages of forests primarily for
wildlife species such as wild turkey deer and other
animals requiring similar environments (Forest Plan
page Ill 71) Embedded within MAs 2B and 3B is
MA 18 which [c]onsists of the aquatic ecosystem
riparian ecosystem and closely associated plant and
animal communities and is actively managed to
protect and enhance where possible the distinctive
resource values and characteristics dependent on or
associated with these systems (Forest Plan page III
179)
The purpose and need for the proposal is listed
below (see also Section 13 Chapter 1)
There is a need to develop between 4 / 14 /
early successional (0 10 year age class)
wildlife habitat in the project area because
there is currently one percent 0 10 year
wildlife habitat The purpose of the two age
harvesting is to develop additional early
successional wildlife habitat in the project
area and increase the amount of hard mast
producing tree species (oaks and hickories)
The Mulberry area is the next area the
Grandfather Ranger District has identified to
ensure each compartment is scheduled for
management analysis at a 10 year interval
There is a need to control /manage
populations of invasive exotic plants such as
princess tree tree of heaven Japanese plume
grass and others because they have been
found in the project area The purpose of the
herbicide treatment of mvasive /exotic plants
is to reduce potential for spread of them in
the project area
There is a need to improve water quality and
fish habitat along and within stream reaches
because sedimentation and erosion have
been found in the project area and a culvert
restricts fish passage The purpose of
rehabilitating stream channels and providing
fish passage is to improve water quality
stream bank stability and fish habitat
There is a need to designate small patch old
growth communities in Compartments 3 18
20 and 21 because no small patch old growth
communities are currently designated in
them The purpose of designating small
patch communities in Compartments 3 18
20 and 21 prior to harvesting is to ensure
there is a network of old growth
communities across the Forest
There is a need to develop about three acres
of permanent grass /forb wildlife habitat in
the project area because there is currently 24
acres of permanent grass /forb wildlife
habitat The purpose of the about two acre
Decision Notice & Appendix H
3

Mulberry Creek Project
wildlife field and 15 acre linear opening is to
develop about 27 acres of permanent
grass /forb wildlife habitat in the project area
further moving the project area towards the
desired condition of 43 acres
I believe the Selected Alternative achieves the
project s Purpose and Need as well as Forest Plan
direction and standards and will move the
resources in the project area towards the Forest
Plan s desired future condition The project
analysis also considered public concerns (see also
Appendix H Response to Comments Received
During the Mulbemj Project 30 day Notice &
Comment Period)
In reaching my decision I carefully weighed the
effects analyses of the alternatives analyzed in
detail the public comments I received on the
proposal and the Agency s response to
comments The Mulberry Project
Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) conducted field
surveys database queries and other localized
analysis in order to determine effects the
alternatives analyzed in detail could have on the
area s ecology including threatened
endangered and sensitive species During their
analyses the IDT took a hard look at past
present and reasonably foreseeable future
actions that could be combined with expected
effects from the Mulberry proposal I believe
they provided me sufficient analyses and
conclusions to make a reasoned decision
The Selected Alternative will harvest about three
percent of the 8 653 acre Lower Mulberry AA
My decision is based on a review of relevant
scientific information as contained in the project
record I believe the effects analyses support my
decision and are based on the best available
science
Other Alternatives
In addition to the Selected Alternative I
considered one other alternative in detail
Alternative A - No Action A comparison of
these alternatives can be found in Section 2 5
Chapter 2
Alternative A - No Action
Under Alternative A current management plans
such as existing wildlife management wildfire
suppression general road maintenance and
recreation would continue to guide management
of the project area (see Section 2 21 Chapter 2) I
did not select this alternative for several reasons
This alternative would not have developed early
successional habitat conditions for wildlife
species used herbicides to control /manage non
native invasive plants designated small patch
old growth performed stream restoration
activities in Boone Fork Branch daylighted along
Forest Service Road 189 nor developed a
wildlife field and linear wildlife habitat I believe
active management at this time and in this
location is important to achieving Forest Plan
objectives
Alternatives Not Considered
Section 2 3 of the EA disclosed three alternatives
I considered but eliminated from detailed study
along with rationale for why they were not
considered Since they were not considered in
detail in the EA they were not considered in the
range of alternatives for my decision
Public Involvement
The proposal was listed in the National Forests in
North Carolina s April and July 2007 Schedule of
Proposed Actions The proposal was provided to
over 120 members of the public and other
agencies for comment during scoping that was
initiated on May 15 2007 In addition as part of
the public involvement process the agency
hosted an open house meeting in Collettesville
North Carolina on July 10 2007 A post card was
mailed to over 120 members of the public
informing them of the open house meeting a
press release explaining the open house meeting
was provided to local newspapers and notices
were placed in numerous businesses public
areas and local residents in the surrounding
area Twenty members of the public provided
comments on the proposal during scopmg and at
the July 10 2007 open house A 30 day Notice
and Comment period pursuant to 36 Code of
Federal Regulation (CFR) 215 5(b)(2)(i) was
initiated when a legal notice was placed in the
August 16 2007 edition of The McDowell News
The scopmg package and August 2007
Preliminary Analysis were placed on the Forest s
website The September 2007 EA is available
upon request and is also on the Forest s website
Decision Notice & Appendix H
4

Mulberry Creek Project
Finding of No Significant Impact
After considering the environmental effects
described in the PA I have determined that these
actions will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment considering
the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR
1508 27) Thus an environmental impact
statement will not be prepared I base my
finding on the following
1 Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse
A significant effect may exist even if the Federal
agency believes that on balance the effect will be
beneficial My finding of no significant
environmental effects is not biased by the
beneficial effects of the action (Section 12
Chapter 1)
2 The degree to which the proposed action affects
public health or safely/ There will be no
significant effects on public health and safety
and implementation will be in accordance
with project design features and for
herbicide use will adhere to Material Safety
Data Sheets and Product Labels (Section 2 4
Chapter 2 Section 3 4 Chapter 3 and
Appendix F)
3 Unique characteristics of the geographic area such
as proximity to historic or cultural resources
park lands prime farmlands wetlands wild and
scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas There
will be no significant effects on unique
characteristics of the area because there are
no park lands prune farmlands wetlands
wild and scenic rivers or ecologically critical
areas in the project area nor are there local
law or requirements unposed for the
protection of the environment (Section 312
Chapter 3)
4 The degree to which the effects on the quality of
the human environment are likely to be highly
controversial Controversy with this element
is related to scientific controversy about
effects of the project I believe the degree of
effects on the quality of the human
environment are not expected to be highly
controversial because this project is similar in
design and intensity to others that have
taken place on the Grandfather Ranger
District in the past and effects of those
similar past actions are well known— there
have been no unexpected impacts when
anticipated and observed effects have been
compared I believe my decision does not
significantly affect old growth communities
because no Forest Plan designated old
growth communities or initial inventory old
growth communities would be harvested
224 acres would be designated as small patch
old growth communities and would not be
scheduled for future harvest and 1083 acres
( >12 /) in the Mulberry Project AA averaging
greater than 101 years are not scheduled for
harvesting with the Selected Alternative I
find the 224 acres of small patch old growth
communities the Selected Alternative will
designate in the Mulberry Project AA more
than meets the Forest Plan s old growth
strategy standards and would not
significantly affect old growth attributes and
associated wildlife Forest Plan standards
are to designate at least 50 acres of small
patch old growth communities in the four
compartments - the Selected Alternative will
designate 24 additional acres (Sections 31 2
321 333 342 352 362 374 38 39
310 2 3 11 2 and 312 2 Chapter 3)
5 The degree to which the possible effects on the
human environment are highly uncertain or
involve unique or unknown risks We have
considerable experience with the types of
activities to be implemented The effects
analysis shows the effects are not uncertain
and do not involve unique or unknown risk
(Sections312 321 333 342 352 362
374 38 39 3102 3112 and3122
Chapter 3)
6 The degree to which the action may establish a
precedent for future actions with significant
effects or represents a decision in principle about
a future consideration The action is not likely
to establish a precedent for future actions
with significant effects because the project is
site specific and effects are expected to
remain localized and short term (Sections
312 321 333 342 352 362 374 38
39 3102 3112 and 312 2 Chapter 3)
7 Whether the action is related to other actions with
individually insignificant but cumulatively
significant impacts Significance exists if it is
reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively
significant impact on the environment
Significance cannot be avoided by terming an
action temporary or by breaking it down into
small component parts Analyses disclosed for
Decision Notice & Appendix H
5

Mulberry Creek Project
each resource that cumulative impacts are
not expected to be measurable long term or
could combine with impacts of other past
ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future
actions in the AAs (Sections 31 2 5 3 21
334 342 352 362 375 38 39 3102
3112 and 312 2 Chapter 3)
The degree to which the action may adversely
affect districts sites highways structures or
objects listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places or may cause
loss or destruction of significant scientific
cultural or historical resources The action will
have no effect on districts sites highways
structures or objects listed in or eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic
Places (NHRP - Section 3 6 Chapter 3) The
action will also not cause loss or destruction
of significant scientific cultural or historical
resources (Section 3 6 Chapter 3) A heritage
report was completed for this project on
August 28 2007 that identified 20 Class III
archeological sites - no Class I or II
archaeological sites were found Class III
sites are not eligible to the NRHP and
subsequently do not require protection from
ground disturbing activities The North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
informed the project archaeologist on
September 14 2007 that the proposal was
cleared to proceed
The degree to which the action may adversely
affect an endangered or threatened species or its
Habitat that has been determined to be critical
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 A
Biological Evaluation (BE Appendix A) was
completed for this project on July 23 2007
that concluded for threatened and
endangered (T &E) species The proposed action
will not affect (directly indirectly or
cumulatively) any proposed or listed Federal T&E
species The BE concluded for sensitive
botanical species This proposal may impact
individuals (Alternative C) of the S species
Hexastylis contracta These impacts will not
lead towards federal listing or loss of Forest
viability The BE concluded for sensitive
wildlife species There are no known direct
impacts to populations of Diana fnhllanj as a
result of the proposed action because the species is
not known to occur in the wildlife AA There are
both positive and negative indirect impacts to
potential habitat as a result of the proposed action
and past or foreseeable future activities because of
loss of habitat The positive and negative indirect
impacts to this species potential habitat are not
considered significant because the proposed action
is expected to benefit the Diana fritillary s
potential habitat across the wildlife AA
throughout the next ten years As a result the
proposed action is not likely to cause a trend
toward federal listing or loss of viability for this
species across the wildlife AA and Forest The
BE concluded for sensitive aquatic species
No risk to population viability of any aquatic
Sensitive species across the Forest would occur as
a result of the implementation of the Mulberry
Project The project would have no effect on
Sensitive aquatic species or their habitat The US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
concluded on September 17 2007 [w]e concur
with your assessment that none of the proposed
alternatives will affect federally listed endangered
or threatened species or critical habitat Thus the
requirements of section 7(c) of the Act are
fulfilled (Section 3 9 Chapter 3 and
Appendix A)
10 Whether the action threatens a violation of
Federal State or local law or requirements
imposed for the protection of the environment
The action will not violate Federal State and
local laws or requirements for the protection
of the environment Applicable laws and
regulations were considered in the EA The
action is consistent with the Nantahala and
Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource
Management Plan Amendment 5 (Sections
1 1 1 12 and 13 Chapter 1)
Findings Required by Other Laws and
Regulations
My decision to implement the Selected
Alternative is consistent with the intent of the
long term goals and objectives Iisted on pages III
1 and III 2 of Forest Plan Amendment 5 The
project was designed to meet land and resource
management plan standards and incorporates
appropriate land and resource management plan
guidelines (Sections 1 1 1 12 and 13 Chapter 1)
Administrative Review and Contacts
This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36
CFR 21511 Pursuant to 21513 and the recent
Decision Notice & Appendix H
6

Mulberry Creek Project
The Wilderness Society v Rey ruling those who
provided comments or otherwise expressed
interest in the proposal by the close of either of
the two formal Notice and Comment periods
may file an appeal on this decision Appeals
must meet content requirements of 36 CFR
21514 A written appeal including attachments
must be postmarked or received within 45 days
after the date this notice is published in The
McDowell News the Grandfather Ranger
District s newspaper of record as per
215 5(b)(2)(i) The appeal shall be sent to
National Forests in North Carolina
ATTN Appeals Deciding Officer
160 A Zillicoa Street
Asheville North Carolina 28801
Hand delivered appeals must be received within
normal business hours of 8 00 a m to 4 30 p in
Appeals may be faxed to (828) 2574263 or mailed
electronically in a common digital format to
appeals southern north carolina@fs fed us
JOY W MALONE
District Ranger
Grandfather Ranger District
Pursuant to 215 7(2)(n) the legal notice in the
newspaper of record is the exclusive means for
calculating the tune to file an appeal [21515(a)]
those wishing to appeal should not rely upon
dates or timeframe information provided by any
other source
For further information on this decision contact
Greg Van Orsow at 828 652 2144 or Michael
Hutchins at 828 682 6146
Implementation Date
As per 36 CFR 215 9 if no appeal is received
implementation of this decision may occur on
but not before the 5th business day following the
close of the appeal filing period (215 15) If an
appeal is filed implementation may occur on
but not before the 15th business day following the
date of appeal disposition
Decision Notice & Appendix H
7
9/2 ?/0?
Date

Mulberry Creek Project
APPENDIX H — RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
FOR THE
AUGUST 2007
MULBERRY PROJECT PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
General Discussion
Pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 215 6(a)(1)(i) and 215 6(a)(1)(iv) a formal 30 day Notice and
Comment period for the Mulberry Project Environmental Assessment (EA) began August 16 2007 and ended on
September 17 2007 Pursuant to 36 CFR 215 5 the legal notice initiating the 30 day Notice and Comment period was
placed in The McDowell News the Grandfather s newspaper of record Following the formal 30 day Notice and
Comment period three comments were submitted The comments that were submitted had the following two themes
contained within them
Restoration Support for Proposal
To meet requirements at 36 CFR 215 6(b) the Agency listed each theme with the comment received on it followed by
the Agency sresponse
Restoration
Comment Received
A) There is money raised from the logging of the non native white pines This money could be used to restore streams
promote ivildlfe habitat or perhaps repair campgrounds Please conduct restoration as part of the Mulberry Project
am an avid hiker nature photographer and naturalist I think that biodiversity is the most important need for the forest
service to satisfy
Aaencv Response
A) Harvest generated funds can be used under the Knudsen Vandenberg (KV) act to perform required reforestation as
well as some additional restoration activities Implementation of other restoration activities is dependent on the amount
of funds available following reforestation related activities
Support for Proposal
Comments Received
A) Based on our review of your recent letter and the information provided therein we still support the Mulberry
Project as indicated in our June 4 2007 comments Although two (2) units have been removed from the project we still
support the project We continue to support USFS decisions that enhance wildlife habitat diversity and that provide
sound forest stewardship
B) [w]e concur with your assessment that none of the proposed alternatives will affect federally listed endangered or
threatened species or crihcal habitat Thus the requirements of section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled
Agency Responses
A) Comment is noted The two units were dropped to ensure protection of a Regional Foresters sensitive plant
(Hexastylis contracta)
B) Comment is noted
Decision Notice & Appendix H
8

BOONE FORK STREAM REHABILITATION AND HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT PLAN
ON
BOONE FORK AND AN UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO BOONE
FORK
CALDWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared in Partnership with the
National Wild Turkey Federation and the United States Forest Service
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
June 2012

Introduction
The National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) has a Stewardship Agreement with the U S
Forest Service (USFS) to provide logging upland and aquatic habitat improvements around the
USFS Boone Fork campground Catawba River Basin Caldwell County North Carolina
(Figures 1 and 2) Stream rehabilitation is needed in the Boone Fork watershed (Figure 2)
because of excessive levels of stream bank erosion in sections of Boone Fork and an unnamed
tributary and fish passage concerns at one culvert on Deep Cove Creek Aquatic habitat
improvement will include enhancing degraded stream banks and aquatic habitat at 13 areas along
a'' /z mile stretch of Boone Fork a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission)
designated wild trout water improving fish passage at one culvert on Deep Cove Creek
removing 4 culverts and stabilizing approximately 150 linear feet (If) of eroding stream bank on
an unnamed tributary (UT) to Boone Fork above the Boone Fork Pond Public Fishing Area
(PFA) and stabilizing the outfall pipe from the pond The entire project is located on
Commission managed game lands The NWTF partnered with the Commission to provide
stream enhancement design permitting and construction oversight
Project Goals /Objectives
The goals of the project are to rehabilitate the stream channel and improve aquatic habitat
fish passage and riparian area on 778 if of stream around the USFS Boone Fork campground In
order to meet these goals the project objectives include but are not limited to the following
1 Enhance degraded stream banks and aquatic habitat at 13 areas along a' /2 mile stretch of
Boone Fork
2 Improve fish passage at one culvert on Deep Cove Creek
3 Removing 4 culverts and stabilize approximately 150 If of eroding stream bank on an UT to
Boone Fork above the hatchery supported Boone Fork Pond PFA
4 Stabilizing the outfall pipe from the reservoir
5 Plant native trees shrubs and herbaceous ground cover on all disturbed stream banks and
plant to provide long term bank stability stream shading and cover and food for wildlife
Survey Methodology
Representative riffle and pool cross sections were measured on Boone Fork at Site 10 and
Site 6 and a longitudinal profile was surveyed on Deep Cove Creek (Figure 3) Survey data were
taken using standard stream survey techniques described in Harrelson et al (1994) A laser level
was used to survey the stream s cross section dimension and profile Bankfull was determined
using field indicators that included a scour line along the bank channel benches and the existing
floodplain The bankfull stage obtained from these measurements was evaluated using the North
Carolina mountain and piedmont regional curve information (Harman et al 1999) Cross section
data were used to classify the stream based on existing morphological features of the stream
channel and valley type (Rosgen 1994 1996) Site conditions were analyzed and the project
design developed using RIVERMorph stream assessment and restoration software Version 4 1 1
(RSARS 2007)

Directions
From 140 in Hickory travel north on US 321 to Lenoir turn left on Main Street
(approximately 0 3 mile) turn right Valway Road (approx 1 3 miles) turn left at NC 90 and
stay to it for 4 1 miles turn right on Mulberry Creek Road and stay on it for 4 7 miles turn right
on Boone fork Road travel approximately l 9 miles to the Boone Fork PFA
Existing Conditions
The project is located in the Catawba River basin piedmont physiographic region Caldwell
County (Hydrologic Unit Code 030501010503 NCDWQ sub basin 03083 1) The stream
reaches within the project boundaries are classified as Class B High Quality Water by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality ( NCDWQ) Class B waters are deemed suitable for aquatic
life propagation and primary recreation ( NCDWQ 2010) High quality water is excellent water
quality based on biological and physical /chemical characteristics through NCDWQ monitoring
They are not on the 303(d) list of impaired streams ( NCDWQ 2010)
The Boone Fork watershed upstream of the confluence with Deep Cove Creek is 0 9 square
mile and downstream of the confluence the watershed area is approximately 1 7 square miles
(Figure 2) Deep Cove Creek s watershed is approximately 0 8 square mile (Figure 2) The UT
to Boone Fork at the bank stabilization site is approximately 0 1 square mile (Figure 2) Boone
Fork and Deep Cove Creeks are identified as perennial streams on the USGS map while the UT
to Boone Fork is an intermittent stream Land cover in the watersheds is predominately forest
with some areas recently being logged Additionally there are a few USFS roads in the
watershed and a primitive campground
Stream impacts appear to be a result of historic agriculture and logging practices The active
stream bank erosion resulted in downstream aggradation and stream channel widening that
further degrading habitat Riparian buffers are largely intact and expansive except where the
campground is adjacent to Boone Fork Riparian buffers along the campground range from 20 ft
to 100 ft
Thirteen sites totaling 528 if of stream with eroding stream banks and poor aquatic habitat
have been identified on Boone Fork (Sites 1 — 13 Figures 3 6) A description of the sites can
be found in Table 1 The sites range from 15 if to 80 if in length At most sites the stream bank
is eroding at the toe of the slope below the tree root zone Therefore the trees are not providing
adequate bank stability Boone Fork s riffle cross section bankfull width at Site 6 was 22 2 ft
bankfull mean depth was 0 96 ft bankfull maximum depth was 2 0 ft and cross sectional area
was 21 3 ft2 (Figure 4) The riffle s width /depth ratio was 23 0 and the entrenchment ratio was
3 4 Broad level channel classification values indicate that Boone Fork at Site 6 is a C stream
type The pool bankfull width and Site 10 was 22 7 ft bankfull mean depth was 18 ft bankfull
maximum depth was 2 8 ft and cross sectional area was 39 93 ft2 (Figure 5) The pool s
width /depth ratio was 12 9 and the entrenchment ratio was 3 3
The culvert on Deep Cove Creek (Site 14) has been deemed a barrier for fish passage by the
USFS (Figures 3 and 8 and Table 1) The five foot diameter elliptical culvert is approximately
2

60 ft long and has a slope of 0 015 Water velocity through the culvert limits passage through
the culvert by some fish (Brady Dodd USFS personal communication)
Four old log culverts remain in the UT to Boone Fork (Sites 15 18) from historic logging
operations (Figures 3 and 9) The culverts have caused stream channel erosion and downstream
scour Additionally approximately 1501f of stream bank is eroding and the stream channel is
filled with fine sediment (Site 19 Figures 3 and 10) The stream channel is below the tree root
zone in areas with steep eroding stream banks The historic culverts and stream bank erosion
have increased sedimentation in the Boone Fork Pond Bank scour is also occurring behind the
outfall pipe to the Boone Fork Pond (Site 20 Figures 3 and 11) The outfall pipe is
approximately 4 5 ft above the water elevation of the plunge pool this has created back eddies
and bank scour that has eroded the bank
Proposed Improvements
All proposed enhancements are described in Table 1 The stream channel s design
dimensions are be based on the mountain and piedmont regional hydraulic geometry curve data
for riffles (Table 2 Harman et al 1999) and onsite conditions Eroding stream banks and habitat
will be enhanced on the thirteen sites on Boone Fork (Figures 3 — 6) The proposed pool at Site
6 on Boone Fork would have a design cross section bankfull width of 20 6 ft bankfull mean
depth of 1 7 ft bankfull maximum depth of 2 7 ft and cross sectional area of 34 5 ft2 (Figures 3
4 and 6) The proposed pool s width /depth ratio would be 12 3 with an entrenchment ratio of
3 6 The proposed riffle at Site 10 would have a design bankfull width of 19 7 ft bankfull mean
depth of 13 ft bankfull maximum depth of 2 1 ft and cross sectional area of 26 2 ft2 (Figures 3
5 and 6) The riffle s width /depth ratio would be 14 8 with an entrenchment ratio of 3 8 The
riffle would still be classified as a C stream type
To improve fish passage through the culvert on Deep Cove Creek (Site 14) we propose to
decrease the water velocity through the culvert by raising the water elevation within the culvert
(Figures 3 7 and 8) A rock cross vane will be installed to raise the head of the riffle
downstream of the culvert by approximately one foot The elevation of the stream channel will
be stepped down to the existing stream channel elevation through two additional cross vanes
The stream channel will be reshaped based on the regional hydraulic geometry curve values and
onsite conditions
The eroding stream banks on the UT to Boone Fork (Sites 15 19) will be stabilized and
aquatic habitat enhanced by removing the existing culverts reshaping the stream banks and
installing rock and log vanes (Figures 3 9 and 10) The bank behind Boone Fork Pond s outfall
pipe (Figure 3 and 11) will be stabilized by installing non woven filter fabric with a layer of rip
rap on top
Typical designs of the proposed in stream structures are shown in Appendix A All logs
root wads and brush material used for structures will be harvested on site
Disturbed stream banks will be reshaped to 1 2 to 1 3 slopes and stabilized with coir fiber
matting The clearing of riparian vegetation will be minimized and primarily limited to eroding
3

stream banks Salvaged woody vegetation and sod mats will be used to re vegetate the disturbed
stream banks wherever possible These areas also will be seeded with a temporary and
permanent native riparian seed mix (Table 3) and mulched with straw Two hundred and fifty
live stakes and 200 one gallon containerized trees and shrubs will be planted on disturbed stream
banks (Table 4) Trees and shrubs will be planted in higher densities along the outside of
meander bends and at structures
Estimated quantities for equipment materials and supplies are listed in Table 5
Sediment and Erosion Control
A Certificate of Plan Approval from the North Carolina Division of Land Resources Land
Quality Section is not required for this project because only 0 5 acre of land will be disturbed
However standard erosion and sediment control practices will be used (see details in Appendix
A)
During construction equipment will only access the stream when absolutely necessary For
this project it is anticipated that most of the track hoe work can be accomplished from the top of
the bank All construction materials including rock root wads logs and erosion control
materials will be stockpiled at a central location at the site To limit disturbance of soils all
equipment will travel along existing USFS roads and identified travel corridors
Disturbance of soils will be limited to only what work can be accomplished and stabilized on
a daily basis As a structure is completed the site will be sloped stabilized with sod mats or re
seeded Any stockpiled soils or disturbed areas on steep slopes will have erosion control fencing
installed as needed Once the banks are sloped they will be hand seeded with a native all
purpose seed mix (10 lbs pure live seed per acre) that was prepared for this region and browntop
millet (40 lbs per acre) or winter wheat/rye grain (120 lbs per acre) (Table 3) The surface of
the sloped bank will be covered with sod mats salvaged from the site or with coir fiber erosion
control matting These materials will be anchored in place with 18 in long hardwood stakes
Spill Containment
All equipment supplied by the contractor will be in good working order and will not be
leaking any fluids that could contaminate the stream or property In case of an accidental spill of
hazardous materials (hydraulic fluids gas oil) two Attack Pac emergency spill kits will be on
site during construction Any spills of hazardous materials will be cleaned up immediately with
contaminated soils disposed of according to state regulations
Conclusion
Completion of the proposed stream enhancement work will address the residual stream
impacts from historical land use practices The light touch approach will minimize disturbance
to the riparian area while improving aquatic habitat sediment transport and bank stability
Improved fish passage on Deep Cove Creek will benefit both game and non game fish
4

Additionally the reduced sediment in Boone Fork pond will extend the life of the pond and
improve angler opportunities
References
NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality) 2010 Catawba River basmwide water
quality plan Raleigh North Carolina
Harman W A G D Jennings J M Patterson D R Clinton L O Slate A G Jessup J R
Everhart and R E Smith 1999 Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North
Carolina streams Pages 401 408 in D S Olsen and J P Potyondy editors American
Water Resources Association Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings American
Water Resources Association Middleburg Virginia
Harrelson C C J P Potyondy and C L Rawlins 1994 Stream channel reference sites an
illustrated guide to field technique General Technical Report RM 245 U S Department
of Agriculture Forest Service Fort Collins Colorado
Rosgen D L 1994 A classification of natural rivers Catena 22 169 199
Rosgen D L 1996 Applied river morphology Printed Media Companies Minneapolis
Minnesota
RSARS (RIVERMorph Stream Assessment and Restoration Software) 2007 Version 4 1 1
Professional edition Copyright 2002 2005 RIVERMorph LLC Louisville Kentucky
Available www rivermorph com (August 2008)
5

Figure I.—Boone Fork stream rehabilitation project vicinity map, Caldwell County.
Boone Fork Rd.
rr
WRYMa-
UTtnBoone Fork Enhancement site
Bootie Fork Enhancement Site
NC-90
Legeed
- Enhancement Site
- Perennial Stream Lenoir
- - - - -- Intermittent Stream
Roads
ti
Municipal Boundries
o o 1 2
NMNK==MNNNNNffMWMHes
............
Tvridnity Map
US Forest Service Boone Fork Stream Rehibilitation Project
Caldwell Coxmty, NC
October 2011
0

Figure 2. —Boone Fork stream rehabilitation project watershed map, Caldwell County
MOO
n CCO
_ StaEih e 1--Oft cf stream
El"MFack Pond
Modify Deep Cove crossing
to pass aquatics
Stabilize outlet pipe
`Enhance 13 :sites along Boon
F f
AT1 0 N ALA
i \
r
t
i
;�`
Legend ,7 :j_
#° Enhancement Sites
QWatershed Boundan
Perennial Stream A.
_._.... Intermittent Stream
Q125 0-25 05 0.75 1
Watershed '-Map
US Forest Ses ice Boone Fork Enhancement Site
Caldwell CountY- \C
June _'011
W

Figure 3. —Boone Fork stream rehabilitation project component map, Caldwell County.
S
Site 18 �
:Sit: 1 11 � -
__P�
t
�i
r. ±i, P, -;u
.r
i
Site 13
Site to
k-
4
Site 11
Site . 4 !F
i
Triad
site 10 Ste 9 v` Site
_ K
*
Enhancement Sites Site 5 . — L
{ Site ,4
Perennial Stream +.. Site o - -
- intermittent Stream
t � -
R o X00 1.000 x 1,500 2000
_IL . ' Feet N
Component 'Map
US Forest Sen-ice Boone Fork Enhancement Site
Caldwell County, \C
June 2011
8

Figure 4.— Existing and design pool dimension cross - section for Site 6.
96
95
94
93
92
0
�z
w 91
W
90
89
88
0
10 20 30 40
Distance (feet)
— Crow- section ■ Bankfull
0
50 60
• Water surface — x- Design
/
/
do
/
-- —K.
�( —X
ZX
10 20 30 40
Distance (feet)
— Crow- section ■ Bankfull
0
50 60
• Water surface — x- Design

Figure 5.— Existing riffle dimension cross - section and design for Site 10.
95
94
93
92
G
0
91
90
89
88
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (feet)
—+— Cross- section ■ Bankfull ♦ Water surface — >*- Design
10
\
\
10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (feet)
—+— Cross- section ■ Bankfull ♦ Water surface — >*- Design
10

Figure 6.— Photographs of the thirteen enhancement sites on Boone Fork.
Site 1: Looking down stream at 45 ft of eroding right stream bank. Proposed enhancements
include installing a J -hook and reshaping the right stream bank.
Nrte Z. Looking downstream at a 55 ft long riffle with poor habitat. Proposed enhancements
include adding rocks and logs in the stream channel to increase habitat diversity.
11

Site 3: Looking downstream at 30 ft of eroding left stream bank. Proposed enhancements
include reshaping the left stream bank and creating a bankfull bench.
Site 4: Looking upstream at 45 ft of eroding left stream bank on the outside meander bend.
Proposed enhancements include installing a toe wood structure on the left stream bank and
shifting the channel to the right.
12

Site 5: Looking upstream at 43 ft of undercut right stream bank. Proposed enhancements
include installing a log vane /J -hook and reshaping the right stream bank to create a bankfull
bench.
Site 6: Looking upstream at 50ft of eroding right stream bank on the outside of a tight meander
bend. Proposed enhancements include installing a wood toe structure on the right bank, moving
the stream channel to the left and reducing the radius of curvature of the meander bend.
13

Site 7: Looking upstream at 20 ft of eroding right stream bank. Proposed enhancements include
installing a J- hook/toe wood structure on the right stream bank and creating a bankfull bench.
cite u: Looking downstream at an over wide stream channel. Proposed enhancements include
installing a log J -hook at the downstream end of the center bar and move the thalweg over to the
right.
14

Site 9: Looking downstream at a 15 ft long shallow pool. Proposed enhancements include
installing a log vane that is tied into the Tulip Poplar on the right stream bank.
Site 10: Looking downstream at 80 ft of eroding right stream bank. Proposed enhancements
include installing two log J- hooks, one at the upstream portion of the eroding stream bank and
one 40 ft down from the first J -hook, reshaping the right stream bank and creating a bankfull
bench.
15

Site 11: Looking downstream at 25 ft of eroding right stream bank. Proposed enhancements
include installing a log J -hook that ties into the existing log and reshaping the right stream bank.
Site 12: Looking downstream at 60 ft of eroding right stream bank. Proposed enhancements
include installing a log J -hook at an existing Ironwood that ties into the rock seam, reshaping the
right stream bank and creating a bankfull bench.
16

Site 13: Looking downstream at 40 R of eroding right stream bank. Proposed enhancements
include installing a log J -hook at the small red maple at the beginning of the eroding stream bank
and reshaping the right stream bank.

Figure 7.— Existing and proposed longitudinal profile of Deep Cove Creek and the Forest
Service Road 2055 Crossing.
92.0
91.5
91.0
.1
90.5
a
90.0
89.5
0
89.0
W
88.5
88.0
87.5
87.0 -�
0
Jf
20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance (feet)
—+— Existing Profile ■ Culvert Water Surface — X- Design Design Water Surface
18

Figure 8.— Photograph of the Deep Cove Creek and Forest Service Road 2055 crossing.
Site 14: Install a rock cross vane at the downstream head of the riffle, raising the stream channel
elevation by approximately 1.0 ft. This will raise the water elevation in the culvert. Install two
additional cross vanes downstream of first in order to tie back into the existing stream channel
elevation.
19

Figure 9.— Photographs of the four culverts on an Unnamed Tributary to Boone Fork.
Site 15: Remove the log culvert and restore dimension and profile of the UT.
Site 16: Remove the log culvert and restore dimension and profile of the UT.
20

Site 17: Remove the log culvert and restore dimension and profile of the UT.
Site 18: Remove the log culvert and restore dimension and profile of the UT.
21

Figure 10.— Photographs of eroding stream banks on an Unnamed Tributary to Boone Fork.
Site 19: Looking upstream at 150 ft of eroding stream banks. Proposed enhancements include
reshaping both stream banks, creating a bankfull bench and installing rock and log structures to
improve aquatic habitat.
Figure 11.— Photographs of the Boone Fork Pond Outfall.
Site 20: Proposed stabilization includes placing filter fabric along the bank behind the outfall
and armoring the bank with rip -rap.
22

C
O
U
Cd
..O
N
Cd
a�
'C
O
CL
0
N
c�
U
Q
R
Y
L
Cd
C
d O
Y
A O
-to
Oq
c°
Y
o
o
c e 3>
� s
N
D 5 O to
s
bb
O
Y
C
D
O
o
e n H
�~ s 00
o
5
Cd
C L ,C
^
cci
H� cCd Y
.R-+
�
C o t) s n
o
Y
c to
to
�"a
°-
n
�s
v
o cw
d ��. c
>
kn
SO U O
b
O
3 .D 00.0
�d
b
c
:d
m m o$=
Y
s
U cd
5 = U "
o
s
.0 yN M M 0 C
a c s > 2 c z
U Y
.0
-�
Cd d
0 cd
U > s
cd
y y
LO
.R+
N
.^R+ U
v on h i E
o
>
O
Y 5
i. U
"o
O
O
b4
O
O
a
s
C
ou
5
v
2
U
7
L y
N
'b .o
C
� s
iv
R
h D
L
A --
7
rA z
tn en � 7 On N NN - 0000 N
N M � V1 �o n 00 O, O2
cd H
a
v o2u s
0 5
3 �
c � �
g
o �
5 �
0 O
Q I
>
> 5
0 .O
d > `C9
w
b �
3 Y
0 � o
> N s
o 0 oA
o
cd � s cd
y y y y
0
Q%
s
oCd
c
v c
cc C
> g
O b
a 2
y U
L
Cd N
U 'b
T
Y
c
c
.:i
C
on
v
0
V
N
.Ni .M.
M
N
0 4~ 2
L
O ?� cd
d
�
s �
-to
C O 0
n
N
� s
Own
N
7
y QQ
N O
O
O
o
w
O
�~ s 00
o
V
o s
ao
cci
o
N
to
�"a
°-
n
�s
v
o cw
C
c ; -v
sr R 0
°
C U
c
2
R- y
U
3 .D 00.0
�d
b
U
d
c cd
s
v to ro
_ O o
v O
C C
U
4.
C p
e
on ^
G cd
sbp b •.+
C
prp.F�yy
�� y C
ed
-0
p v
O C
tn en � 7 On N NN - 0000 N
N M � V1 �o n 00 O, O2
cd H
a
v o2u s
0 5
3 �
c � �
g
o �
5 �
0 O
Q I
>
> 5
0 .O
d > `C9
w
b �
3 Y
0 � o
> N s
o 0 oA
o
cd � s cd
y y y y
0
Q%
s
oCd
c
v c
cc C
> g
O b
a 2
y U
L
Cd N
U 'b
T
Y
c
c
.:i
C
on
v
0
V
N
.Ni .M.
M
N
L
�
s �
Own
N
7
y QQ
N O
O
O
U
w
O
0p
N
�
a
4 s
C
U
Cd
4.
C p
c
on ^
s
C
o
0 0 s
O
Y 5
i. U
U C's r1
w
o Y
o
20d30�eCY
tw
s Y U
Cd O .0
3�
o c
U O
s s
d
e s
>
on
s Q R
to Y
., op
on C
3 c,
0
3 0
C's
.b o a
Y
a5 y
°s5
to
C
55rx
G
N
d
bU`n
w
C
O
3
_S4
O
E
cd
h e
as
w
-0
,may
Y W
c
o
v1
c
o
°�_'
Y Y
i
�
cd cd
s ai
cn
N
3
d
U C
d4
s
o
.� Y
8
w
° o
v
a�
cl
D
s
one'
Ll
zz
3
U
G Y
on U
N
Cd �0
0i .S Cg
�vo
tn en � 7 On N NN - 0000 N
N M � V1 �o n 00 O, O2
cd H
a
v o2u s
0 5
3 �
c � �
g
o �
5 �
0 O
Q I
>
> 5
0 .O
d > `C9
w
b �
3 Y
0 � o
> N s
o 0 oA
o
cd � s cd
y y y y
0
Q%
s
oCd
c
v c
cc C
> g
O b
a 2
y U
L
Cd N
U 'b
T
Y
c
c
.:i
C
on
v
0
V
N
.Ni .M.
M
N

Q
§
u
�
0
\ \
§ /Cd
EL (
2 5
k k
�\
d >
3 «
\ (
\ \
/ \
2 \
§t
�
,
M
/
J
j
ƒ
U
\
\ §
Q ;
ƒ /
/ §
§
a ±
c
�
\
k k
�
c a
u
k
�
°
-
|» » » & / 2
In a R !2 S k
\
{
/
k
w
�
q
\
E
�
°
)
)
)
0
0
k k
0
0
2
)
§
5 +
0
\ \
\
�
�
�
0
00
ƒ
2 )
\
\
\
\
k
0
>
a
,
k
k \
\ \
\ /
d
2
) o
L.
j
c
c
0
2
7 2
7§\§
0 f c
2
2
C
a\
,
c
2 ,
C
2 :
2 ,
C -0
2 = � � c
\
A \
c C
$ § 2 %
k I
>
�
}
I
§
�
5
e
%
\
\
\
\
k a
\
�
�
)
)
2
cn
�\
\
\
\
\
\ a
�
d
-0 g
>
>
>
>
( ƒ \
8
S
S
g
• ,
0
0
0
0
/ \ §
§
g
§
s
2 7 q
g
e
B
Q
± 3 I
|» » » & / 2
In a R !2 S k
\
{
/
k
w
�
q

Table 2 — Mountain and piedmont regional hydraulic geometry curve values
Dimension Parameter
Watershed Area (square mile)
01
—08
09
17
Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft)
44
179
194
299
Bankfull Width (ft)
5 1
123
129
169
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
08
1 5
1 8
181
Source Hannan et al 1999
Table 3 — Suggested seeding summary for sediment and erosion control
Community Type Ri arian
Acres
050
Species Name
Common Name
Stratumb
Total
Pounds`
Density
(lbs /ac
Lolium multi orum
Rye grain
Herb
600.
600
Festuca rubra
Creeping red fescue
Herb
50
50
Bidens aristosa °
Tickseed sunflower
Herb
05
10
Coreo sis lanceolata °
Lance leaved coreo sis
Herb
05
10
Dichanthelium clandestinum
Deertongue
Herb
10
201
Elymus virginicus
Virgina wild rye
Herb
50
100
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
Herb
20
40
Polygon um pensylvanicum
Pennsylvania smartweed
Herb
05
10
Rubeckia hirta a
Black eyed susan
Herb
05
10
Subtotall
7501
Totall
7501
allorth Carolina Ecotype
bStratum — Herbaceous Shrub Subcanopy & Canopy
'Total pounds of pure live seed
Substitutions may occur due to seed availability
25

Table 4 — Planting summary for vegetation
Planteg Zone 1 b
Species Name
Common Name
Maximum
Spacing
Unit Typed
Size
Stratumf
Indmdual
Spacing
Number of
Stems
Cornus amomum
Siky dogwood
3 ft
L
24 in
Shrub
a ft
200
Physocarpus opul fohus
Nmebark
3 ft
L
24 in
Shrub
3 ft
150
Salta nigra
Black willow
1 3 f
I L
1 24 in
I Shrub
3 ft
100
Saltx sertcea
Stky willow
3 ft
L
24 in
Shrub
3 ft
140
Sambucus canadensts
Elderberry
3 ft
L
24 in
Shrub
3 ft
200
Subtotal 790
Planting Zone 2b
Species Name
Common Name
Maximum
Spacing
Unit Type
Stratum
Individual
Spacing
Number of
Stems
Alnus serrulata
Tag alder
loft
P
Shrub
6 ft
30
Betula m a
River birch
loft
P
Canopy
]Oft
20
Car tnus carohntana
Ironwood
loft
P
Subcano
loft
20
Clethra acumtnata
Sweet a erbush
]oft
P
Shrub
loft
30
Ltndera benzotn
Spice bush
loft
P
Shrub
loft
40
Ltrtodendron tuh t era
Tub popular
loft
P
Cano
loft
20
Platanus occtdentalts
Sycamore
10 ft
P
1 gal
Canopy
loft
20
ercus rubra INorthem
red oak
10 ft
P
1 gal
Canopy
10 ft
20
Subtotal
200
Total
990
Zone 1 — Live stakes used to stabilize cor mattmg.
bZone 2 — Disturbed areas above the bankful elevation, including the floodplam
d Unit Type — L = Live stake B = Ball & Burlap P = Potted or contamenzed material, R =Bare root, S = Seed
Size — Length of Live stakes (n) Caliber size of B&B material (m ) Pot size (2 3gal) Height ofwoody material (ft)
f Stratum —Herb Shrub Subcanopy & Canopy
26

Table 5 — Estimated equipment hours and materials and supplies
Descnption Quantity
10
Unit
Item 1 Boone Fork Bank Stabilization/Structure Construction
15
ton
IA EQUIPMENT & LABOR
100
SY
Track hoe w/ hydraulic thumb & operator
80
hours
Mobilization (ITEM 1 & 2)
1
each
Furnish & install pumps for pump around (1 5 cfs)
2
week
1B MATERIALS
100
each
Furnish boulders for Rock & Log Vanes (36 plus)
80
ton
Trees/logs for Log Vanes (on site source)
32
each
Furnish & installed nonwoven geotextile
400
SY
1C EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL
Coir matting (includes live staking)
470
SY
Seed and mulch all disturbed soil
04
acres
Furnish riparian woody plants (1 gal)
100
each
Descnption Quantity Unit
Item 2 Tributary to Boone Fork Bank Stabilization/Structure Construction
2A EQUIPMENT & LABOR
Track hoe w/ hydraulic thumb & operator 20 hours
Furnish & install pumps for pump around (0 1 cfs) 05 week
2B MATERIALS
Furnish boulders for Vanes & culvert outlet (24 plus)
10
ton
Furnish & installed class B rip -rap for culvert outlet
15
ton
Furnish & installed nonwoven geotextile
100
SY
2C EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL
Coir matting (includes live staking)
320
SY
Seed and mulch for all disturbed soil
01
acres
Furnish riparian woody plants (1 gal)
100
each
27

Appendix A.— Proposed In- Stream Structures and Planned Erosion and Sediment Control
Practices.
Figure A.1.— Typical log vane detail showing plan and cross - section views.
118 TO 114 OF END OF
LOGS BURIED IN /
STREAM BED WITH
BOULDERS ON TOP AT f Thisareat be Log Vane Detail
BED ELEVATION � a° filledwitht e
$ - .r tops and
�`' fabric &
_ tream roc
erfabri
A
LOGS PLACED AT A 20-300
to ANGLE FROM BANK AND AT
A2 -6 % SLOP E FROM AT
_ OR BELOW BANKFULL
ELEVATION
Constructed
pool
p
PROTECTED
BANK
A
Bankfull elevation
NONWOVEN
,TEXTILE FABRIC
_ PLACED RIVER
ROCK
LOGS
TOPS OF TREES 1
BURIED UNDER
Constructed RIVER ROCK
28

Figure A.2.— Typical log J -hook vane detail showing plan and cross - section views.
NOTE: There should be no gaps between the rocks in the cross -vane. On Boone Fork and Deep
Cove Creek, boulders should have an average dimension of 36 x 24 x 18 inches. On the UT to Boone
Fork, boulders should have an average dimension of 30 x 18 x 12 inches.
HEADER
ROCKS
118 TO V4 OF END OF
LOGS BURIED IN
STREAM BED WITH
BOULDERS ON TOP AT
PLACE RIVER ROCK
Thit are to e
BED ELEVATION
ALONG BANK
filled! wi tre
6 "
'R top$ u der
-hook Vane
strea rock
Detail
over bric
'
A
03
W
A
LOGS PLACEDATA20 -300
FOOTER I
13
ANGLE FROM BANK AND AT
ROCKS
— A 2 — 6% SLOPE FROM AT
—
OR BELOW BANKFULL
n _
ELEVATION
Constructed
pool
A X
Bankfull elevation
NONWOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
PLACED RIVER
ROCK
LOGS • TOPS OF TREES
s� BURIED UNDER
Constructed �My _ RIVER ROCK
29
f
i
PROTECTED
BANK

Figure A.3.— Typical rock J -hook vane detail showing plan and cross - section views.
NOTE: There should be no gaps between the rocks in the cross -vane. On Boone Fork and Deep
Cove Creek, boulders should have an average dimension of 36 x 24 x 18 inches. On the UT to Boone
Fork, boulders should have an average dimension of 30 x 18 x 12 inches.
A
ROCK J -HOOK VANE DETAIL
PLM I
c
0
� corm
C.
FOOTER I ��
ROCK `
Rock J -hook Vane Typical
X NON WOVEN
Detail
/ \
FABRIC TILE
\ \\ FABWC
m:aya
A'
We
C:PS PLLr=WRH BOUffR9 TOu 1-
ROCK FROM ON RRE ROC(
`NBl CO. B2ED F+ YINNI�C�PS
?v.'
HEADER
ROCK
°a
�9�e
bSRMYII wi&1f
A'
We
C:PS PLLr=WRH BOUffR9 TOu 1-
ROCK FROM ON RRE ROC(
`NBl CO. B2ED F+ YINNI�C�PS

Figure A.4.— Typical cross -vane showing plan and cross -
section views. NOTE: There should be no gaps between the
rocks in the cross -vane. On Boone Fork and Deep Cove Creels
boulders should have an average dimension of 36 x 24 x 18
inches. On the UT to Boone Fork, boulders should have an
average dimension of 30 x 18 x 12 inches.
Arm slope range 2 -

Figure A5.— Typical root wad structure showing plan and cross section views. NOTE:
Footer logs should be >8 in, diameter and installed below the streambed. Root wads should
be 8 -14 ft long and >10 in. diameter. Large boulders should be placed in gaps between root
wads. Fill materials from the site should be placed behind the root wads and boulders,
covered with an erosion control mat and seeded and trees planted on top of the bench.
32

Figure A.6.— Typical wood toe structure showing plan and cross section views.
Stabilization of Vertical Banks on outside Meander Bend
Twr .d., run Construction of Bankfull Bench using TOE WOOD /SOD MAT DETAIL
lei 'I'"
EXCAVATED BANK MATERIAL
CONSTRUCTION ITEMS AND
SEQUENCE
• Excavate high bank to construct a
2:1 slope from bankfull to terrace
elevation
Excavate & construct toe wood
bench and new channel pool
feature based on reference pool
dimensions
• Place trees/logs/tops on toe wood
bench & in toe of bank below low
flow
• Place willow cuttingstbundles on
toe wood
• Excavate sod mats (using a front
end loader) or shrub transplants
(e.g. alder, willows and place on toe
wood up to bankfull elevation
• Seed bank with native grass seed
Cover sod mat and sloped bank
with coir erosion control matting
Plant willow /silky
dogwood /elderberry cuttings into
relocated sod mat and bank to help
"pin" sod into bank
FOOTER
33
.r
i)
SOD MAT
Low flow
- ------- --Elevation- -- - --
TOEYMDOD
- _--- _ -- ------ Pre_00056uctian
Channel Bottom " " -
Channel Batton
B" Docw
NFW Hy*a

Figure A.7.— Pump- around detail drawing and specifications.
The pump- around operation will be set up, as needed, for dewatering a work area that can be
completed within one day. The pump- around equipment will be removed from the channel at the
end of each work day. Enhancement work will only be done during normal base flow
conditions. The operation must be able to pump 1.5 cfs on Boone Fork and Deep Cove Creek
and 0.1 cfs on the unnamed tributary to Boone Fork.
STILLING BASIN OR PLAN VIEW
SEDIMENT BAG
DISCHARGE HOSES
t / FLOW
SEDIMENT DIKE
PUMPS SHOULD
DISCHARGE ONTO A
STABILIZED BANK
OR DISSIPATOR
(MADE OF RIP RAP,
SANDBAGS, OR
OTHER APPROVED
MATERIAL)
QENLEAL__NOTES
dewa 4ering Pump
Z- INTAKE HOSE
CLEAN WATER DIKE,/
WORK AREA
LENGTH NOT TO
EXCEED THAT
WHICH CAN BE
COMPLETED IN ONE
DAY
SECTION A —A
(STREAM DIVERSION
( PUMPS
IMPERVIOUS - -.
SHEFTING
BASE FLOW + 1
WORK AREA FOOT '(2 FOOT
!T MINIMUM)
CROSS SECTION OF
SANDBAG DIKE
INTAKE HOSE
FLOW
SUMP -HOLE OR
POOL (12" TO 18"
DEEP 2- DIA.)
1. INSTALL PUMP AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE AT THE UPSTREAM END OF CONSTRUCTION AREA.
2. INSTALL STILLING BASIN OR EQUIP FLEXIBLE HOSE WITH 'THE SEDIMENT BAG IF NEEDED. STABILIZE
PIPE OUTLET TO PROTECT BANK AGAINST SCOUR AND EROSION.
3. PLACE UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING FOR THE STREAM DIVERSION.
4. PLACE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND PUMPING APPARATUS. DEWATER THE WORK AREA INTO
THE STILLING BASIN OR EQUIP HOSE WITH THE SEDIMENT BAG. DEWATERED AREA SHALL EQUAL TO
ONE DAY'S WORK.
5. PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WgRK ACCORDING TO PLANS.
6. REMOVE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT BEFORE REMOVAL OF IMPERVIOUS DIKES. REMOVE ALL EQUIPMENT
INCLUDING DIKES. (DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE FIRST).
7. ALL GRADING AND STABILIZATION MUST BE COMPLETED IN ONE DAY WITHIN THE PUMP -- AROUND AREA
(WITHIN THE IMPERVIOUS DIKES). THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS
SHOW ONLY THE UPPER AND LOWER EXTENT OF WORK ON THE STREAM SEGMENT. THE
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE LOCATION OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKES
PLACEMENT FOR EACH DAY'S WORK.
8. REMOVE STILLING BASIN(S) IF APPLICABLE. STABILIZE DISTURBED AREA WITH SEED AND MULCH, AS
SOON AS PRACTICAL.
34

Figure A.6.—Continued.
SEDIMENT BAG
SrojmENT FILTER BAG
----F-XISTING GROUNI)
STREAM
PUMP HOSE,
CLA55 A RIPRAP OR
NO. 5 OR NO. 57 rOARSf
AGGREGAlL (8'.YHICK)
OQRS
INSTALL SFIAMFWT BAG ON A SLOOE SO INCOMING WATER FLOWS DOWNHILL THROUGH BAG
WITHOUT CREA11W MORE EROSION. TO INCREASE TW FFFJCIf-NCY Or FILTRATION, PLACE THE BAG
ON A GRAVEL BED IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE WATER FLOW THROUGH THE SURFACE, AREA OF THE BAG.
Z. BAG IS FULL, WHEN it NO LONGER CAN EFFICIENTLY FILTER SEDIMENT OR ALLOW WATFR TO PASS
AT A REASONABLE RATE. FLOW RATES WILL VARY DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF SEDIMENT BAG THE
TYPE AND AMOUNT OF SFDIMrNT DISCHARUD INTO THE BAG, THE TYPE OF GROUND, ROCK OR OTHER
SUBSTANCE UNDER THE BAG AND THE rjFGRFE OF THE SLOPE ON WHICH THE BAG LIES.
AVOID USF OF 'EXCESSIVE i I-OW RATES OR OVERT-ILLING WITH SLa11MENT '10 PREVENT BAG
RUPTURE OP I'AILUPF OF THE ROSE AT IACHMLNI­ STRAPS.
3. DISPOSE SEDIMfNl BAG AS DINT -GILD BY THE DESIGNER.W ALLOWfl),BAG MAY BE CUT OPEN AND
THE CONTENTS 5FFOFD AFTER REMOVING ViSIBIA! I ALIRIC.
35

Figure A.7.— Erosion control matting installation details and specifications.
j backfiu
General Notes:
1. Apply temporary and permanent seed mixture, fertilizer, and lime to disturbed soils.
2. Apply mulch at a rate of one to two tons per acre. No more than 25% of the ground
surface should be visible after application.
3. Anchor mulch using 700 g/m2 coir matting to resist wind and runoff
4. To secure the matting, bury the upslope end in a trench no less than six inches deep,
cover with soil, and tamp firmly. Do not stretch the matting during application.
5. Use 24 in wood stakes across the top, spacing every 3 feet around the edges and bottom.
Each strip of matting should be staked down in the middle every three feet using live
stakes and or biostakes.
6. Where two strips are laid side by side the adjacent edges should be overlapped three
inches and staked together.
M

Figure A.7. —Coir matting (700 g /m2) specifications
SKB India Co. - Erosion Control Products - Coir Matting
CF -700 Mat (700g team - 20.5oz)
This medium weight matting is used for specific areas that require stronger
matting and tighter weave to hold 1:2 slopes, or the bottoms of excessive
watercourse pipe outflows, swale bottoms, stabilization of slope tops and
stream embanlanents. Durability depends on conditions, usually is
biodegradable in 2+ years.
Size:
Approx. Weight:
6.511 w x 164ft 1 = 120sq yd (2m x 50m = 100sgm)
1501bs (68kg)
IOft w x 164ft I--- 180sq yd (3m x 50m = 150sgm)
2251bs (IO2kg)
13ft w x 164ft 1 = 240sq yd (4m x 50m = 200s(Im)
300lbs (136kg)
'Contact For Yricinq
Page I of I
Wt.- 700g/sgm - 20.5oz
% open area - 48% (calculated)
Test Method -ASTMD 3776 for wt.
Recommended slope - >1:2
Wet Tensile Strength - 14881bs /ft 71
Recommended flow - 12.0fps
Test Method ASTMD 4595 for Wet Tensile Strength
Recommended Shear Stress - 4.5lbs /sq ft
"C" Factor - 0.002
37