20140493 Ver 1_401 Application_20140514

�* United States Forest National Forests in 160A Zillicoa Street
Department of Service North Carolina P.O. Box 2750
Agriculture Asheville, NC 28801
File Code: 2530 -3
Date: May 9, 2014
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center ;
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650 ° --
Dear NC DWR,
This letter is to request Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality for U.& Forest Service project Tucker Creek Stream Enhancement
Project. Located on the Pisgah National Forest in Transylvania County, North Carolina, this
project is situated on Tucker Creek, in the French Broad River Basin.
Tucker Creek supports a self - sustaining population of brown trout and is classified as' Wild Trout
Waters by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Despite historic influences, the
channel predominantly remains connected to its floodplain within this reach and stream bank
vegetation is largely, intact; thus the channel is at large, stable. Several sections of stream channel
are,however experiencing elevated levels of bank erosion.
This project proposes to improve the health of°the stream ecosystem by improving channel
stability and habitat quality, along with improving riparian and streamside vegetation conditions.
`This will be accomplished with'the construction of instream,structures using trees found on site
fashioned to protect eroded stream banks and create high quality aquatic habitat features. The
desired condition is to have high quality riparian areas and aquatic habitat features that maintain
hydrologic function, enhance stream stability, and minimize erosion. The proposed ,action is
needed at this time, at these locations, because taking no action would lead to further erosion and
sedimentation which, in turn, would cause further damage to aquatic habitat and the maintenance
of designated uses. The attached project description outlines this project's proposed activities
within the 1/2 mile reach of Tucker Creek and one of its tributaries.
A copy of the 404 permit upplication has also been sent`to the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for review. An Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan and Trout Buffer Waiver Request have not been submitted to NC Division of Land Quality
since disturbed area is less than one acre and• less than 10% of the reach would be disturbed.
Enclosed are the following materials:
• Five copies of the Pre - Construction Notice (version 1.3), application. for 404 permit
(Nationwide Permit #27), with the Letter of Delegation of Authority
• Five copies of the vicinity map and site plans for the project
• Five copies of the signed NEPA documentation;(Decision Notice) for the project
Caring for the Land,and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

A check made payable to the Division of Water Quality for $570.00 since the length of
stream channel impacts is more than 150 feet
If you require, any additional information, please contact me at 828 -257- 4214.
Sincere ;
Brady N. Dodd
National Forests in North Carolina
Forest Hydrologist
0

2 0 1 4 0 4 9 3
OF W ATFR
o� qG Office Use Only:
y P 11) Corps action ID no.
p
o < � DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NW P) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number: n/a
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d.
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.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Tucker Creek Stream Enhancement
2b.
County:
Transylvania
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Rosman, NC
2d.
Subdivision name:
USDA Forest Service, Pisgah Ranger District
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
+.
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
USDA Forest Service
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
MAY 1 3
!
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Kristin Bail
- IHATEF'vUALITY
3d.
Street address:
160 Zillicoa Street, Suite A
3e.
City, state, zip:
Asheville, NC 28801
3f.
Telephone no.:
828 - 257 -4269
3g.
Fax no.:
828 - 259 -0584
3h.
Email address:
kmbailQfs.fed.us
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Inform_ ation (if different from owner) v
4a. Applicant is
® Agent '•,',' �� Other, specify
l N
4b
Name
Brady N Dodd
4c . Business name
• (if'applicable)
'USDA Forest Service, Hydrologist
4d
Streetaddress
160'Zillicoa.Street, Sub A
4e
City, state, zip
Asheville, NC 28801
4f
Telephone no
828 - 257 -4214
4g
Fax no:, ,
828 457-4874
4h
Email address-
bdodd' @,fs fed us
'S.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Narrfe-
5b'
Business name
(if applicable)
r `
5c
Street address
5d
City; state, zip
5e
Telephone no
5f
Fax no,: -
5g 'Email address.
Page 2 of 14
S v
77 p !!
Page 2 of 14

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1 a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID)
USDA Forest Service, National Forest in NC, Pisgah R D
1 b
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)- - if you' cari't get
these, dust include a very good vicinity map
Latitude 35 214469 'Longitud'e -'82 871281
1 c
Property size
235,576 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a
Name,& nearest body of1water (stream, river, etc ) to
proposed project"
Tucker Creek ,
2b
Water Qualitj Classification of; hear est,receiving water
Wild Trout Waters
r2c.
River basin map is available at
http //h2o enr state nc.us /admin /maps/
French Broad River Basin
.i
Page,3 of 14
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 m the vicinity of the project at the time'of this
application.
Tucker Creek, a tributary,,to the North Fork French Broad River'(attachment Figures 1 & 2), supports a self-
_
sustaining population of brown trout and is' classified as Wild Trout Waters by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. However, past management.in the watershed within the,last hundred years included
logging much of the, timber using,roads and railroads to transport timber downstream to local mills:
Following harvest, much of'the flatter terrain was farmed and occupied by'small homesteads. During this time
land was often drained and streams were ditched and straightened in an attempt to maximize farmland and
reduce flooding. When converted to Forest Service ownership, white pine plantations were planted adjacent
to and within the riparian area, to restore the farmed areas. Under these conditions it appears as though Tucker
Creek eroded its bed and banks to establish a new stable pattern and profile. The channel predominantly_
remains connected to its floodplain within this reach 'and stream bank vegetation is largely intact; thus `the
channel is, at large, stable. Several sections of stream channel are however experiencing_ elevatedalevels of
bank erosion (attachment Figures 3 & 4). _
3b List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the' property
0 Acres of wetlands.
3c List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) ,on the property
- 5,000'feet -in the Tucker Creek'drainage within the project boundary
3d Explain the purpose of 'the, proposed'profect
The goals and objectives of this project are to improve the health of the stream ecosystem by improving
channel stability and habitat quality, along with improving riparian and streamside vegetation conditions.
This will be accomplished with the construction ,of instream structures using trees.found on site fashioned to
protect eroded stream baiiks,and create high quality aquatic habitat features. The desired condition is to have
high - quality riparian arreas and aquatic habitat features that maintain hydrologic function, enhance stream
stability, and minimize erosion. The proposed action is needed at this time, at these locations, because taking
no action would lead to further erosion and sedimentation, which, in turn, would cause further damage to
aquatic habitat and' the maintenance of designated uses.
Page 4 of 14

3e Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
The following activities are proposed (refer to attachment for figures, etc )
Site* Location /GPS i Current Condition °Piroposed Treatment
TC 1 f N35 21372, 1 )Eroded bank - 25' Logwane (Figures 8 & 9) to stabilize bank and create 'pool habitat
W 82 87513
? N35'21397, pine trees creating 'cover in existing
TC 2 W82 87507 Eroded bank -25' pool
r N3521392, ;Stable, needing habitat ,,Push two treessover into stream channel to promote habitat
TC 3
I W82 87448 diversity from Ig wood ;diversity
}
TC 4 N35 21377, !Stable, needing habitat Push white pine on left bank into stream °channel to promote
i W82 87358 = diversity from Ig wood habitat diversity
j Toewood structure (Figures 5 - 7) -35' long on,nght bank Plant
i
TC 5 W82 87268 IEroded�bank -30' � -100' of nght,bank of meander bend and 80' left bank with native
t
i +live+stakes
TC 6 N35 21404, Eroded bank -30' iLog vane to stabilize bank -and create pool habitat
W82 87186 , -
j s
l Log'vane'at upstream end of bank erosion, Toewood on lower '
TC 7 ! N35 21463, ; Eroded, bank, 1/2 of eroded bank, lower,elevation of point bar to, bankfull
W82,87107
1 ` elevation and reshape inside of meander bend
5
,Two Log vanes to create a compound bend Lower elevation of
N35 2,1413,
TC 8 W82 86963 'Eroded bank -50' gpoint bar to bankfull elevation and,slop back outside,of meander
bend
'
;Stable channel, likely Bog conditions will be improved by strategically placing tree'tops ;
N35 21449,
TR channelized from natural -by hand in the•channe6,to decrease flow velocity and increase
W82,87055 icondition iponding and, water table elevation
r Harvested units ,White pine dominated ;Plant mix of native hardwood tree species in harvested areas
General adjacentrto ioverstory, ;within 30' of the channel banks
channel
i
I Erosion control measures will be taken on all sod disturbed by
General Project -wide the proposed work, including seed,lmulch, and Coir matting on '
j
stream banks
Trash present from 'Trash will be removed`from the stream channel and floodplain
General i Project -wide !roadside dumping area
"TC # = Tucker Creek Site, TR = Tributary to Tucker Creek
A medium -sized excavator will be used to accomplish the construction of the tnstream structures.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations, by the
Corps.or State been requested or obtained for this property /
El Yes ® No Unknown
project (including all prior phases) m the'past?
Comments -
4b If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c If'yes, who delineated the junsdlctional' areas?
Agency /Consultant Company`
Name (if known)
Other
4d If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
Page 5 of 14

5.
`Project-History
5a
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this prolect,(mcluding all prior phases) m the,past�
Yes ®No El Unknown
5b
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions +
6.
Future Project;Plans
6a
Is this,a phased project? .
❑ Yes
6b
If yes„ explain
Page 6 of 14

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary -
1 a. 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) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ❑ P [:IT
❑lYes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
[:1 Corps
[:3 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,jurnsdiction i
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P)'or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
Excavate
,S1 ® P ❑ T
substrate from
streambed & use
Tucker Creek
® PER
[:11 NT
® Corps
®DWQ
20
215
in structure
construction
Fill toe -wood
S2 ®P ❑ T
structures with sod
matt,& vegetation
Tucker Creek
® PER
El INT'
® Corps
® DWQ
20
80
transplants from
terrace
S4 ®P ❑ T
Place woody
material in
Tributary to
® PER
® Corps
3
150
channel by hand
Tucker Creek
❑ INT
® DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑`T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
, DWQ
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
445
Page 7 of 14

3i Comments
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 indiv ually list -all open water im acts below
4a
Open water
impact number —
Permanerit,(P) or
Temporary
4b
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c
Type of impact
4d
Water body type
4e
Area ofim_pact (acres)
of ❑ -P ❑T
02 ❑, P ❑,T
03 ❑+P'❑ T
04 ❑P ❑T
M. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments
5. Pond or Lake Construction
y
If pond or'lake construction proposed, then complete the chart-below
5a
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or purpose;
of pond -
'5c
Wetland Impacts (acres) ,
5d
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e
Upland
(acres)
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)
'
5j Size of pond watershed (acres) -
5k Method' of construction
Page 8 of 14

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
It project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below:
'you
If yes, then individually list all buffenimpacts
below If an im acts re wire mitigation, then
MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a.
❑'Neuse
-
El Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other
Project is in which protected basing
❑`Catawba
❑ Randle'man,
6b,
6c.
6d
6e
6f
6g l
Buffer impact
number-
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone,2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square_ feet)
Temporary-(T)
impact'
required _
-
B1 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑'No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
No
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
;
❑ No
,6h Total buffer impacts
61 Comments
Page 9 of 14

D. ImpactJustification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance.and Minimization
1 a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or mirnmize,the proposed impacts in designing project
Construction would temporarily increase turbidity.and sediment deposition downstream�of the site Potential adverse -
impacts would be avoided lby minimizing excessive excavation, adhering to the'State turbidity standard, and working in `
the dry when practical Work;is,expected to be.completed over a two week period- -
b Specifically,deschbe measures taken to.avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques -
A Minimize the area and degree of soil distuibance`that reduces infiltration capacity and permeability, and destroys protective
forest.floor and ground cover
B All hazardous matenalsvill be stored outside of flood -prone areas and surrounded with sediment fence to reduce the risk of
materials reaching the river
C Work activities would not be scheduled on rainy days
D' Heavy, Equipment Operation.
1 All equipment shall be cleaned before entering the project area,and,stream, so -as to reduce the, risk of fine grained
sediment,and oils and grease4rom entering the stream This would also reduce the nsk_,of invasive weed spread
onto the Forest
2 Do not operate on wet sods,when they are most, susceptible to damage and erosion
3 Operate heavy equipment on slopes less than 12 percent so as to reduce the risk, of sod erosion Avoid operating
heavy egwpment,on over - hanging stream banks
4 Move large woody debris in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the forest floor, exposure of mineral sod, or
degradation,of stream bank stability
E Install sediment,fence to trap potential sediment Stabilize any disturbed area at the end of each workday
F Re- vegetate exposed soils as soontas possible to take advantage,of the loose sod conditions for seeding
1 Exposed sod will be covered with straw mulch or erosion control matting at the end of the project Matting will be
secured in place with stakes and live stakes where conditions allow
2 Temporary seeding will occur on all bare sod within five days of ground disturbing activities to provide long -term
erosiorrcontrol
3 Stabilize channel banks with a native seed mix as work is completed
G Do not move sediment trap devices untd'the vegetation the,distu rbed, areas has been established
,in
H During on -going operations inspect the site frequently, inspect occasionally during inactive periods
1 Check for.potentially damaging or failing situations that may cause unacceptable water quality impacts
2 Correct fading situations as soon as practical
I Conduct,visual inspections of Tucker Creek while the work is being conducted to maintain acceptable,turbidity levels
Use a skilled heavy equipment operator, trained in stream restoration and constructiomof in- stream structures Instruct;,the
operator to minimize disturbance to the streambed
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 (checkrall that apply)
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps.
E:1 Mitigation bank
2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
project?
❑ 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 10 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

3c Comments
4. Complete if Making a Payrrient,to In -lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program iszttached
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested
linear feet
4c If using- stream mitigation, stream temperature.
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d- Bufferlmitigation 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 DWO
6a 'Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer- that requires
buffer mitigation? If yes, you will ,have to fill out this entire form — please
contact the State for more information
❑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 11 of 14

E.
Stormwater,Management!and Diffuse'Flow, Plan (required by DWO) _
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
la
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b
If_yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included9 If no, explain why
El Yes Yes ❑
Comments
2.
Stormwater'Mana ement Plan
2a
What is the overall percent imperviousness.of this project?
,0%
2b
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c
If,this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why The current site contains less than
24% impervious,area and an increase in impervious area is not planned from the
proposed work. Additionally, all
stormwater is transported primarily via vegetated conveyances.
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the,plan
❑ Certified Local Government
2e
Whomill be responsible for,the review of the Stormwater Management Plan9
❑ IDW.Q Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
In which,local government's jurisdiction is this'prolect?
Transylvania County
❑ Phase II
3b
Which of the followmg1ocally- implemented stormwater management programs
El El
El 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.
DWO •Stormwater Pro Tram Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply)
❑ Session Law 2006 -246 �
❑ Other
4b
Has the approved Storrriwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached
❑ Yes ❑ No
5.
DWO 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements
El Yes ❑ No
5b
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 12 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

'F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ'Requirement)
1'a. 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 br State
® Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Ac
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
® Yes
El No
letter)
Comments NEPA Decision Notice document is attached.
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 2B 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'molation(s)
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWO Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonablyanticipated future impacts) result in
❑ 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 fecent DWQ policy If you answered "no," provide a short narrative descri ption
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a Clearly d'etail'the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge�or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility
No sewage disposal is necessary
Page 13 of 14
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 20% 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
E! 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
❑ Raleigh.
® Asheville
5d What data,sources did you use'to determine whether your site would impact Endangered "Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
I consulted;the NC Natural Heritage Database (Jan 2011 update) and the [US FWS website Wobtain species information
6. Essential, Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® Noy
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact'Essential Fish Habitat? ,
Data source�is NOAA website
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Cor,ps,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, u`se to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Conclusion -is based on past and present Section 106- National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) compliant,
inventory and evaluation`,(by archaeologists) of all proposed project areas,and the subsequent cornpletibn� of a
Report--of-Findings, reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
8. Flood2one Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b If `ye`s, explain how project meets FEMA requirements This project in no way ;inhibits the. natural function.of the floodplain,
but-'will actually improve floodplain form and function
8c What source(s) did you use to -make the floodplain determination? NC Floodplam Mapping Information System
http / /floodmaps nc goJ /FMIS/
Brady N. Dodd
51 11 1 y
Applica t/Agent's Signature
rure
- Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
D to
(Agent's signa s valid ofly if, an authonzation letter from the applicant
is prowded
Page 14 of 14

1.
Forest National F,orests,in 160 Zillicoa St, Ste. A
[S Service North Carolina Asheville, NC 28801 -1082
828 - 2574200
File Code: 2500
R'oute'To: (2500)
Subject: Delegation of Authority
To: Brady Dodd
Date: June 21, 2012
You are hereby delegated the,authority to act as my agent for all phases of the application
process for permits required by Section,404 of the Clean Water Act, for watershed, restoration
and improvement projects such as aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement, habitat
restoration, channel stabilization, and channel relocation on'the National' Forests in North
Carolina. You are authorized to make formal application 'for all permits to the U.S. Army Corp
of Engineers and the North Carolina Division of Water, Quality, provide altnecessary
information, and sign all correspondence.
Include this letter as part of all application for Section 404 permits to theAU S Army Corps of
Engineers and Section 401 Water Quality Certification to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality.
:RISTIN M. BAIL
orest Supervisor
USDA
America's Working Forests - Caring Every Day in Every Way 'Pnnted on Recyded Paper

Project-Title: 'fucker Creek,Stream Enhancement Project
Project Description: Tucker Creek, a tributary to the North Fbrk.French Broad River (Figure 1 &
2), supports 'a self - sustaining population of brown trout and is classified as Wild Trout Waters by
the North Carolina, Wildlife Resources Commission. However, past management in the
watershed within the last hundred years included logging much of the timber using roads and
railroads to transport, timber downstream to`local mills. Followirigharvest, much of the flatter
terrain was farmed and occupied by small homesteads. During this time land was often drained
and streams were ditched and straightened in,an attempt to maximize farmland and
flooding. When'converted u to Forest Service;ownership, white pine plantations were,planted
adjacent to and-within the riparian area to restore -the farmed areas. Under these conditions it
appears as though Tucker Creek eroded its bed and banks to establish a new stable pattern and
profile. The channel predominantlyremains connected to its floodplain within this reach and „
stream bank vegetation is largely intact; thus the channel is at large, stable. Several sections of
stream channel are however experiencing elevated levels bf bank erosion (Figures, 3 & 4).
Project -Goals & Objectives: The goals and objectives of this project are to improve the health of
ihevstream ecosystem by improving channel stability and habitat quality, along with improving
riparian and- streamside vegetation conditions. This will be accomplished with the construction
of instream structures using trees found on site fashioned to protect eroded stream banks and
create high quality, aquatic habitat features. The desired condition is to have high qualityriparian
areas and aquatic habitat features that maintain hydrologic function, enhance stream stability,
and- minimize,erosion. The proposed action is needed at this'time, at, these locations; because
taking no action would lead to further erosion and sedimentation which, in turn, would cause
further damage to aquatic habitat and the maintenance of designated uses.
Project Proposal, Table 1 outlines ,this project "s proposed - activities within the 1/2 mile reach of
Tucker Creek and one of 'its tributaries.'Figures 5-9 show-proposedinstream structure typicals
and successful case study,photos and Table 2 displays,a list of species to be sown and planted.
Brady N. Dodd
NFsNC Hydrologist
May 8, 2014
Tucker Creek Stream Enhancement•Project,2014 Page,1

TABLE 1. — Activities proposed to improve aquatic habitat,and stream ecosystem
function for the Tucker Creek stream enhancement nrniort_
Site*
1 Location /812S 11,Current
Condition
Proposed Treatment
�
I TC 1
1 N35 21372,
-
`Eroded bank -- 25'
- f
Log vane,(Figures 8 81 9) to stabilize bank-and create -pool habitat!
i W82,87513
TC 2
N35 21397,
I
(Eroded bank -25'
Debris jam using local white pine trees creating cover in existing
,
W82 87507
pool
TC 3
N35,21392,
(
Stable, needing habitat
Push twoltrees over into stream channel to promote habitat
1. W82 87448
diversity from Ig wood
diversity
TCA
( N35 21377,
1Stable, needing' habitat
Push white pine on left bank into stream channel to promote
87
W82 358
jdvversity from,lg wood
,habitat diversity
i N35 21376,
Toewood structure (Figures 5 - 7) -35' long on right bank Plant
�•
TC 5 f
W82187268'
Eroded bank -30' -100' of right bank of meander bend.and 80' left bank with,nati�e
I
Hive stakes �
TC 6
f N35 21404,
( W82 87186
Eroded bank =•30' lLog vane to stabilize bank and create pool habitat
(Log vane at upstream end'of bank erosion, Toewood on lower
TC 7
N35 21463,
•
Eroded bank 80' 1'1/2 of eroded bank, lower elevation of point bar to bankfull
!
! W82 87107 I
elevation, and reshape msidelof meander bend
{
'T,wo Log vanes to create a compound bend 'Lower elevatiomof
TC 8
IV35.21413;
bank -50' !point -bar to bankfull elevation and slop back outside of meander
!
W82 86963 {Eroded
bend
N35 21449 (Stable
channel, likely !Bog conditions will be improved by strategically placing tree tops
( TR
1N82 87055
channelized from natural Iby hand inAhe channel to decrease flow velocity and increase
i
condition ponding and water table elevation l
I
l
General }
_
Harvested units 1
adjacent to White pine dominated (Plant mix of native hardwood tree species in harvested areas
L
channel loverstory within 30' of•the channel banks
1
(Erosion control measures will be taken on -all sod disturbed by
General
Project -wide lthe proposed'work, including seed, mulch, and Coir matting on
1 ilstream banks 1
General
° Trash present from
Project -wide
Trash will be removed from the stream channel and floodplam
i
roadside dumping
area.
Iv tt IUL.K61 IA CCK 01ty, IM - IIIUULdIY LU IUUKU1 k,,.Ft:UK
Tucker, Creek Stream 'Enhancement Project 2014 Page 2

14 � ' e• w � =wrR � _
� + �� � SV J► 710 a - ,- f , a,oe
` Reconstnict hattitaat enhanoem mt in sectiors of this -1i2 mile reach
` - Boa impmvement
-rte. �►=
TuckerCreekAquatic ERhancemerit ` '
Project
I
FIGURE 1.— Location map of the Tucker Creek stream enhancement project on Tucker
Creek, North Fork French Broad River, Pisgah Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest.
USGS Topographic maps: Lake Toxaway and Rosman (approximate coordinates of tat:
35.215370 & ton: - 82.871419).
Tucker Creek Stream Enhancement Project 2014 Page 3

FIGURE L. —Project location on Tucker Creek.
Y:
FIGURE 3.— Example of eroded stream bank in Tucker Creek, PROPOSED Site TC S.
Tucker Creek Stream Enhancement Project 2014 Page 4

FIGURE 4.— Example of eroded stream bank in Tucker Creek, PROPOSED Site TC 7.
Construction of TOE WOOD (with Transplants) & Bankfull Bench Typical !
Structure v „11 be constructed using Wildland Hydrology 2012 design
- tf!iCt e'tv9� 0�
tl EXCAVATED
BANK
`•••9 MATERIAL j
NZO
UPPER BANK
facade upper bank to construct a to slope from
bankfull to terrace elesation.
Excavate & construct toe wood bench and new channel Y Bar.ra�.:
pool feature based on reference pool dimensions. i r ~�” m". if.
Place trees logs tops twoody debris) on toe snood
bench &m toe of bank below lou flog. r .
Place li%r stake cuttings bundles on toe wood TRANSPLAHTStSOIL 1AAT
!optional. '.
Place -t foot of coir matting on outer edge of toe
wood, leaning remaining tatting hangingoner the ,_ 1
LO_ti Fan
front of the toe wood to be pulled upotnrthe ' "' Yr - - - - - --
-- — --------
transplants soil mat. + E'e: et e•
Place excavated channel substrate i bsckfill i on woody
debris & coir ratting.
Excasate shrub transplants le.g., alder, spicebush _ TOE WOOD
willow) and place on toe wood up to bankfull CONSTRUCTED TOE
elevation: these may need to be layered to reach 14'OOD BENCH % %e
elesat,on. Place live -stake cuttings bundles bet.�een
lifts l optional ). - ' '6ONSTRUC TE D
Sad bank with natne seed. FOUNDATION LOG ------------ CHANNEL BOTTOLI
Cover transplants and sloped bank with con erosion
control matting.
Plant willow, silky dog.. odd, & elderberry cuttings
Ihs•e•stakes into relocated sod sat and bank to help
pin sod into bank. Brady 0006
• Plant trees and shrubs on upper bank. NE11C Hydro
FIGURE S.— Typical of a Toe -wood bankfull bench structure (concept originating from
Wildland Hydrology, 2012).
Tucker Creek Stream Enhancement Project 2014 Page 5

Photo B - After Construction
FIGURE 6.— Example of a
stabilized meander bend and
completed toe -wood bankfull
bench on Boone Fork,
Grandfather RD, constructed
October 2012.
Photo A - Before Construction
Photo B - After Construction
FIGURE 7.— Example of a stabilized
meander bend and completed toe-
wood bank full bench structure on
Back Creek, Grandfather RD,
constructed May 2012.
Photo A - Before Construction
Tucker Creek Stream Enhancement Project 2014 Page 6

LOGS
Constructed
118 TO 114 OF END OF
LOGS BURIED IN
STREAM BED WTN
BOULDER AT
INVERT/BED
ELEVATION
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
Nag
FIGURE 8.— Typical of a log vane.
Constructed
pool
PLACED RIVER
ROCK
TOPS OF TREES
BURIED UNDER
RIVER ROCK
Tucker Creek Stream Enhancement Project 2014 Page 7
.ry,.
�'r a
'
This area t
be
Log Vane Typical
filled with t
e
tops and
fabric d
stream roc
over fabri
P
W
LOGS PLACED AT A20 - 30
ANGLE F ROM BANK AND AT
"
-
— A 2 - 4% SLOPE FROM 112
BANKFULL ELEVATION
#i
PROTECTED
BANK
PLACED RIVER
ROCK
TOPS OF TREES
BURIED UNDER
RIVER ROCK
Tucker Creek Stream Enhancement Project 2014 Page 7

Tucker Creek Stream Enhancement Project 2014 Page 8

TABLE Z. —List of native plant species for the Tucker Creek stream enhancement
project
Species name
Common mane
NATIVE SEED
Aster sagittifolius
Arrow Leaved Aster
.Rudbeckia hirta
Black, Eyed Susan
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wild rye
Eupatorium fistulosom
Joe Pye Weed
Eupatorium perfoliatum
Boneset
Panicum clandes`tinum
Deer Tongue "Tioga"
TREES & SHRUBS
Platanus occidentalis,
Sycamore
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
,Calycanthus f loridus
Sweetshrub
Clethra acuminata
Cinnamon Bark Clethra
Cornus ammonium
Silky Dogwood
Hamamelis'virginiana
Witch Hazel
Hypericum densif forum
Bushy St: Johns
Itea virginica
Sambucus canadenisi
Elderberry
Xanthorhiza simplicissima
Yellowroot
LIVE- STAKES
Cornus ammonum
Silky Dogwood
Salix nigra
Black - Willow
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
Tucker Creek Stream Enhancement Project 2014 'Page 9

USDA United States Forest National Forests in North Carolina 1001 Pisgah Hwy
Department of Service Pisgah National Forest Pisgah Forest, NC 27868 -7721
Agriculture • Pisgah Ranger�District 828477 -3265
File Code: 1900
Date: June 18, 2008
Dear Interested Members of`the Public and Forest Users:
I have signed the Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
Macedonia Environmental Assessment,(EA), within;the Pisgah Ranger District, Transylvania
County. The DN discusses in detail my decision and rationale for reaching it. Copies of the DN
and FONSI are enclosed. The November 2007 EA was updated slightly to respond to public
comments and the. final June 2008 document -and Roads Analysis are available upon request or
can be downloaded from the Forest's website: mw cs:unda.edu /nfsnc /neaa /nei)a.htm
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 Asheville Citizen - Times. The Appeal shall be,sent to National Forests in North
Carolina, ATTN: Appeals Deciding Officer, 160 -A Zillicoa Street, Asheville, North Carolina,
28801. Appeals maybe faxed'to (828) 257 -4263. 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). Appeal's must meet content,requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. Forfurther
information on this decision contact Michael Hutchins, Pisgah National Forest NEPA
Coordinator at, 828 - 682 -6146.
Sincerely,
lQ��a�rdaQQ �uu�
RANDALL BURGESS
District Ranger
Enclosure
Caring for the Land and Serving,People Pnntedon Recyded,Paper ��

��J
USDA
Macedonia
Decision, Notice
United States
Departmerit of
And
Agriculture
'Southern
Finding Of No Significant Impact
Region
Forest Service
June 2008
Pisgah Ranger District, Pisgah,National Forest
Transylvania County, North,Carolina
��J

Macedonia Project
Decision Notice
& Finding of No Significant Impact
Macedonia Project
USDA Forest Service
Pisgah Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest
Transylvania County, `North Carolina
Decision and Rationale
Decision
Based upon my review of the alternatives, I have
decided to select Alternative C (Selected Alternative)
of -the Macedonia Project Environmental Assessment
(EA = see,Section,2 233, Chapter 2) on the'Pisgah '
Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest,an&the
Project Design Features listed in Section 2 4, Chapter
2 and Appendix F of the Macedonia Project EA The
Selected Alternative will
Harvest about 281 acres using the `two -age
regeneration harvest prescription ?'
Harvest, about 38 acres using the intermediate
t";harvest method
,Site;prepare for natural regeneration with
herbicide and hand tools on the 281 acres,of two -
aged,harvest using Tnclopyr ester and amine
formulations with the cut stump and streamline
application methods to ensure establishment of a
satisfactory stand withm,5 years after final
harvest All,regenerated stands will be monitored
for desired stocking density,and species variety,
with a stocking survey conducted3' - -5 growing
seasons following site preparation
Release natural regenerated hardwoods on 281
acres with a 20% Tnclopyr ester formulation by
streamline application method 1 -3 °years
i 15 -20 ft-' residual basal area per acre Harvesting would include
developmgiabou[.13,acres total of log landings,and slid roads
within harvest urutsi(about'1 -acre of log landings and skid roads
for each 25�acres harvested) Existing log landings, and skid roads
would be used.wliere available Skid,roads,and log landings
would be,constructed using North Carolina Forest Practices
Gwdehnes (FPGs) and Forest Plan standards (best management
practices or BMPs) Following harvest activities, unsurfaced skid
roads and log landings would be disked and seeded with,an
appropriate seed mix to reduce potential for sedimentation and
compaction
-' Treat white pine stumps with Sporax to control /manage
annosus root rot
Decision Notice
2
following site•preparation to control stump
sprouts and non- native invasive plants
Contr ol /manage existing non - native invasive
plant species along haul routes and haul routes
adjacent to existing and proposed harvest,stands
with herbicide Prior to harvest, treat non - native
invasive'plants, along Forest;Service Roads (FSR)
adjacent to harvest,stancls with herbicides and /,or
manual methods
Construct approximately 0.7 miles of,new system
road, reconstruct and align approximately 5 0
miles of existing FSRs, construct, 0 8 mile of
temporary roads, and improve and,add
approximately 2 5miles of existing old "woods"
(non - system) road`,to the Forest Road System to
_provide access for timber" management within
Management Area 3B These roads added to the
transportation system will be improved and
maintained to service level D standards (RMO
D1 and D5) and will be closed to public vehicular
use when management activities are complete
The current access management of the roads to;
be reconstructed will remain whennmanagement
activities are com leted The temporary roads
will be, disked and seeded following management
activitiei
Designate stands 1-11-22,115-06, 115-19; 116 -16,
and 11 T03, 126 -04 as small patch old growth
(338 acres) -
Develop approximately 12 acres of linear wildlife
fields on, the access roads to 111 -13, and 116 =05,
access, roads will have -an RMO DS,and will be
closed to motorized•vehicle, horses and bicycles'
following project °implementation
Perform Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) on
254 acres of natural hardwood regeneration to'
ensure desired stockin g density, species variety
and to control nonnative invasive species in 11
stands with hand tools and herbicide using
Tnclopyr amine and ester formulations applied

Macedonia
with the cut surface and streamline applications
to °release crop trees
• Reconstruct approxi mately0 3 miles of existing
fire lute around Stand 11,1 -12 for protection of a
white pine progeny,test area (young trees) from
wildfire
• Stabilize,about 'A mile of stream channel within
the Tucker Creek drainage in Stands 111'-05 and
111 -04
• Repair and restore bog habitat near Stand 111 -09
by'pulling the existing and failing earthen dam
back far enough to preclude further silt entry into
the stream (lV minimum) This task-will require-
hand tools or a small machine `(Dingo, Bobcat,
etc) to accomphsh Place several log: structures
into the Lowe- vieach of the stream so that water,
flow will exit into the wetlands and create
unproved habitat-for present wetland plant
species and increase potential,for,bog turtle `
(Cle)jimjs mublenbergu) utilization
As stated above, my decision incorporates Project
Design Features disclosed in the,EA In addition, the
following,design•feature will Ibe incorporated with this
decision
Property owners downstream of Tucker Creek
will be informed of the stream stabilization, bog
restoration, and removal of'the earthen dam prior,
to implementation ,All actions will have
appropriate erosion control measures in place to
ieduce•potential for erosion and sedimentation
Rationale
The purpose,and need fof the proposal is'dtsclosed in
Section 13, Chapter 1 and surntramed,below
• There is a need to develop between 5 % -15%
early - successional (0 -10 year age class) wildlife
habitat in.the project area because there is
currently no 0 -10 year'wildhfe habitat,
• There is a need to thin white pine stands within
Compartments 111 and 117 because thinning
white pme',improves vigor and growth,of °the
residual's so they are'less susceptible to the attack
of forest pests,
• There is a need to effectively and efficiently,
control /manage competing vegetation in existing
regeneration harvest stands and stands proposed
,fortiegeneration,harvest with this proposal
because competing vegetation reduces vigor and
amount of desired tree species,
• There is a need to efficiently and effectively
control /manage populations of non -native
invasive plants, especially near Tucker Creek
because they have been found in the project area,
There is a need to improve water qua ity'and
fish /wildlife (wetland) habitat along Tucker
Gc k and a tributary to Tucker Creek'because
there is a lack of large woody debris, erosion of
stream.banks,.and encroachment of white puce
upon a mountain bog,
• There is a need to designate small patch old
growth communities in Compartments 111, 115,
116, 117, and 126 because no small patch old
growth communities are currently designated in
them; and
• There >is a need to develop.additional- acre§ of
permanent grass /forb wildlife habitat in the .
project area because there . are currently'thiee
acies of permanent grass /forb,wildhfe habitat°
I believe this alternative meets the purpose and need
while best addressing key issiies,regardirig water
quality, wetlands habitat, and cultural resources The
Selected Alternative will provide much, needed early,
successional habitat `for turkey and other wildlife ,
species that need these habitat conditions The
Selected Alternative is the only action alternative that
will remove the earthen dam on a tributary to Tucker
Creek — removing this earthen dam will "prove
aquatic habitat in the area The Selected Alternative
does not.harvest units thavhad,i high occurrence of
cultural resources within and near +them – as a result,
the potential for adverse impacts fo cultural resources
is reduced from Alternative B (see Alternative B
below)
Following review of public comments on the
proposal; it became evident,some members, of the
public were concerned abourthe current and long-
term I road system in,the'area As stated above „my
decision will place about 2 5, miles of existing non- _
system roads onto the Forest Road System.after
project implementation Because the Macedonia area
is designated as Management Area'3B (timber
emphasis).in the Forest Plan ,,'I beheve improving and
using these roads and addingtthem to the Forest Road
System for future use is necessary to ensure access for
sustainable timber management can take place They
would also be closed, to vehicular use,following
implementation of this project I believe that
developuig about 0 7 miles of new "system road,
reconstructing about 5,miles.of existing system,road,
and constructing about 0 8 miles of temporary roads
are also necessary for efficient access to implement
the Selected Alternative_ The 0,7 miles of new system
roads would be closed following project
Decision No_ tice.
3

Macedonia Project
implementation and the 0 8 miles of temporary roads
would bempped, seeded, and closed following project
implementation
In `_reaching my decision, I began, by reviewing,the
purpose and need for the project and all of the
alternatives presented;in the Environmental
Assessment (EA) I'then carefully weighed the
effects analyses of the alternatives analyzed in detail
and the public comments received on the EA The
Macedonia Project Interdisciplinary Team (ID'I)
conducted field surveys, database queries, and other
locahzed'analysis in order to,determine effects the
alternatives analyzed in detail could have on therarea's
ecology,'including threatened, endangered, and
sensitive species During their atialyses, they took a
hard,look at past; - present, and reasonably'foreseeable
future actions that,could be combined with expected
effects from the Macedonia proposal I believe they
provided me sufficietivanalyses andconclusions to
make a reasoned decision
Other Alternatives Considered
In addition to the Selected Alternative, I considered
three other alternatives'in detail Alternative A –'No
Action „Alternative B – Proposed Action, and
Alternative D A description of these alternatives,can
be found in Sections 12, Chapter 1 and 2 2, Chapter
2 '
Alternative A - No.Action
Under this alternative current management plans,
such as existing, wildlife management; ,"(t ie�
suppression, general road maintenance, and special
use permivopefations, would continue to guide,
management of the project area I did not select this
alternative for �several reasons This alternative'would
nof'have provided habitat conditions for - wildlife
species, thinned white pine stands, released natural
regenerated hardwoods, performed TSI treatments,
designated small,patch old growth, developed linear
wildlife openings, reconstructed the fifehne aroufid
stand 111 -12, addressed the erosion at the earthen
dam, stabilized a,reach of Tucker Creek, nor used
herbicides to-control/manage-non-native invasive
plants I believe active rnanagementas needed to,
move the area towards the Forest Pl'an's desired
future condition as. descnbed in the Purpose and
Need (Section 13, Chapter 1)
Alternative B - Proposed Action
Under this alternative about 38 additional acres of
two,-age harvest, one additional acre of white pine
thinning harvest, 38 additional acres,of site
preparation /natural hardwoods released, one more
acre of white pine stumps treated'with Sporax, 0 9
additional acres of linear grass /forb habitat
developed, the earthen dam would be,repaired but
not removed, 0 6 additional miles of non - system
road's +used and, added to the, Forest Road System,, and
0 Zaddittonal miles of ,temporary roads would be
constructed,when, compared to the Selected
Alternative —all other actions are the same as the
Selected Alternative I did norselect this alternative
because detailed field survey's,identified cultural sites
,requiring protection and,the most feasible way to
protect them was to reduce the area /acres treated_ In
addition, I believe reinoying`the earthen dam under
the Selected Alternative will Vetter iunprove aquatic
habitat in the area /
Alternative D r ?'
Under this altem- ative,about 103 less acres °of two -age
harv`est,18 less acre of white pine thinning, harvest,
103 less! acres; of�site preparation /natural hardwoods
released, 32 less`acres of TSI using herbicides, 18 less
,acres;ofwhite pine stump's treated with,Sporax, no,
linear grass /forli habitat developed, the earthen dam
would be repaired but not removed, the fiiehne
around 111712 would not be >=econstructed,,no non-
system roads used and added,fo the Forest Road
System, the earthen dam would be- repaired and not
removed, no new system,roads would be constructed,
'and 0 3 additional mnles,of temporary roads would be
constructed when compared to the Selected
Alternative —all other actions are the same as the
Selected Alternative I did not select this alternative
because it does not meet minimum Forest-Plan , ”
standard's for early successional'habitat developed at
theAlree,geographic levels (Analysis Area,
Management Area, and,Compartment – See
Appendix B, Table B-5)'
Other Alternatives Not Considered
Section -2 1 of the EA disclosed three alternatives I
considered but eliminated from detailed study 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 January, April, July,
and October 2007 editions,of the Schedule of
Proposed Actions (SOPA) A scoping package
explaining the Macedonia Projectwas mailed -to over
149 members of the public on August 21, 2007 An
Decision Notice
4

Macedonia Project
open house meeting was hosted "by USDA Forest
Service employees <on,Sep°tember 4, 2007, at,the
Bal'sam,GroveCommuniry Center /Fire`Hall to
provide information and receive comments from
members of %thepub4c' Eighteen,members of thie
public provided written comments during scoping
Using comments received from the public, agencies,
and organizations during this period as well as
internal review, the interdisciplinary team (IDT)
developed a list-of issues to- address
Pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
215 6(a)(1)(1),and 215 6(a)(1)(iv), the proal pos was
provided to the public for a.30 -day notice and
commed,pefiod,that began on November 30, 2007,
and ended.on December 31, 2007 (see Appendix H
below)
Finding of No Significant Impact
Afterlconsidenng the environmental effects described
in the EA, I have determined -that these actions -will
nothave,a significant effect-on the quality of.the
human environment considering thecontext and
intensity of unpacts (40 CFR 1508 27), Thus, an
environmental impact stateAieint will. not be prepared
I base by finding on the following
' r
1 My- fihding.of no significant environmental
effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of
the action�(Section 2-2 3, Chapter 2; and
Appendix E)
,2- There will be no, significanteffects on public
health and safety and implementation will be in
accordance with project Adesign feature's'(Section
2 4 Chapter- 2 and Appendix F)
3 There will.be,nb sigrnftcant effects on unique
chiaractenstics ofthe area,'because there,are no
park lands, prime farmlands, wetland's, wild and
scenic rivers, or ecologically, critical areas,iin the
project area, not are there local law or,
requirements imposed for the-protectiori of the
environment (Section 3 1'1, °Chapter 3)
4 The effects on the quality of the human
`environment,are,not likely to be highly
controversial because there is nolnown scientific
controversy over the impacts' of the, project
(Sections'3 12, 3 2 12, 3 3 3, 3 4 2, 3 5 3, 3 6 2,
3 7A 3 8, 3 9, 3'10 4, and 3 11 2,, Chapter 3)
5 We'have considerable experience with the types
of activities to be implemented The' effects
analyses shows,,'the`effects'.afe not uncert'am, and
do not involve unique or unknown risk (Sections
31'2, 3212, 333,3,42,353,36'2;374,38,
3 9, 3 16 4, and 3 11'2, Chapter 3)
6 The action is 'hot likely to establish aprecedent
for future actions, with significant effects, because
the project'is site specific,and effects are expected
to remain localized and short-term (Sections
3 1 2, 3 2 12, 3 3 3, 3' 4,2; 3,53, 3 6 2, 3 7 4; 3 8,
3 9, 3 10 4, and 3 112, Chapter 3)-
7 The cumulative impacts are;not significant,
(Sections 3 12 4, 32 1 2, 3,.'3'-'3, 3 4 2,3 5 3; 3 6 2,
3 7 4, 3 8, 3 9, 3 -10 4, and 3'112, Chapter 3, and
Appendix A)
8 The, action will have'no effect on districts, sites,
highways, ostructure s,,,or objects hsted n,or
eligible for&sting in the Naftonal Register of
Historic Places (Section 3 6, Chapter 3) The
action will also notcause loss or destruction of
significant scientific, cultural, or historical
resources' (Section 3 6; Chapter 3), A,heritage
report was completed -for this project and,copies
of it were,provided to,the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO),and the Eastern
Band of the Cherokee Indians Tribal Heritage
Protection Office (THPO) in late 'February 2008'
On Apn19, 2008, SHPO confirmed with the
report's conclusions
9 A Biological Evaluation (BE) was completed for
this project on November 14, 2007, and was
included within- the -EA that was provided to
members of thespubhc and the U -S Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) on November 30,
2007 The USFWS concluded on December 13,
2607 Based +on the.informahon provided in 'the
Eni,ironmentalAssessment and a,revteJv of our records,
the concur tvtthyour assessment that none of theproposed
alternatives w1l affeci federally hsted"endangeredspeaes or
critical habitat. Thus, the"requtrements offsectton 7(c) of
the Act are fu filled
10 The action kill 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 NatioiialTorests Land and Resource
Management Plan Amendment 5 (Sections 1 -1 1
and 13 1, Chapter 1)
Findings Required by QftrUws and
Regulations
J
My decision to implement the Selected;Altemative is
consistent with the intent of the long- term;goals and
objectives listed on pages' I1'1 -1 and III.2 of Forest
Plan Amendment ,5 The project -was designed to
meet land'aridresource management plan standards
Decision Notice
5

a
° Macedonia
and I believe it mcorporates;appropriate land and
resource management, plan guidelines
Administrative Review and Contacts
This decision is subject to, appeal pursuant to 36 CFR
215 11 A written appeal, includufg attachments,
must be postmarked or received within 45 days after
the date this,notice is published m' The Axbevzlle
CztzZen -Times The Appeal shall be sent to
National Foiests,in North Carolina
ATTN Appeals Deciding Officer
160 -A Zilhcoa Street
Asheville „North,Carohha 28801
Hand - delivered appeals must be received within
normal business hours of 8 00 a in to 4 730 p in
Appeals may be faxed,to (828)' 257 :4263 or mailed'
electromcally in a common digital format-to
[e-mail]
RANDALL BURGESS
District Ranger
Pisgah Ranger District
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 A%zlderness Socae# v B y
ruling) Appeals must meet content requirements of
36 CFR 215 14 For further information on this
decision contact Michael Hutchins, Pisgah National
Forest,NEPA Coordinator 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 51h 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 15d,
business day followmg'the date of appeal disposition
_ u
Decision Notice
6
6-f8-o8 T
Date

Macedonia Project
APPENDIX H - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
FOR THE -
MACEDONIA PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
General Discussion
-Pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulati'ons,,(CFR), 215-6(a)(1)(1) and 215.6(a)(1)(1v), a,forma130 -day
Notice and Comment perod for,the Macedonia Project Environmental Analysis (EA) began November
30,2007, and ended on December 31, 2007, six members of the public provided comments; or expressed
interest in the proposal during the Notice and Comment period
To meet requirements at 36 CFR 215.6(b), the Agency is listing each,respondent and their comments
along with the•Agenicy respbnse. The following individuals, provided comments on the EA
Commenter 1:
Dave ,,McHenry, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission'(NCWRC)
Commenter 2:
Brian Cole, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Commenter 3:
Rex Galloway ,
Commenter 4:
Charles Parris
Commenter 5:
Dianne Riggs
Commenter 6:
H. Gerald' Owen
Letter 1 - Dave McHenry, NCWRC
Comment 1 -1 J
The Commission supports this project and would lake to see it implemented.- Quality early successional, habitat is needed on
National Forests in western North Carohna•and this project would provide some. The Commission supports,the proposed
site preparation work and timber stand improvement proposals. They should azd-with establishment ofyoizng oak stands and,
improve future hard,mast production.
Agency Response
,Comment is noted- The proposal was designed to meet the project-'§ purpose and need as disclosed in
Section 13, Chapter 1
Comment 1 -2
There is zllegalATV access in the area °and it will hkiy continue wzthout'zncreases in enforcement efforts., Although the
Commission supports e.4ablaSfiment of the bnear w1dlzfe openings, the, agency is also concerned'nnth the possible loss -of this
habitat type if.ATV use on this roa`ds,zs not controlled. Future maintenance of linear wzldl fe openings in this area by
Commission personnel wall be extremely dzcult if this activity is not curbed.
Agency Response
Unauthorized ATV use,is occurring, mostly due to the highly fragmented nature of National Forest
System (NFS) lands and private lands in the area Agency employees and law enforcement will work
diligently to reduce the amount of unauthorized ATV use Alternative 2 proposed additional early
successional habitat, but was eliminated from detailed study because the current level of unauthorized
ATV use would reduce the effectiveness of the developed habitat (Section 2 3 2, Chapter 2).
Decision Notice
7

Macedonia P
.Comment 1 -3
Although we are disappointed to see nopro posals for p res cribed burnzrrg;in the project area, we.appreczate that thereamay be
limited opportunities because of, the close interspersion with pnvate properly or the lack of suitable sates for fire line
establishment.
Agency,Response f
Prescribed burning was an alternative,considered but eliminated from detailed study�(Alternative 1) It was
eliniihated• from detailed study because, prescribed bummg�is not necessary to meet the' purpose and.•need
for the proposal A,'separate analysis could be completed in -the future Thai authorizes prescribed burning
(Section 2.3 1, Chapter 2)
Comment 1-4
The stream•stabililattori work should improve aquatic habitat for trout. However, whenever stream stabih- Zatron work is
considered, the Commission cautions the USES to balance the adverse effects of construction work on npanan habitat moth
the expected, direct improvements to aquatic,habitat. In some cases, access to andgrading along streams with heavy equipment
can cause considerable riparian disturbance and vegetation removal that may harm terrestrial and aquatic habitats more than
the long -term improvements antuzpated oath the stabih, -ation work. _Where this may be,a concern, low impact approaches
and techniques such as hand tool and small machtnery,use is recommended to�Nvit the, npanan damage from construction.
Agency Response
Any short -term_ fluctuations (a season or less) in sediment would be out weighed by the improvements
made with this proposal. Tucker Creek, at the locations of the stream restoration, >has alack of large
woody debris -Large woody debris provides habitat fora quatic species and stabilization for stream banks.
Stabilization of stream banks prevents on -going sources of `erosion from filling in - interstitial space which,is
valuable� for. aquatic, organisms. Reconnectiomwith the floodplain will be,another,benefit of this project
This is;important not only for the hydrauhcs of a stream but also for the terrestrial organisms that thrive in
riparian areas. The Forest Hydrologist designed this proposal,to provide maximum benefits with the least
amount of disturbance possible This task will require hand tools or a small machine (Dingo,Bobcat, etc;)
to accomphsh
l-_ettO 2,1- Brian, Cole, USFWS,
Comment'21
"We are pleased to see that the Tucker'Creek stream stabilZ .Zation, work is included:in all of the action alternatives. As stated
in ourearher letter, we believe actions to repair ongoing enmivnmental degradation; should be of 'high priority and should be
considered separately` from timber sales, recreation improvements, etc. We are also pleased to, see that the US Forest Service
([ISFS),is consadenng the removal of the impoundment on the tributary to Tucker Creek (Alternative Q.
Agency Response
The stream enhancements were included with the timber proposal because resource specialists identified.'
the need dunng early project,preparation Since they would be surveying the area for the timber proposal,
it was more efficient /economical to analyze the stream enhancements with the other proposals.
Comment 2 -2
We have some concerns with the conversion of unauthon�ed (nonsystem) roads to Forest Service. Roads (typcaly Traffic Level
D Roads). After reviewing the Roads Analysis Report (RAP) for the•Macedonia_Project, we believe several unauthon .Zed '
roads should be pervianently,closed. Pages 7 and 8 in the RAP detail a list of 12 unauthon .Zed roads (labeledA though L)
an the project area but - recommended the decomrrrusromng of only 3 of those roads; (E, K, and L), despite the problems
associated with several of them (illegal ORV use, erosion, placement,in rzpanan habitat,' etc.). We agree with the closing „of
Roads E (because of its proximity to a stream and the illegal ORV use), )(j and =L, and strong recommend
Decision Notice
8

Macedonia Project
decommzsszomng,Roads G and H. Road H should be closed for reasons similar to road E ,(illegal ORV use a"nd, the
associated erosion). Because Road G has not been needed previously, is currently unauthon .Zed, and would requzA
construction,to'meet USFS mad standards, we see little need to authonte it.'
Agency Response
The RAP identified the current system and non - system roads in the Macedonia area System and non -
system roads were developed many years, ago to- access the area, primarily for,tunber, harvesting. The area
is identified as MA 313 in the Forest Plan; which emphasizes-providing a sustainable supply of Sumer As
the RAP' disclosed, on pages 15- 17,.6f the 12 non- system roadsTm the area, rune are needed for long -term
timber management and' three are not The three roads are suitable for decommissioning following
separate'biologic,and archaeologic reviews
The Macedoriia:Church Project,Level Roads Analysis Process (RAP) identifie&classified(system) and
unclassified (non- system) roads associated with specific projects idennfied,within in the scope of the
environmental analysis. Classified roads identified in the Macedonia Church Project RAP consist -of
Federal, State, Private and Forest Service System roads Classified Forest Service Roads are those
constructed by the US Forest Service in years past for specific project to access lands suitable for timber
management 'Unclassified roads within the project area are primarily roads that existed at the time the land
was acquired by the US Forest Service Roads on the Forests transportation system needed for long -term
management would have erosion problems corrected dunng'general road maintenance Roads closed by
,gate are.seeded following forest management activities.
The Macedbrua Church,Project Area.is located within ManagementArea 313 (MA 3B),of, the, Land and
Resource Management -Plan (F(5rest Plan) Amendment 5 For MA 313` General Direction -for Road
Planning"Coristruction and Maintenance -on page II1 -76 specifies. 1 Plan and eonftiwa the transportation system
to pmvzde acce s for timber. General Direction, Standard's specafy:, a Plan' the road system 10 progressively access all
lands suitable for timber production. b. L' ocate all "roads on stable locations to protect adzacent resources, and to most cost
eechvely serve access needs.
Following direction given in the Forest Plan the Macedonia Church RAP• identified unclassified roads that
meet the above Forest Plan direction and standards and recommended they be put onto the Forest Road
System Roads that did not meet Forest Plan standards were recommended for, decommussiomng This
process identified 12 unclassified roads of which nine were found to meet Forest Plan Direction,and three
That did not. The three roads that did not meet Forest Plan direction were.recommended for
deeorrimissiorung Although Road's G and H did have some of the same problems associated with ,the
three roads, recommended for decommissioning they were minor,andcould be corrected to meet Forest
Road Standards as stated in, the Forest Plan
Road G is,rieeded to access stand C1,16S05 for harvest this entry It would also pr6vide•future access to
stands C1165O4, C116S03, 611S06, and C117S05 Current condition of-Road G is siable with no erosion
or unauthorized use Only problem needing correction is where Road G intersects with Road 'R, in a,dry,
broad ephemeral drain To bring Road G up to standard the intersection will be rerouted from the
ephemeral drain and intersect Road F on a•nearby ridge Thus minor action would bnng Road G up to
Forest Plan Sfandardswhile providing long -term access f6i management of'the previously lusted stands
t
Road H was recommended by the Macedonia Church Project RAP to be added to the Forest Road System
sinceit'is needed to,access stand C1 15S03 this „entry and would provide, future access to the following
swtableastands: C116S11, C1 15S03, C115S11, and_0 15S13. Currently Road H has some unauthorized
ORV activity, on it*emanating from private land along Long Branch. Puttigg:Road H ontouthe system
would allow for;legal closure of the,road where the unauthorized ORV traffic emanates and,would provide
for resources to bring the road up to Forest`Standards:with proper grade, water control'and vegetation
which will correct any current erosion problems
Decision Notice
9

Macedonia Project
Roads H and.G would be maintained'on a 10 year schedule with funding from future timber sales
Between 10 year,entnes, the roads would be closed to public vehicular traffic, seeded, and'allowed.for
woody vegetation to grow on the, road prism until needed in the future
Comment 2 -3
We have no mayor objections to the preferred alternative (Alternative Q. However, we encouiageyou to look for ways to
minzmite the number of roads to be constructed and urgeyou to decommission roads whenever possable. If the removal of the
dam on Tucker Creek were included, Alternative D would be ourpreferred alternative because it would result zn-the
construction of fewer reads
Agency Response
As the RAP disclosed'in,pages, 1547,,,of the 12 non - system roads in the area, nine are needed for long-
term timber'management and three ar&not: The RAP also disclosed the need for developing,about 0.7 "
miles of new system road,to ensure adequate,access for tiniber'management: The RAP identified ,three; "u
non - system roads ,(E, K, &,L), for decommissioning
Comment 2 -4
Based on theuformationsprvvided in the EnznrnnmentalAssessment and a review of our records, we'concur withyour
assessment,that`none of theprvposed alternatives nnll affect federally listed endangered species or entical,babztat, Thus, the
requirements of section, 7(c) of the Act are fulled
Agency Response
Comment is noted
Letter3 —.Rex Galloway
Comment:3 -1
It seems td me thatyou adlbave studied the prbject drea=and thatyou have decided this would be a hep to, the Forest, n zldl fe,
and our future overall `condztzon ,of evegtbrng involved. My firm belief is that you are the forest expert and that the public
should acceptyour decision. But I think, fyou have another alternative I think Alternative C because it'is the closest to B.
But after reading all the information I think B is best.
Agency Response
Preference for Alternative B is noted. The proposal was developed to meet the project's purpose and
need (Section 1.3, Chapter 1), Two action alternatives analyzed in detail (Alternatives B & C) meet the
purpose and need'to varying,degrees (Alternative D does not meet Forest Plan standards for early -
successional habitat). See Decision and Rationale sections above in the'derasion notice for the selected
alternative; why it,was selected, and why other alternatives considered in detail were not selected ,
Letter 4 — Charles Parris
Comment 4 -1
In reference to` the. memo regardZng the EA' fdrMacedonza Prn�ect on the Pis gah Banger Dzstnct, I strongly, suggest,
that we
stay with the proposed alternate B. Wzldl fe has not been managed ar it should over the past fezyyears and with alternate B
there is more wzldl fe habdat'zmprvvementr In reference, to plan C, I believe that the roads will help, stop the wzldfzzrs and for
emergency uses only. In the event that plan C as chosen, I do believe that somegood would come outaof the plan, ,but the
benefits would be of no comparison as planA High standards for water quality should remain as a, higb pnorzty as,it has
been, in the past for either plans
Decision Notice
10

Macedonia Project
Agency Response
Preference for Alternative B is noted. The proposal was developed to`meet the project's purpose and
need (Section 13, Chapter'1) Two action alternatives analyzed in detail (Alternatives B, &C),meet the,
purpose and need to- varying degrees (Alternative D does not °meet Forest Plan standards for early-
successional habitat) See, Decision and Rationale,sections aboverm the decision notice for; the selected
alternative, why it was-selected, and why other alternatives considered 'in detail were`not'selected.
Lettet 5- Dianne Riggs
Comment 5 -1,
Old Growth Areas. Most of the oldgrowfb areas designated•in the Macedonia Project proposal C, are adjacent to pnvate
land holdings or on steep slopes Proxzmidy to pnvate land often means disturbance, ability for dispersal of invasive,non-
nativ_e species, noise contamination, contaminated mater, run -off, and human activity, all of which are injurious to the old
,grnzvth forest ,dnd the animals needing this kind of envzronmmr for, instance, black bears). Steep slopes often preclude
•biodiversziy, attracting sameness of species (in the case of oldgmwtb designates in 115, and 126 laurzl and rhododendron
associated species). What are needed ,in the chain of oldgmwth areas regirared by lam -are the inclusion of rich coves, especially
those with wde, moist (not met) areas and soils that mould attract-sbecies such- as beech and'its associates, not ony oaks and
hzckoiies, as well as a diverse f orest population of understory and plants and fungi, bacteria, etc, nihzch mould i n turn attract
agreater multitude of all forms,of anzivalr.
Agency Response
The Macedonia project area,is fragmented with private/National Forest System (NFS) lands; especially m
Compartments 111 and 117— it is difficult to•,find'areas, not bordered by private lands., Small'patcli old
growth proposed in Compartments 116 and 126, do not.border private lands • The,Forest plan•states, on
page III -26 The desired future, condition for,oldgrowth across the forest is to have a network of small, medium, and large
sated old growth areas, representative of sites, elevdtzon gradients, and landscapes found in the Southerh Appalachians; and on
the Forests that are well dispersed and`interconnected by forested-lands The Forest Plan also states on page III -27v
The purpose of the small patches is to increase bzologicaL dwerszdy and pmmde structural components or old growth at the stand
and,landreape levels. Forest Plan standards'were adhered to when designating small patch old.giowth
communities
Comment 5 -2
Invasive Species of Non- native Plants. Whde many non - natzve species are very troublesome, especially multi flora rose, I
would like to, focus on onental bittersweet as an extremely maous and aggressive invader This plant * a fargreater problem
N,
than it was 20years ago in'the National Forest. INS nuch'more wde- spread and wztli agreater'namber of origznatzon sites
available fontransport into currently non- infected-areas Vectors of contamination unfortunately include timber harverting
equipment, ATVs, horse hooves, hiker boots as well as'loeal animals. Since its favored area of ertabhsliment is, open areas,
every dzsturi�ed road and harvesting sate will be a' erfect launching pad for additional communities of oriental bittersweet.
,Unfortunatey it does not remain in these areas, but presses into non - disturbed forests, killing mature trees, wzthzn' 10 years' of
less as well as preventing stump sprouts and young seedlings from gmwtng back Prevention of this iequzres aggressive human
action including both mechanical and chemicaGmeans. It.zs necessary for all areas designated for harvesting and °the-rnads to
accomplish this,hamest, be treated, be ore entry and for S to 10 years afterwards to prevent new establishment of oriental
bittersweet communities on theselsites. It would also be.advzsable to clean (with p`iessumboses),log trig vehicles- 6efore,entry
into areas to be logged, most eipectaly dose thatare to be gated off to future vehicular use. 'I believe4bat,all costs for doing
this' will he easily off -set, by the saving�of standing timber and new seedlings, for future use Unfortunately`, the rapid
progression of onental bittersweet is not a linear increase, but an 'excephonal one.
Agency Response
The Agency is aware of the damage bittersweet can and is causing on, the Pisgah NF The Macedonia
proposal disclosed: Control /manage populations pnor'to disturbance on FS lands (Table 3 -7, Chapter 3), and
Decision Notice
11

Macedonia
further disclosed Contrdl /manage existing non- native,znv_aszve plantKsj"eczes along haul routes and haul�routes,adidcent'to
existing and proposed harvest stands with herbicide Pnor to harvest, treat non - native invasive plants along FSRs adjacent to
harvest stands zinth herbicides andl or'manurrl methods (Tabfe, 2-3, Chapter- 2), The Agency plans to monitor the
specific areas as disclosed in Section 2.4 2, Chapter 2 Areas would be identified to monitor control #or&aspart,,of
our efforts to meet national o_'bjectives of reducing impactrfom,invasrve species and improving the effectiveness of treating
selected invasive­ species on the Nation's forests and grasslands Suniey areas would be ident fled before treatment, checked
during treatment, and'after,treatment. A past - treatment evaluation,rehorf -xbuld be completed and filed in the project file
Based on the -monitoring results, follow -up, treatments maybe needed to meet objectives Pressure washing logging
equipment can be a costly requirement that reduces potential for timber companies to bid on a proposal
The need for this requirement has not been determined to be necessary due to the pretreatment proposed,
and the monitoring planned The cleaning of logging equipment,and,velucles-is required in the BT
Division of the Timber Sale Contract., under BT 6.35 EgwpmenrClearung. This sale contract clause
requires that all logging equipment be inspected prior to,moving Off- -Road Equipment onto the sale area
and the Purchaser shall advise the Forest;Service of,its cleaning measures and make equipment available
for visual inspection by�the Forest Service prior to entering;a sale area,
Comment,5 -3
Road Construction. A, dvise lower road mileage added, to the Forest transportatzon- system. Costly to maintain.
,Agency Response
The proposal developed and analyzed several alternatives in detail Alternative,A (No- action) did not
propose any - additional road activities. Alternative B proposed the most road work (5 miles of
reconstruction, 0:7 miles of new system construction, 3.1 mile of non - system road added to the Forest
transportation system, and 1 mile of temporary road) because it proposed the most harvesting Alternative
C,proposed less road work than alternative B (5 miles of reconstruction, 0 7 miles of new system
construction, 2.5 miles of non - system road added to}the Forest transportation system, and 0 8 miles of
temporary -road) because it proposed less' harvesting Altemative,D proposed the least road work (5 miles
of reconstruction, no new system construction, no non- system,road added to the Forest transportation
system, and 1.1 miles of 'temporary °road) because, it proposed, the least harvesting The level of road work
proposed is interdependent on the level of ti nber managed. The 'Macedonia area is designated as
ManagementArea,3B (timber,eimphasis) in the'Forest Plan- (pages II1-6, III -SS, and'II1 -71) and,as such
roads are needed to access- the,,,arex to meet Forest Plan ,timber objectives.
Comment 5-4
AdditaonalAreas of Old Growth Designation: I would like to- recommend, in, accordance with what I wrote above under& "old
growth "that the Pisgah Banger District add two areas to its oldgrowth designation in the Macedonia Project. These are the
en
tare Space Cove watershed and the upper end'ofL.ong.Branch. Both of these are in Compartment 115. Spice Cove would
be excellent black bear habitat as it is remote, not next °to private lands, has vaned terrain, and has multi- dzrectronal facing
slopes, favoring denng plant communities. Long Branch contains beech communities, which would add another needed
dzmensron to treelplantl animal diversity It,is up- stream to private lands.
Agency Response
One of the purpose and need items for the project is'to designate,small patch old growth The EA stated
in Section 13, Chapter 1 There is a need to_ designate small patch oldgrowth communities in Compartments 111', 115,
11,6,,11-7, and 126 because no- smallpatch oldgrowth communities are currently designated in them. Compartment 115
needs at least 56 acres of small patch old growth designated within.it to,meet Forest Plan standards, and
the proposal (73 acres) exceeds this amount by 17 acres Within.all' five compartments the proposal needs
to designate at least 268,acres of small patch,old growth, and all' action alternatives proposed' 338 acres,
which exceeds the Forest Plan amount by 70 acres The areas identified for small patch old growth
designations (by an interdisciplinary team that included botanical, wildlife, silviculture, scenery,
Decision Notice
12

Macedonia Project '
archaeological,,fishenes, and hydrologic expertise) were located where they are because they met old
growth- Forest Plan standards and they represent the natural communities within the-analysis area Old
growth is proposed in the Spice, Cove area The Long Branch area is fragmented with private lands,
reducing its swtability'fot:old growth designation. Designating,additional acres of small patch old growth
in any of the five comoartinerits is not necessary to meet Forest Plan standards' (see also Section 2 3 4,
Chapter'2 of the EA)' The Macedonia project area as Within Management Area 3B, which is designated as
suitable for W-Aber harvesting while pr`ovidirig, early successional habrtat,for wildlife species such as-white-
tailed deer, ruffed grouse, and wild turkey There are other management areas on the Pisgah Ranger
Distnctand Pisgah,National Forest (MAs 2C, 4C, 5, 6, 7, 9,10,.11,.12; 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17) that are
more appropriate and available to *provide old growth habitat for species that prefer older- aged•forests
Letter 6 -,H. Gerald Owen '
Comment 6 -1
Havtnggron m up hunting,' fishing, biking, and-campang an the Macedonia Salversteen area and stall own property an,the area,
I strongly supportyourproposed Macedonia project.• '
Agency Response
Comment is noted k
_ r
Decision Notice,
13
V
F
t
Decision Notice,
13
V