20150747 Ver 1_401 Application_20150715

od ®b United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest National Forests in 160A Zillicoa Street
Service North Carolina P.O. Box 2750
Asheville, NC 28802
File Code: 2530 -3
Date:
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.S. Forest Service project: Buck Creek Stream Restoration
Proiect. Located on the Nantahala National Forest, Nantahala Ranger District in Macon County,
North Carolina, this project is situated on Buck Creek and Little Buck Creek, in the Little
Tennessee River Basin.
The Forest Service is proposing to reduce in- channel erosion and sedimentation within Buck
Creek and Little Buck Creek (Macon County) by stabilizing eroding stream banks. A trackhoe
will be utilized to restore natural contours (dimension, pattern and profile) of Buck Creek, Little
Buck Creek, and one unnamed tributary of Buck Creek. Excavated soil will be relocated on site
to a stable location and native vegetation will be reestablished. Best management practices to
prevent nonpoint- source water pollution will be utilized to protect water quality throughout the
duration of the project. Approximately 184 feet of stream restoration would be required in Buck
Creek and 150 feet in an unnamed tributary, and approximately 60 feet of stream restoration
would be required in Little Buck Creek; a total of 394 feet of stream channel. Natural channel
design concepts would be implemented to design channel dimension, pattern and profile using
reference reach data from the up and down stream reaches.
The following stream work is proposed:
Site 1:
A. Restore natural drainage at an old road crossing. Reestablish natural dimensions of the
gulied tributary. Implement erosion control measures, including native plants, mulch, and
place coir matting on stream banks. Plant native trees and shrubs for long -term
stabilization along the stream channel with species beneficial to wildlife.
B. Remove existing undersized stream crossings on the tributary and construct a natural
bottom ford to provide aquatic passage while still allowing mowing access to the wildlife
field.
C. Stabilize 54 feet of stream bank on Buck Creek to a 2:1 slope and place seed, mulch and
coir matting on the bank.
Site 2: Construct a log vane in Buck Creek to reduce erosion of right bank and improve pool
habitat.
Site 3: Construct a log vane and a bankfull bench in Little Buck Creek to reduce erosion of right
bank.
Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper too

r'
A copy of the 404 permit application 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 will not be submitted to NC Division of Land Quality since disturbed area is less than one
acre, r,
Enclosed are the following materials:
• Five copies of the Pre - Construction Notice (version 1.3), application for 404 permit
J
(Nation-'wide 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 Memo) for the project
• 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.
Sinc ,
rady . Do d
National Forests in North Carolina
Forest Hydrologist

WaTF9QG
of DA F
� 1 1 � O K
2 0 1 5 0 7 4 7
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre- Construction Notification (PCN) Form n
A. Applicant Information /Q
1. Processing / / Jut 9
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the 1015 '
Corps: I ® Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Per it DEW.
w
:
P ATf f
R p UR '
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number: n/a ERMIrT,��S
1c. Has the NWP_or GP number been verified by the Corps? I ❑ 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
[:1401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401
because written approval is not required? Certification:
❑ 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.
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Buck Creek Stream Restoration Project
2b. County:
Macon
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Highlands, NC
2d. Subdivision name:
I USDA Forest Service, Nantahala 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.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
Kristin Bail
applicable):
3d. Street address:
160 Zillicoa Street, Suite A
3e. City, state, zip:
I Asheville, NC 28801
3f. Telephone no.:
828- 257 -4269
3g. Fax no.:
1 828 - 259 -0584
3h. Email address:
[e-mail]
0
Film
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ® Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name: Brady Dodd
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
USDA Forest Service, Hydrologist
160 Zillicoa Street, Suite A
Asheville, NC 28801
(828) 257 -4214
(828) 257 -4874
[e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:,
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 14

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): - if you can't get
these, just include a very good vicinity map
1 c. Property size:
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
2c. River basin: map is available at
hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/
USDA Forest Service, National Forest in NC, Nantahala
R. D.
Latitude: 35.1269 Longitude: - 83.2405
755,200 acres
Buck Creek, Little Buck Creek
C; Tr
Little Tennessee River Basin
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 in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Site 1. One old woods road contains a non - functional wooden culvert. A nearby wildlife field contains a small
unnamed tributary of Buck Creek. The stream banks are steep and eroding into the tributary and into Buck
Creek. In addition to the tributary, a section of Buck Creek channel bank in the wildlife opening is eroding
where fill material was placed historically.
Site 2. A section of Buck Creek is experiencing high stream bank erosion adjacent to a planted white pine
stand. The stream channel has widened and has created mid- channel depositional bars.
Site 3. A section of stream bank along Little Buck Creek has sloughed off into the creek. This area continues
to erode into the stream.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0 acre of wetlands.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 184 feet of stream restoration would be required in Buck Creek and 150 feet in an
unnamed tributary to Buck Creek, and approximately 60 feet of stream restoration would be required in
Little Buck Creek; a total of 394 feet of stream channel.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
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 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.
Page 4 of 14

3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
A trackhoe will be utilized to restore natural contours (dimension, pattern and profile) of Buck Creek, Little
Buck Creek, and one unnamed tributary of Buck Creek. Excavated soil will be relocated on site to a stable
location and native vegetation will be reestablished. Best management practices to prevent nonpoint- source
water pollution will be utilized to protect water quality throughout the duration of the project. Approximately
184 feet of stream restoration would be required in Buck Creek and 150 feet in an unnamed tributary, and
approximately 60 feet of stream restoration would be required in Little Buck Creek; a total of 394 feet of
stream channel. Natural channel design concepts would be implemented to design channel dimension, pattern
and profile using reference reach data from the up and down stream reach. See "Project Description" for
details.
The following stream work is proposed:
Site 1:
Tributary to Buck Creek:
1. Restore drainage at the old road crossing.
2. Lay back eroding bank to a 2:1 slope, minimum, along a 120 feet channel section, maintaining
existing trees on bank.
3. Implement erosion control measures, including native seed, straw mulch, and coir matting on stream
banks.
4. Plant trees and shrubs for long -term stabilization along the 170' section of channel using shrub species
beneficial to wildlife.
5. Remove existing crossings and construct a ford for mowing access.
Buck Creek:
Lay back about 54 feet of right bank of Buck Creek to a 2:1 slope to reduce erosion.
Road Access:
Waterbar lower 300 feet of the road accessing the site.
Site 2:
Site 3:
Construct a log vane in Buck Creek to reduce erosion of right bank and improve pool habitat.
Construct a log vane and a bankfull bench in Little Buck Creek to reduce erosion of the right bank.
All exposed soil would be seeded, mulched, and planted with live stakes and/or potted native vegetation.
1. 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? El Yes ®No El Unknown
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? ❑Preliminary ❑Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? I Agency /Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
2. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for I ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 5 of 14

3. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
6b. If yes, explain.
❑ Yes ® No
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 ❑T I
I
I
I
❑Nos
El DWQ
W2 ❑P ❑T I
I
I
❑Nos
[__1 DWQ
W3 ❑ P❑ T I
I
I❑ Yes
I❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P❑ T I
I
I❑ Yes
I❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
I
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
I
❑ No
❑ DW,Q
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) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404, width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other) (feet)
feet)
Lay back bank,
install in- stream
S1 ®P ❑ T
structures & install
Little Buck Creek
® PER
® Corps 12
60
vegetation
(Site #3)
❑ INT
® DWQ
transplants on
banks
Lay back bank,
install in- stream
S2 ®P ❑ T
structures & install
Buck Creek
® PER
® Corps
20
130
vegetation
(Site #2)
F] INT
® DWQ
transplants on
banks
Lay back banks, &
S3 ®P ❑ T
install vegetation
Buck Creek
® PER
® Corps 20
54
transplants on
(Site #1)
❑ INT
® DWQ
banks
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
Lay back banks, &
install vegetation
Tributary of Buck
® PER
® Corps
2
120
transplants on
Creek (Site #1)
❑INT
®DWQ
Page 7 of 14

banks
Remove culvert
S5 ❑ P [IT and construct
Tributary of Buck ® PER ® Corps 2
30
natural -bottom
Creek (Site #1) ❑ INT ® DWQ
ford
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
394
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 individually list all open water
impacts below.
4a. 4b.
4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number — (if applicable)
Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
0. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or ake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b.
5c. 5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number of 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:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 8 of 14

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWO)
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
6b.
Buffer impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
B1 ❑ P ❑T
B2 ❑P ❑T
ME "M
6i. Comments:
protected basin?
6c. 6d.
Reason
for
impact
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer
Stream name mitigation
required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
Page 9 of 14
Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
(square feet) (square feet)

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Temporarily increases in turbidity are likely from the work during construction. Potential adverse impacts would be
avoided by minimizing excessive excavation and adhering to the State turbidity standard. Stream work is expected to be
completed over a two week period.
b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
A. Minimize the area and degree of soil disturbance that reduces infiltration capacity and permeability, and destroys protective
forest floor and ground cover.
B. All hazardous materials will 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 grease from entering the stream. This would also reduce the risk of invasive weed spread
onto the Forest.
2. Do not operate on wet soils 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 soil erosion. Avoid operating
heavy equipment on over - hanging stream banks.
4. Move large woody debris in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the forest floor, exposure of mineral soil, 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 soon as possible to take advantage of the loose soil conditions for seeding.
1. Exposed soil 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 soil within five days of ground disturbing activities to provide long -term
erosion control.
3. Stabilize channel banks with a native seed mix as work is completed.
G. Do not move sediment trap devices until the vegetation in the disturbed areas has been established.
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 failing situations as soon as practical.
I. Conduct visual inspections of Buck Creek, Little Buck Creek, and the tributary while the work is being conducted to maintain
acceptable turbidity levels.
Use a skilled heavy equipment operator, trained in stream restoration and construction of 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
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Type I Quantity
Page 10 of 14
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
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: I acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested: I acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: I acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
❑cold
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 ❑ Yes ® No
buffer mitigation? If ves. you will have to fill out this entire form — Dlease
contact the State for more information.
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.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 I 1.5
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 DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
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:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
0%
❑ 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:
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Certified Local Government
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWO 401 Unit
Clay County
❑ Phase II .
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑
Coastal counties
❑
HQW
❑
ORW
❑
Session Law 2006 -246
❑
Other:
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 12 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. 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)?
1 c. 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: NEPA Decision Memo document is attached. The Environmental
Assessment cleared the state clearing house on March 28, 2012.
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 violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in I ❑ 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.
No sewage disposal is necessary.
Page 13 of 14
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?
A biological evaluation completed by the US Forest Service on June 29, 2012 determined that the project is
not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. Concurrence with this determination of effects was made by the
US Fish and Wildlife Service on July 12, 2012. There will be no impacts to any other proposed, endangered,
or threatened species.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? I ❑ Yes ® No
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 (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?
An archeological review completed in June 2012 determined that no sites within the project area are eligible
for listing under § 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The State Historic Preservation Office
concurred with the Forest Service's determination on July 23, 2012.
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? NC Floodplain Mapping Information System
http: / /floodmaps.nc.gov /FMIS/
Brady N. Dodd
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
>ignature
zation letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 14 of 14
y 21 , Zo15
Uate

US Forest
Service
File Code: 2500
Route To: (2500)
National Forests in 160 Zillicoa St, Ste. A
North Carolina Asheville, NC 28801 -1082
828 - 257 -4200
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 all necessary
information, and sign all correspondence.
Include this letter as part of all application for Section 404 permits to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and Section 401 Water Quality Certification to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality.
xaote-/-�
:. BAIL
visor
USDA iW OW
America's Working Forests - Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

` O.
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest rvice
Southern Region Decision Notice
September 2012
and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Buckwheat
Nantahala Ranger District
Nantahala National Forest
Macon County, North Carolina

Buckwheat
Decision Notice
and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Buckwheat
USDA Forest Service
Nantahala Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest
Macon County, North Carolina
Decision and Rationale
Decision
Based upon my review of the alternatives, I have decided
to select Alternative B of the Buckwheat Environmental
Assessment (August 2012 EA). The Selected Alternative
will:
Regenerate approximately 173 acres in 11 separate
stands using a two -aged method of regeneration. In
the two -age method a new stand is regenerated while
leaving a sparse overstory of trees that creates a
second age class to the next rotation. Enough of the
mature stand is removed to ensure that enough light
reaches the forest floor to sustain growth and
development of the new stand. Approximately 20
square feet of basal area per acre is left. Den trees and
hard mast producing trees are the favored leave trees.
Logging in all units would be accomplished by using
conventional ground -based systems that skids the
logs on the ground to a designated landing.
Waterbar and seed skid trails, landings, and roads
with an appropriate seed mixture following
completion of logging activities. After harvesting,
conduct site preparation for natural regeneration by
chainsaw felling of residual nonmerchantable woody
vegetation. Maintain the landings and roads as
wildlife openings.
At least two growing seasons prior to harvesting
stands 8 -24, 19 -36, 19 -37, 22 -32, and 78 -37 (totaling
about 85 acres), cut individual grape and smoke vines
in these stands, then spray the cut surfaces with
tripclopyr amine herbicide mixed 50/50 in water, or
treat them with triclopyr ester /mineral oil in a
backpack streamline spray. The vine control work is
needed in order to prevent prolific growth from
existing vines immediately after units are harvested.
The objective is to reduce grapevine and smokevine
competition to newly - regenerating trees, not to
eliminate vines from the stands. In each stand,
existing grape arbors will be left, up to V2 acre per 10
acres.
After the first growing season, conduct timber stand
improvement in all the newly- regenerated stands
(about 173 acres) by controlling undesirable
reproduction on stump sprouts (stump sprout clumps
only — no single stems) of red maple, striped maple,
silverbell, sourwood, dogwood, yellow poplar, and
blackgum and individual grape and smoke vines as
needed. Accomplish this work by backpack
streamline spray application of triclopyr ester and
imazypr mixed in mineral oil.
Conduct contract slash -down work totaling 38 acres
in stands 80 -16, 80 -17, and 80 -18, removing most of
the over -story vegetation except for a few leave trees
(15 -20 square feet of residual basal area) to simulate a
two -aged regeneration harvest area. Follow the slash -
down with a hot prescribed burn to accomplish site
preparation. Plant the areas with pitch pine seedlings
on a ten foot by twelve foot spacing. Use triclopyr
herbicide, mixed in a 20% solution with mineral oil,
up to four times as needed (in the early years
subsequent to new stand establishment), to release
the new seedlings from competing faster growing
brushy vegetation and vines. This work may be
necessary to allow time for the newly- established
seedlings to outcompete faster - growing, brushy
vegetation.
Conduct slashing treatments followed by planting
northern red oak seedlings on a ten foot by twelve
foot spacing to ensure the survival of 300 oaks per
acre on eight acres in stand 18 -37. Use triclopyr
herbicide, mixed in a 20% solution with mineral oil,
up to four times as needed (in the early years
subsequent to new stand establishment), to release
the new seedlings from competing faster growing
brushy vegetation and vines. This work may be
necessary to allow time for the newly- established
seedlings to outcompete faster - growing, brushy
vegetation.
• Plant oak and /or blight resistant American chestnut
seedlings in regeneration areas depending on need
Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact
2

Buckwheat
and seedling availability. Prior) to planting, conduct
pre - harvest site preparation in the selected locations
using an appropriate herbicide ( triclopyr or
glyphosate). After planting, conduct herbicide release
at the planted locations as needed in each of several
(up to five) follow -up years. The planted sites would
be evaluated by Nantahala district personnel for
seedling survival and competitive performance. While
oak planting and post - planting herbicide treatments
are not normally needed, they are approved should
the need arise.
Continue the prescribed fire program already
established for the Buster Vinson unit (114 acres) and
initiate a prescribed fire program on the Orchard unit
(231 acres). These prescribed burns are for the
purpose of wildlife habitat improvement and fuels
reduction by reducing the amount of dead fuels on
the ground and encouraging the growth of new young
grasses and forbs for a source of wildlife food. They
are low to moderate understory burns and would
consume much of the forest floor litter but not the
underlying duff.
• Spray saplings in harvest unit skid trails (postharvest)
with triclopyr 4E to lengthen the time that grasses
occupy the skid trails, which produces more golden
winged warbler habitat over time.
• Disc, burn, and apply herbicide to all existing wildlife
openings in the area that are in poor condition.
Follow this treatment with the seeding and
establishment of new grasses and forbs in an
appropriate wildlife seed mixture.
• Conduct treatments for watershed habitat
improvement at Buck Creek and one of its unnamed
tributaries.
• Restore natural hydrological function and plant
species diversity in nine areas of riparian flats along
area streams totaling 74 acres. Restore surface flow
patterns by recontouring old roadbeds. Shrubs and
some small trees would be removed by cutting with
hand - tools. Stumps of the cut vegetation would be
sprayed with glyphosate or triclopyr herbicide to
inhibit sprouting.
• Control invasive species by spraying a triclopyr or
glyphosate herbicide solution along all system
roadsides. This treatment would be applied as many
tunes as necessary.
• Conduct roadside thinning along all existing FS
system roads for approximately 15 -30 feet on each
side. This is for the purpose of increasing sunlight to
the roads and reducing the drying time of water on
the road surfaces.
Design Criteria
Design criteria are outlined in the EA (Section 1.2,
Chapter 1). In summary, the design criteria include:
Proposed actions would meet the Partial Retention
Visual Quality Objective (VQO) (LRMP Amendment
5 pages III- 79 -83) in the MA 2 and 4 parts of the
project area. Direction for the Partial Retention
VQO is for management activities to be visually
subordinate to the characteristic landscape and to
meet the VQO within two growing seasons after
treatment.
The proposal would follow standards in LRMP
Amendment 10 (USDA Forest Service, 2000 and as
revised in 2010) to minimize the risk of incidental
take and conserve habitat for the Indiana Bat. It
would comply with the terms and conditions listed in
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological
Opinion (B.O., April 2000). Retain as many snags and
den trees as practicable. Designate and retain living
residual trees in the vicinity of one third of all large
( >12 inches dbh) snags with exfoliating bark to
provide them with partial shade and some protection
from windthrow. Limit openings in the upper canopy
to single tree gaps within 30 feet each side of
intermittent streams, with at least 75 feet distance
between openings. Leave up to ten well- formed
dogwood, serviceberry, and other soft -mast
producers per acre during site preparation.
• A clump of trees would be left to protect the seep in
stand 8 -17.
Brushy edges of 50 -100 ft around existing wildlife
openings will be established by heavy thinning or 2-
aged regeneration depending on site conditions.
In the Buster Vinson prescribed burn, there are three
rock outcrops suitable for the green salamander, a
NFsNC forest concern species. Green salamanders
were found in one of the rock outcrops. Forest
Service records show that this area has been burned
two times in the past. One rock outcrop is located in
a drain and is very moist. All three areas will be
burned under low to moderate fire conditions and
receive a backing fire so as to retain existing shade
conditions.
• Use brush barriers, silt fence, or hay bales to prevent
visible sediment from entering streamcourses as
Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact
3

Buckwheat
needed. Revegetate all exposed cut and fill slopes
within 30 days of initial disturbance. Revegetate
and /or mulch disturbed soil at stream crossings the
same day. Restrict operations to periods of dry
weather. Comply with the forest practices guidelines
and standards in the North Carolina Forest Practices
Guidelines Related to Water Quality (BMPs).
Apply herbicides according to labeling and site -
specific analysis; all formulations and additives must
be registered with EPA and approved for Forest
Service use. Use application rates at or below those
listed as typical rates in the Record of Decision for
the Final Environmental Assessment on Vegetation
Management in the Appalachian Mountains (ROD,
FEIS -Veg. Mgmt.); use selective rather than
broadcast applications. Forest Service supervisors
and contract representatives must be certified
pesticide applicators. Sign treated areas in accordance
with FSH 7109.11. Application would be consistent
with USDA Forest Service herbicide risk assessments
(USDA Forest Service 2007a).
• Apply no herbicides within 100 feet of public or
domestic water sources; those not having an aquatic
label will not be applied within 30 feet of perennial or
intermittent streams. Mix herbicides at the District
work center and dispense into application equipment
on National Forest land at least 100 feet from surface
water.
In addition to the above measures, apply all standards
and guidelines for the appropriate MAs, as found in
the LRMP, as amended. Also, apply all 99 mitigating
measures found in the ROD, FEIS -Veg. Mgmt., and
incorporated in the LRMP by Amendment #2 in July
1989, as needed
Best Available Science
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 incomplete or
unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk
pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.9(b), 1502.22, and 1502.24.
Rationale
The purpose and need for the proposal is disclosed in
Section 1.2, Chapter 1 and is to improve the existing
condition of the following: wildlife habitat, tree species
diversity, timber resources, forest health, watershed
conditions, recreational safety and access, and riparian
areas within the Buckwheat Project area, in accordance
with the Forest Plan goals, objectives and direction. The
proposed activities move this vicinity of the Forest
toward the desired future conditions established in the
Forest Plan. In addition, the projects in the alternative
will go towards meeting restoration goals for the
Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (see Section 1.2.3
EA). Altefnative B best meets the purpose and need and
restoration goals as follows:
Direction in the Forest Plan reads, in part, to "Assure
a regular and sustained flow of habitats across the
Forests through space and time for diversity and
viability of plant and animal populations." The
proposed harvest activities would accomplish the
need to increase early successional habitat by
increasing the percentage of young forest. Harvest
activities will contribute to mixed ages of stands
throughout the project area.
• Silvicultural treatments will prepare and regenerate
harvested areas for the development of future stands,
and thinning and release treatments to improve tree
growth and promote development of young trees.
• Post- and pre - harvest regeneration and release
treatments will improve stand stocking and species
composition.
• Prescribed burning is needed to improve wildlife
forage, provide a more open understory and midstory
for wildlife species, and to reduce the dominance of
shade tolerant tree species in the understory and
therefore increase species diversity.
• Existing wildlife food plots and linear food strips are
needed to provide grass /forb habitats and shrub
habitats for wildlife species requiring those habitats.
The proposed activities are in accordance with Forest
Plan direction to "use vegetative management
practices, including commercial and noncommercial
timber harvest, to accomplish fish and wildlife habitat
objectives" (Forest Plan, p. III -24). Forest Plan
direction is to provide at least 0.5% of Management
Areas 2A and 4D in grass /forb openings.
• NNIS treatments along roads and areas that extend
into forest stands will contribute to restoration of
viable native plan communities.
In reaching my decision, I reviewed the purpose and need
for the project and the alternatives considered in detail in
the EA. I then carefully weighed the effects analyses of
the alternatives analyzed in detail and the public
comments received on the EA. The Buckwheat
Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) conducted field surveys,
database queries, and other localized analyses in order to
Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact
4

Buckwheat
determine effects the alternatives considered in detail
could have on the area's ecology, including threatened,
endangered, and sensitive species. During their analyses,
they took a hard look at past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions that could be combined with
expected effects from the Buckwheat proposal. I believe
they provided me sufficient analyses and conclusions to
make a reasoned decision. I believe the Selected
Alternative will move resources in the project area
towards the desired future condition, achieve the purpose
and need for the project, and addresses public concerns.
Other Alternatives Considered
In addition to the Selected Alternative B, I considered
two other alternatives in detail: Alternative A — No Action,
and Alternative C A comparison of these alternatives can
be found in Chapter 2 of the EA.
Alternative A - No Action
Under Alternative A, current management plans, such as
existing wildlife management, wildfire suppression,
general road maintenance, and special use authorization
operations would continue to guide management of the
project area. I did not select this alternative for several
reasons. This alternative would not have provided and
improved wildlife habitat;; used herbicides to
control /manage non - native invasive populations;
controlled /managed competing vegetation; improved
water quality and aquatic habitat; or created ESH. I
believe active management is needed to move the area
towards the Forest Plan's desired future condition.
Alternative C
Alternative C would include all of the treatments
proposed in Alternative B, with the exception of two -age
regeneration treatments in four areas: 8 -17 (19 acres), 19-
36 (24 acres), 22 -33 (13 acres), and 78 -37 (14 acres),
producing 103 acres of early successional habitat as
opposed to the 173 acres proposed under Alternative B.
While Alternative B falls short of the desired condition
for early successional habitat and grass /forb openings,
Alternative C produces even less. Accordingly, Alternative
B best meets the objectives of the Forest Plan while also
increasing age class diversity.
Public Involvement
This proposal has been discussed at public meetings aat
the Nantahala Ranger District office on October 4, 2010
and January 31, 2012. The proposal was provided the
public and other agencies for comment during scoping
that was initiated on February 16, 2012.
A formal 30-day Notice and Comment period began on
July 7, 2012, and ended on August 6, 2012. A total of
four members of the public provided written comments
on the EA.
I carefully reviewed and weighed all comments received
during the development of this decision and used them to
guide my decision. Comments are addressed in the EA
(see Response to Comments, Appendix D Chapter 5).
Finding of No Significant Impact
After considering the environmental effects described in
the EA, 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 by finding
on the following:
1. My finding of no significant environmental effects is
not biased by the beneficial effects of the action
(Chapter 3).
2. There will be no significant effects on public health
and safety and implementation will be in accordance
with project design features (Section 1.2.3, Chapter 1;
Chapter 3).
3. There will be no significant effects on unique
characteristics of the area, because there are no park
lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic
rivers, or ecologically critical areas in the project area,
nor would it violate local law or requirements
imposed for the protection of the environment
(Chapter 3).
4. The effects on the quality of the human environment
are not likely to be highly controversial because there
is no known scientific controversy over the impacts
of the project (Chapter 3).
5. 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 (Chapter 3).
6. 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 (Chapter 3).
7. The cumulative impacts are not significant (Chapter
3).
8. 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
(Section 3.10, Chapter 3). The action will also not
cause loss or destruction of significant scientific,
cultural, or historical resources (Section 3.10, Chapter
3). A heritage report was completed for this project
which found that there were no archeological sites
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The report was sent to the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) on June 21, 2012 and issued de facto
Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact
5

Buckwheat
concurrence on July 23, 2012. The Tribal Historic
Preservation Office (THPO) concurred with the
report on July 16, 2012.
9. The June, 29, 2012, Biological Evaluation (Appendix
B, Chapter 5) concluded:
A. Implementation ofAlternative A, Alternative B, or
Alternative C of the Buckwheat Project would have no effects to
any threatened or endangered aquatic species because none occur
within the aquatic analysis areas and the effects of the proposed
actions would dissipate prior to reaching habitats suitable for
these species.
B. Implementation ofAlternative A, Alternative B, or
Alternative C of the Buckwheat Project would have no effects to
any threatened or endangered plant species because none were
located within the proposed activity areas.
C. Implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, or
Alternative C of the Buckwheat Project is not likely to
adversely affect the Indiana bat (Myotis sodahs) because all
standards and guides for the protection of this species, as listed
in Amendment 10 of the Land and Resources Management
Plan, will be followed. The project will have no effect on any
other federally proposed or listed terrestrial animal species.
Furthermore, implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B,
orAlternative C would have no effects to any other threatened
or endangered terrestrial wildlife species because none occur
within the analysis areas.
D. The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the
determinations of effect in a letter dated July 12, 2012.
10. The action will not violate Federal, State, or 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.
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 listed on pages III -1 and III -2 of Forest Plan
Amendment 5. The project was designed to meet land
/s/ Michael L. Wilkins
MICHAEL WILKINS
Nantahala District Ranger
and resource management plan standards and
incorporates appropriate land and resource management
plan guidelines.
Administrative Review and Contacts
This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 Code of
Federal Regulation (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
Franklin Press, the Responsible Official's newspaper of
record (36 CFR 215.2). 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.m. Appeals may be
faxed to (828) 257 -4263 or mailed electronically in a
common digital format to: anneals- southern- north-
carohna(a fs.fed.us. Those who provided comments or
otherwise expressed interest in a particular proposed
action by the close of the formal notice and comment
period may appeal this decision pursuant to 36 CFR
215.13. Appeals must meet content requirements of 36
CFR 215.14. For further information on this decision,
contact Steverson Moffat, NEPA Team Leader, at 828-
837 -5152.
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 (36 CFR 215.15). If an appeal is filed,
implementation may occur on, but not before the 15f
business day following the date of appeal disposition.
September 7, 2012
Date
Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact
6

Buck Creek (Macon Co.l Watershed Improvement
Proiect
Project Description
Brady Dodd, NFsNC Hydrologist
July 8, 2015
Project Background
This project is located in the Buck Creek drainage on the Nantahala Ranger District (Figure 1). Buck Creek
and tributaries are classified by the state of North Carolina as Class C - Trout waters. Erosion and
sedimentation is the largest risk to water quality in this watershed of the Little Tennessee River Basin.
tiM, 1
NA Creek watershed Improvement Proiects,
Napta,baJO RP
r r f+ 0 Mtn
b.,k � t� �� — 5122 Locations ,
0 \ jVae.d
�_' � l i�\ 1 — ,s%•`r3 I w,. dW�v �\ _,`G , Vt\F fZO"n,, J. h
i . b'
Ite�«7'.
.tt(i �tf-+ tr i _ , f `= f �Ir. 'f�%� fib. •� �j �)rr1 �M
—7
83'rn'�0.om .a- _.nb � A7 9B iavn• ro ._iqo (NyW+4fM�lI'♦l41
Figure 1. Buck Creek (Macon Co.) Watershed Improvement Project location map.
Site #1: Site #1 is located off a spur road from FSR 4591 on a tributary to Buck Creek (GPS
point N35.127038, W083.239332). This area was likely farmed in the past and the stream was
channelized down to Buck Creek for almost 200 feet. The area is currently a maintained wildlife
field. One old woods road contains a non - functional wooden culvert. The wildlife field contains
a small unnamed tributary of Buck Creek. The stream banks are steep and eroding into the
tributary (Photo 1) and into Buck Creek (Figure 2). In addition to the tributary, a section of Buck
Buck Creek, Macon County, Watershed Improvement Project Page 1

Creek channel bank in the wildlife opening is eroding where fill material was placed historically
(Photo 2).
Figure 2. Sketch of existing condition at Site 1.
Buck Creek, Macon County, Watershed Improvement Project Page 2
STREAM BANK STABILIZATION
s90
BUCK CREEK @ SITE #1
'O
Nantahala Ranger District
PLAN VIEW SKETCH - EXISTING CONDITION
OLDROADpED -
tG 5L- -- N3"X2{WK324Z 71)
FAILED WOODEN
ROADXINB
TOE OFSLOPE - �1,
7 .
MOWING ACCESS
UNSTABLE STREAM
7;Of1010�
BANK SAP LO
' FLOODPLAIN
yWILDLIFE
A,
HELD
^UNSTABLE STREAM BANKSVOLOMG
A,
3 -W TALL
FLOODPLAIN
EBODWG BANKS
CROSS SECnON B-B'
WI DLIFE
I
12V LONG BEACH
FIELD
B'
RGDDOGG BANK
MOWING ACC'-"
CROSS SECTIONA -A'
A !i
ERODING WVeLNV
BANK
3
Figure 2. Sketch of existing condition at Site 1.
Buck Creek, Macon County, Watershed Improvement Project Page 2

Site #2: Site #2 is located on Buck Creek within 100 feet of FSR 4591 (GPS point N35.127847,
W083.233981). Due to flooding and a loss of streamside vegetation the right stream bank is
eroding for about 100 feet adjacent to a planted white pine stand (Figure 3). The stream channel
has widened and has created mid - channel depositional bars.
PHOTO a3. Buck Cr. looking downstream at reach.
P"=a3
Buck
mamr
STREAM BANK STABILIZATION
BUCK CREEK @ SITE #2
Nantahala Ranger District
PLAN VIEW SKETCH — EXISTING CONDITION
(ersiocaw1AGII SQ WS23"
PHOTO N4. Buck Cr. looking downstream at eroded bank.
l f''
�' moo'. -•J _ i
a•
oV, ,(- -! r 1 1 j1 x'.•h+
fro• ` 9
•3$eam
Figure 3. Sketch of existing condition at Site 2.
t
Buck Creek, Macon County, Watershed Improvement Project Page 3

Site #3: Site #3 is located on Little Buck Creek within 100 feet of FSR 4591 and SR 1535 (GPS
point N35.133320, W083.242825). Due to flooding and a loss of streamside vegetation the right
stream bank and upper slope are eroding for about 50 feet and has sloughed off into the creek
(Figure 4). This area continues to erode into the stream and is a source of sediment.
STREAM BANK STABILIZATION
LITTLE BUCK CREEK @) SITE #3
Nantahala Ranger District
VEGErA?W PLAN VIEW SKETCH — EXISTING CONDITION
FLOODPfAW WSLOCaMMAAIM9 wA924U6
o�
Ro+
F
�Q
r�
VEOETME0
FLOOm➢!AW
� %
N
i is
Ya .
Figure 4. Sketch of existing condition at Site 3.
eroded bank.
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 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.
Buck Creek, Macon County, Watershed Improvement Project Page 4

Proposed Action
SITE #1 (See Figure 5)
Tributary to Buck Creek:
1) Restore drainage at the old road crossing.
2) Lay back eroding bank to a 2:1 slope, minimum, along a 120 feet channel section,
maintaining existing trees on bank.
3) Implement erosion control measures, including native seed, straw mulch, and
coir matting on stream banks.
4) Plant trees and shrubs for long -term stabilization along the 170' section of
channel using shrub species beneficial to wildlife.
5) Remove existing crossings and construct a ford for mowing access.
Buck Creek:
Lay back about 54 feet of right bank of Buck Creek to a 2:1 slope to reduce erosion.
Road Access:
Waterbar lower 300 feet of the road accessing the site.
STREAM BANK STABILIZATION
BUCK CREEK @ SITE ##1
Nantahala Ranger District
Site A •� PLAN VIEW SKETCH - PROPOSED ACTION
— — — - - BuckCr k ProposedActfon: i
r Lay back eroding bank to a 2:1 slope,
�\ minimum, for 54' bank (Site E).
Stabilize with native seed, straw
WATERBARS mulch, and coir matting on bank.
Plant trees & shrubs.
� Access Road Proposed Action: - - -- � eE
Install waterbarson afrequent rate
along the lower -300 feet of A \
_ road.
—Site B
CROSS SECTION 9101'
i
B - - - -B'
M--shc C
Site D r
LAY BACK BANK TO 2:1 SLOPE
CROSS SECTION A -A'
o. A
- LAY BACK
BANK TO A -- -
2A SLOPE
Figure S. Sketch of proposed action at Site 1.
C
Buck Creek, Macon County, Watershed Improvement Project Page 5
'r
TdbutarvtoBuckCYeek Proposed 1
Action:
1)
Restore drainage at the old
road crossing (Site A).
2)
Lay back eroding bank to a 2:1
slope, minimum, along a 120
feet long channel section,
maintaining existing trees on
bank (Site e).
3)
Implement erosion control
measures, including native
seed, straw mulch, and coir
mattingon stream banks.
4)
Plant trees and shrubs for
long -term stablllzatlon along
the 170' section of channel
using shrub species beneficial
to wildlife (Site C).
5)
Remove existing crossings and
construct a ford for mowing
access near (5Re D).
A medium sized trackhoe shall be
used in the construction of
this project. All disturbed area
shall be seeded and mulched.
STREAM BANK STABILIZATION
BUCK CREEK @ SITE ##1
Nantahala Ranger District
Site A •� PLAN VIEW SKETCH - PROPOSED ACTION
— — — - - BuckCr k ProposedActfon: i
r Lay back eroding bank to a 2:1 slope,
�\ minimum, for 54' bank (Site E).
Stabilize with native seed, straw
WATERBARS mulch, and coir matting on bank.
Plant trees & shrubs.
� Access Road Proposed Action: - - -- � eE
Install waterbarson afrequent rate
along the lower -300 feet of A \
_ road.
—Site B
CROSS SECTION 9101'
i
B - - - -B'
M--shc C
Site D r
LAY BACK BANK TO 2:1 SLOPE
CROSS SECTION A -A'
o. A
- LAY BACK
BANK TO A -- -
2A SLOPE
Figure S. Sketch of proposed action at Site 1.
C
Buck Creek, Macon County, Watershed Improvement Project Page 5

SITE #2 (See Figure 6)
Construct a log vane to reduce erosion of the right bank.
Proposed Action:
Construct a Log & Boulder J -hook Vane in the
channel to reduce the risk of erosion againstthe
stream bank and enhance aquatic habitat.
&C
STREAM BANK STABILIZATION
BUCK CREEK 0 SITE #2
Nantahala Ranger District
PLAN VIEW SKETCH — PROPOSED ACTION
- _ . � ,1 0' �Iu� • �C, � wrngrwtwar. �,•, � c. � ',,1
Nv
POW
nWUrar � � c
G,
Key:
I
•i -_ =Log Vane
high
Shrom
Figure 6. Sketch of proposed action at Site 2.
7
Buck Creek, Macon County, Watershed Improvement Project Page 6

SITE #3 (See Figure 7)
Construct a log vane and a bankfull bench to reduce erosion of the right bank.
Figure 7. Sketch of proposed action at Site 3.
Environmental Impacts & Mitigation
Construction would occur during dry weather conditions when seeps on the hillslope are mostly
inactive. Temporarily increases in turbidity would occur during excavation in the stream channel and on
the sideslope, but the amount would be minimized by diverting river current away from the work and by
the use of silt fence at the toe of the slope. Directly following excavation, erosion control measures
(transplants, coir matting, etc.) would further minimize erosion and sedimentation. Potential adverse
impacts would be avoided by minimizing excessive excavation and adhering to the State turbidity
standard. Work is expected to be completed over a four to five day period.
Buck Creek, Macon County, Watershed Improvement Project Page 7
STREAM BANK STABILIZATION
<< LITTLE BUCK CREEK @ SITE #3
Nantahala Ranger District
VEGETATED 1 PLAN VIEW SKETCH — PROPOSED ACTION
FLOODPIAIN
rf
i
Ft
T
o
• VEGETATED Proposed Action:
i FLOODPLAIN 1. Construct a Log Vane.
h 2. Using boulders and instream substrate
construct a bankfull bench along -60 fact of
t the right stream bank at the toe of the
sloughing sidedope to reduce the risk of
i } further mass wasting into Little Buck Creek.
lil The remaining channel would be shifted
t
st • slightly to the left away from the eroding
i bank.
1 � �
t
\' \.�G
= Loo vane
Constructed bankfull bench
Excavated material for use inbench
%, % b
Figure 7. Sketch of proposed action at Site 3.
Environmental Impacts & Mitigation
Construction would occur during dry weather conditions when seeps on the hillslope are mostly
inactive. Temporarily increases in turbidity would occur during excavation in the stream channel and on
the sideslope, but the amount would be minimized by diverting river current away from the work and by
the use of silt fence at the toe of the slope. Directly following excavation, erosion control measures
(transplants, coir matting, etc.) would further minimize erosion and sedimentation. Potential adverse
impacts would be avoided by minimizing excessive excavation and adhering to the State turbidity
standard. Work is expected to be completed over a four to five day period.
Buck Creek, Macon County, Watershed Improvement Project Page 7