20150943 Ver 1_401 Application_20150915

P�
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Letter of Transmittal
To: NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Archdale Building — 9`h floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Attn. Karen Higgins
We are forwarding the following: <✓ Attached
NO.
COPIES
I TITLE OR DESCRIPTION
2
Full size plans
2
Half -size plans
4
PCN application
1
Check
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
559 Jones Franklin Road
Suite 150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
(919) 388 -0787
Jackson Creek
Project: RDUO039 WNCSI 2014
Date: 09/04/2015
Doc.
Number
F Under Separate Cover
COMMENTS
2204
11x17
8.5x11. Including figures and agency response
letters
$570 permitting fee
r As Requested r No Exception Taken r— Requested
P For Review and Approval r For Comment i For Permitting
i For Your Information F Proceed subject to r
corrections noted
GENERAL COMMENTS: Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR)
By: Kevin Tweedy
Title: Project Engineer
Page 1 of 1

F
_ 1 0
O�O,� W AT F9QG
O � <
A. Applicant Information
Office Use;On ly;
Corps an I
" �
DWQ project•no: --
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
n
1. Processing 'C v 0 9 4 3
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps: ®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? I ❑ Yes ® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? Certification:
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation ❑ Yes ® No
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 I ❑ Yes ® No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? I ❑ Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Jackson Creek
2b. County: Surry
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Mount Airy
2d. Subdivision name: NA
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: NA .Spa
3. Owner Information f y •.�L'
3a. Names on Recorded Deed: Newman, Jimmy R. 4p_4&
3b. Deed Book and Page No. 00629, 0370 FR C�anJ.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address: 2914 Red Brush Rd
3e. City, state, zip: Mount Airy, NC 27030
3f. Telephone no.: 336 - 320 -2656
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
a
4a. Applicant is:
® Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
Charles Anderson
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
The Resource Institute, Inc.
4d. Street address:
2714 Henning Drive
4e. City, state, zip:
Winston Salem. NC 27106
4f. Telephone no.:
336- 750 -0522
4g. Fax no.:
336- 750 -0177
4h. Email address:
canderson @resourceinstituteinc.org
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Kevin Tweedy
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
5c. Street address:
559 Jones Franklin Road
5d. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27606
5e. Telephone no.:
919 - 388 -0787
5f. Fax no.:
919 - 388 -0789
5g. Email address:
ktweedy @eprusa.net
Page 2 of 11

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
590800421433
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36.439917
(DD.DDDDDD)
1 c.
Property size:
97.6 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Jackson Creek
proposed project:
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c.
River basin: map is available at
Upper Yadkin - 03040101
http: / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us /admin /maps/
3.
Project Description
Longitude: - 80.685139
(- DD.DDDDDD)
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:
Several sections of channel for proposed stream stabilization have been identified as significantly degraded due
anthropogenic manipulation, vegetation loss, and agricultural land use.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
2,959 feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this project is to provide bank stabilization and habitat improvement through stream enhancement
practices.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
This project is being conducted as a NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program Project (EQIP). NRCS and state
grant funding are being used to improve stream stability and instream habitat. This project is not being used for mitigation
purposes.
The proposed work will involve stream enhancement practices that include bank sloping, benching, replanting, and the
use of vanes and toe wood structures to promote stability and improve instream habitat. All work will be conducted in the
wet (see attached pump- around diversion exemption). Tracked excavators, dump trucks, and loaders will be the primary
pieces of equipment that are expected to be used for construction.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? El Preliminary El Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional 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.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ❑ Yes ® No
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? I ❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11
❑ Unknown

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
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0
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)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Stream
Enhancement
Jackson Creek
® PER
❑INT
® Corps 8.7'
® DWQ
2,055'
S2 ®P FIT
Stream
Enhancement
Tributary 1
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps 3.0'
❑ DWQ
297'
S3 ®P ❑ T
Stream
Restoration
Tributary 2
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps 10.4'
❑ DWQ
639'
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
2,988'
3i. Comments: impacts are proposed in order to improve overall
stream stability and function.
Page 5 of 11

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 0
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
0
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:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse El Tar-Pamlico ❑Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d.
6e. 6f. 6g.
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 0
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11

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.
This work is being proposed as a stream enhancement project, with the overall intent of improving stream stability and
function. Areas of the stream that are currently functioning and stable will not be disturbed.
b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction equipment access to the stream itself will be limited to the extent practical, and erosion control practices will
be used to minimize any potential impacts from sediment run off during construction. For additional information, see the
construction plans and specifications.
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)
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
4h. Comments:
❑ Yes ® No
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Type
Quantity
❑ Yes
linear feet
❑ warm ❑ cool
square feet
acres
acres
acres
❑cold
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ❑ Yes ❑ No
buffer mitigation? If ves, you will have to fill out this entire form — please
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 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 8 of 11

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? <5 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Impervious area is less than 24%
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
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
NA
❑ 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 9 of 11
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 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:
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 ❑ 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.
NA
Page 10 of 11
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
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Yes ® No
/1 - �M
❑ Raleigh
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Natural Heritage website and USFWS
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?
It is not near the coast.
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?
Site was reviewed by the NRCS State Archeologist to determine potential effects, per NRCS guidelines and policies.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain? I ❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Floodmaps Website
A
Applicant/Agentsfrinted Name � PP gent's Si ature Date
lica Aug
(Agent's signature is valid only if an auth ation letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11

vto"►
�!N
ti
N
r
ar
Q
r
v
"
f
f
V�
�A
Legend
Project Location
0 0.5 1
Miles
FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCATION
36° 26'23.7" N
80° 41'06.5"W
.o
t
c
U ub> cm
JACKSON CREEK
VICINITY MAP
SURRY COUNTY, NC
�a
N
1 -74 el-74 4
a�
Jam'
PREPARED FOR:
6 MRCS
M-11c ,w, n Cemn wS-1 \NII H
PREPARED � �I DATE:
BY: {f �.. SEPT 2015

3
3
L
i
1.
Z
Project Location
l
L
kc,
PREPARED FOR:
0 0.125 0.25 JACKSON CREEK
Miles USGS o N RCS 1144
FIGURE 2 SURRY COUNTY, NC PREPARED aj'I DATE: .
BY: .. SEPT 2015

FnC2
ft
0 150 300
Feet
FIGURE 3
OW A
III Legend
Project Location
Name
BbD Braddock fine sandy loam, 15 -25% slope
BbC Braddock fine sandy loam, 8 -15% slope
CrB2 Clifford sandy clay loam, 2 -8% slope, moderately eroded
CsA Colvard and Suches soils, 0 -3% slope, occasionally flooded
FfD Fairview cobbly fine sandy loam, 15 -25% slope, stony
FnC2 Fairview cobbly sandy clay loam, 8 -15% slope, moderatly eroded, stony
FeD2 Fairview sandy clay loam, 15 -25% slope, moderately eroded
} FeB2 Fairview sandy clay loam, 2 -8% slope, moderately eroded
FeC2 Fairview sandy clay loam, 8 -15% slope, moderately eroded
WoE Woolwine- Fairview - Westfield complex, 15 -25% slope, stony
JACKSON CREEK
SOILS
SURRY COUNTY, NC
PREPARED FOR:
o NRCS
PREPARED ,-- MI DATE:
BY: ( .. I SEPT 2015

•�i M �
r
r r
v �C
.y
Y� I A4
k
\
■
r
r�
4
Y
p
1.
i
19.7
i

J, Ale���
Mutual Agreement
for
Stream Restoration Project
Resource Institute (RI) is a non -profit organization that assists organizations and
individuals in carrying out projects to protect natural and human resources while promoting
economic development. RI can assist with projects in a variety of ways, including, but not
limited to, fund- raising, administering project funds, and contracting for services needed to
complete a project. RI has recently adopted a project referred to as the Western North Carolina
Stream Initiative to help. farmers and landowners address eroding stream banks that are
negatively affecting them through loss of property, hazards for livestock, sediment transport into
a stream and degraded aquatic habitat. The fanner/landowner has either initiated an application
for assistance through USDA/NRCS's EQIP program , or has already signed an
agreement/contract for assistance with USDA/NRCS's EQIP program. RI's role is to help attain
the funding, for the design, construction oversight and unmet construction needs of the work for
sites with current EQIP program agreements /contracts through USDA/NRCS.
RI will assist the farmer/landowner by helping to address issues related to managing and
contracting for the required design, planning, permitting and construction work for stream
enhancement practices on the site, as well as' necessary structure work, and bank stabilization.
i RI's objective is to help address current water quality degradation issues; however, work cannot
be guaranteed for acts of nature related to flood events. RI is working with NRCS, Conservation
Districts and the fanner/landowner to help reduce those impacts as much as possible.
In providing services to the farmer /landowner on this tract of land for stream
restoration/stabilization activities to be performed we thereby mutually agree to the following
items:
1. The fanner/landowner will allow ingress and egress for all activities related to the stream
restoration/stabilization such as: surveys, engineering, construction, monitoring, etc. for
RI and its agents. .
2. Fanner/landowner will follow the contractual guidance in the EQIP program with USDA,
NRCS.
3. Farmer /landowner will allow NRCS to provide RI with a copy of the associated NRCS
EQIP, application, contract and/or contract modifications, and appendix for the purpose
of allowing RI to sh4n'cill th RI's other fenders in an effort to help obtain matching
dollars. (Initial /date
4. RI will serve as the ma ger for all funds related to the stream
restoration/stabilization activities received for the project.
5. RI will provide project management services such as, obtaining the technical resources,
bidding and contracting of project elements, and project construction oversight.
6. RI will work with farmers/landowners to resolve differences between construction costs
and payment schedule rates.

I
i
Signature Sheet:
Stream Restoration Project Agreement Letter
SN rr y
Count
�3 -70
Stream Length
Farmer /landowner Print Name and Title
Fdmer/l downer Signature and Title
3
Date
Email Address
(,?AV 37-�- --t--�9-5-1
Phone Number
Resource Institute Incorporated
Chairman, Resource Institute RC &D, Inc.
Date
2
S
Stream Name

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
FOR WNCSI STREAM PROJECTS
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT NO. N/A PLAN NO. N/A PARCEL ID: 590800421433
STREET ADDRESS: 2914 Red Brush Rd Mount Airv, NC 27030
Please print:
Property Owner: Newman, Jimmv R.
Property Owner:
The property owners above have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Resource
Institute, Inc. that authorizes the activities proposed on the subject property (see attached for
reference). As an authorized representative of Resource Institute, I do hereby authorize
Kevin Tweedv
(Contractor / Agent)
of Ecosystem Plannina and Restoration
(Name of consulting firm)
to act on behalf of Resource Institute and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance
and acceptance of this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions
attached.
Resource Institute's Address:
2714 Henning Drive, Winston - Salem, NC 27106
Telephone: (336)- 750 -0522
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
Authorized Signature
Date:
Authorized Signature
V_
Date:

REQUEST FOR PUMP - AROUND DIVERSION EXEMPTION
Jackson Creek
For small stream systems (< one square mile of drainage), pump- around systems are relatively simple to
install and can be effective for certain projects. For larger streams, like Jackson Creek pump- around
systems require significant disturbance, equipment, and maintenance to function as intended.
Numerous concerns have been raised over the past 10 years (the approximate period that pump- around
systems have been required for in- channel work) about the use of these systems. These are
summarized in the bullets that follow:
• Installation and maintenance of a pump- around system can cause significant site disturbance,
considering the system is supposed to prevent erosion.
• In- channel stream restoration work primarily disturbs sediment that is already present in the
stream system as bed material. This material is naturally mobile during storm events. The goal
of sediment and erosion control practices is to prevent sediment from entering streams and
waterways. In the case of stream restoration work, the sediment is already present in the
system.
• Past studies have shown that the amount of sediment disturbed by in- channel stream
restoration projects conducted at near base flow conditions is equivalent to sediment loads
produced during natural small storm events. Therefore, sediment delivery downstream from
stream restoration projects is comparable to the natural background sediment load for most
streams.
• Pump- around systems dewater sections of stream that support aquatic life, including fish and
macrobenthic aquatic insects. Dewatering sections of stream for significant periods can kill the
aquatic life in that section of stream. For the Jackson Creek Site, this could impact trout
populations within the reach. This can be avoided by working in the wet during in- channel
stream restoration work.
With the concerns above in mind, we propose the following practices be implemented instead of a
pump- around diversion(s) for the Jackson Creek Site:
• Construction will be limited to periods of near base flow conditions, and the work completed as
expeditiously as possible.
• Contractor should make every effort to keep equipment out of the active stream flow, when
practicable.
• Only one piece of excavating equipment should be allowed to work in the active stream for a
designated stream restoration reach.
• Erosion control measures on the construction site will focus on keeping sediment from the
surrounding land and streambanks from entering the stream channel.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 20, 2015
Mr. Erin Bennett
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
104 Fountain Brook Circle, Suite A
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Dear Mr. Bennett:
Subject: Federally Endangered and Threatened Species Assessment, Jackson Creek Restoration
and Enhancement Project, in Surry County, North Carolina
On March 30, 2015, we received a letter from you in which you requested our review and
comments for the proposed project. We have reviewed the information presented and we are
providing the following comments in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661- 667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 -1543) (Act).
Your letter indicates that steam restoration measures are proposed for a 2,840 linear feet segment
of Jackson Creek. Restoration activities will include bank sloping, benching, replanting of
riparian buffers, realignment of stream channel with the use of rock and log vanes. No specific
plans for the project were included. The project site consists of agricultural fields and little to no
riparian buffer exists along the length of stream proposed for restoration work.
Endangered Species. According to our records and a review of the information presented, no
listed species or their habitats occur on the site. Therefore, we believe the requirements under
section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Project Recommendations. We have no objection to the proposed actions and support any
efforts to restore and protect the water quality in the project area. Because stream conditions are
least affected where stream banks are stabilized by deep- rooted woody vegetation, stream
restoration efforts should incorporate the use of native vegetation adapted to site conditions.

Biodegradable erosion - control materials should be incorporated into bank restoration design in
order to stabilize soils as vegetation becomes established. Live, dormant stakes (such as black
willow) may be used to reestablish root structure in riparian areas. In areas where banks are
severely undercut, high, and steep, whole tree revetments or rock may be used as a stabilization
treatment (small rock, gravel, sand, and dirt are not recommended due to their erosive nature).
However, it should not extend above the bank -full elevation (the elevation of the channel where
the natural floodplain begins), and deep- rooting woody vegetation should be established along
banks where any channel work is accomplished. Tree and shrub plantings should be spaced at
intervals no greater than 10 feet along banks. We generally recommend that forested riparian
buffers (a minimum 50 feet wide along intermittent streams and 100 feet wide along perennial
streams [or the full extent of the 100 -year floodplain, whichever is greater]) should be created
and /or maintained along all aquatic areas. If these widths are not practicable then we recommend
that the vegetated riparian zone extend at least 25 feet from the stream channel.
Also, the presence of large woody debris is an important aspect of natural stream conditions in
headwater streams. Woody debris, detritus and other vegetative materials are the main source of
nutrients and carbon necessary for primary productivity in these stream ecosystems. Removal of
this material can affect the production of higher trophic levels, specifically in fish. The Service
does not recommend the removal of woody debris within the stream channel or floodplain unless
it is causing a debris blockage (log jam) or will affect the ability to achieve bank stability along a
specific reach of stream.
Erosion Control and Wetland/Stream Protection. We recommend that measures to control
sediment and erosion should be installed before any ground disturbing activities occur. Grading
and backfilling should be minimized, and existing vegetation should be retained (if possible) to
maintain shoreline cover for fish and wildlife. Disturbed areas should be re- vegetated with
native grass and tree species as soon as the project is completed.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at
828/258 -3939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4 -2 -15 -248.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
April 23, 2015
Erin Bennett
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
104 Fountain Brook Circle, Suite A
Cary, NC 27511
SUBJECT: Little Fisher River, Jackson Creek, Beaverdam Creek, and Ring Creek Stream
Stabilization Projects
Surry County
Dear Mr. Wright:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) received your
March 24, 2015 letters regarding plans for stream stabilization projects on the Little Fisher River,
Jackson Creek, Beaverdam Creek, and Ring Creek in Surry County. You requested information
concerning any issues that might arise with respect to fish and wildlife. Our comments on this
project are offered for your consideration under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33
U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661- 667d).
All four projects have been identified for habitat improvement and bank stabilization. They will
be restored through a combination of bank sloping, benching, in -stream structures, and
vegetation planting and are described below:
• The Little Fisher River project will stabilize 2,060 ft of channel impacted by livestock
access and lack of riparian vegetation.
• The Jackson Creek project will stabilize 2,840 ft of channel impacted by anthropogenic
manipulation, vegetation loss, and agricultural land use. This stream will also be
realigned.
• The Ring Creek project will stabilize 1,500 ft of channel impacted by loss of bank
vegetation.
The Beaverdam Creek project will stabilize 5,119 ft of channel impacted by
anthropogenic manipulation and agricultural land use.
None of these projects will impact wild trout resources or other known significant aquatic
resources. We recommend that riparian buffers that are to be reestablished be as wide as
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

4 EQIP stream stabilization projects Page 2 April 23, 2015
Surry County
possible, given site constraints and landowner needs. NCWRC generally recommends a woody
buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams in order to maximize the benefits of buffers, including
bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland runoff, and wildlife habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please contact me at
(828) 400 -4223 if you have any questions about these comments.
Sincerely,
�A4-�
Andrea Leslie
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program