20091014 Ver 1_401 Application_20090909

09-1014
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cyndi Karoly, DWQ 401 Certification Unit
r h?
F
ROM: Joe Mickey, Foggy Mountain Nursery /DATE: September 17, 2009

PAID
SUBJECT: 401 Permit Application for the "Lowe/Nichols stream restoration project on a
section of the Little Fisher River, Surry County, North Carolina".
Foggy Mountain Nursery, 2251 Ed Little Road, Creston, NC 28615 on behalf of our clients,
Kenneth Lowe of L& H Enterprises, Inc., and Herman Nichols submit the enclosed 401 permit
for your review and approval. The following items are included in this packet.
?1.. Processing fee check in the amount of $570 made out to NCDWQ
Five copies each of the following items:
Joint 401/404 PNC application form
e Site plan
el Agent Authorization Letters (two landowners, one from each)
Road and topographical maps of the site
Z Soil survey map of the site
We have coordinated the project plan with the Mr. Alan Walker, Natural Resource Conservation
Service, Waynesville Office since they are the funding agency for this project. They have
approved the plan submitted to you (see Appendix 2 of the plan). Also, since this project occurs
on NC Designated Public Mountain Trout Water, we have coordinated this project with the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and they have approved a trout waiver for this
site (see Appendix two of the plan).
Please send copies of all correspondence concerning this application to jhmickeygsurry.net or
mailing address, 293 Timberbrook Trail, State Road, NC 28676, phone [phone].
RFg@mWRJ
SEP 2 1 2009
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWAMA BRANCH
Thank you for your assistance with this application.
-09` 1 0 1 4
g?" OF W ATE19
O -c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PC Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ? 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? ? Yes ® No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Lowe/Nichols Stream Restoration Project - Little Fisher River, Surry County, NC
2b. County: Surry
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Low Gap
2d. Subdivision name: NA
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: NA
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: L&H Enterprises of Low Gap, Inc. and Herman Thomas & Gaynell Nichols
3b. Deed Book and Page No. DB 1116, Pg 822 DB 0611, Pg 0432
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Kenneth Lowe (owner)
3d. Street address: 8662 W. Pine St. 367 Old Low Gap Road
3e. City, state, zip: Low Gap, NC 270240025 Mt. Airy, NC 270309773
3f. Telephone no. 336-352-4048 336-320-2573 n n =
3g. Fax no.: NA
3h. Email address: NA SEP 2 1 200
D
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETUWDS AND STORMWATER ORM IM
Page I of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
,,

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ® Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: Joe H. Mickey, Jr.
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Foggy Mountain Nursery
4d. Street address: 2251 Ed Little Road
4e. City, state, zip: Creston, NC 28615
4f. Telephone no.: 336-366-2982 or Glen Sullivan 336-977-2958
4g. Fax no.: none
4h. Email address: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Joe H. Mickey, Jr.
5b. Business name
(if applicable): Foggy Mountain Nursery
5c. Street address: 2251 Ed Little Road
5d. City, state, zip: Creston, NC 28615
5e. Telephone no.: 336-366-2982 or Glen Sullivan 336-977-2958
5f. Fax no.: none
5g. Email address: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 V64ibn
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 4071-00-95-3824 and 4081-00-05-7644
Latitude: 36.313897
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Longitude: - 80.460998
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 81.68 and 68.88 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Little Fisher River (14 digit code: 03040101090020)
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C Trout (Hatchery Supported by NCWRC)
2c. River basin: Yadkin
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The Little Fisher River through the site has been channelized in the past (<60 years ago). Several areas are in need of
restoration (see attached plan). Adjacent land is used for growing nursery stock with surrrounding lands in pastures and
small wood lots.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
150.56 A (81.68 A - Lowe property & 68.88 A - Nichols property)
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
4,368 (3,655 ft of Little Fisher River and 713 ft of unnamed tributary)
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Sites have been identified in need of restoration: installation of riffle/pool stream structures and current deflectors and
modification of the streambed and/or banks to restore or establish stream meanders and bankfull or inner berm benches
(see attached plan). These stream restoration measures will reduce off-site sedimentation, improve stream profile and
pattern and provide in-stream habitat for aquatic resources in the Little Fisher River. Establishment of an improved,
vegetated buffer will provide long term bank stability, filter out pollutants, and provide cover and food for many wildlife
species.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
See attached plan for project detail. Track hoe, dump truck, chain saw.
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
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
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 ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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
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 restoration Little Fisher River ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 32 BKF 1400
S2 ®P ? T None UT to Little Fisher ® PER ® Corps 3 ft
River ? INT ® DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
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 1400
3i. Comments: Impacts are spot treatments which add up to approximately 1400 linear feet
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
- Permanent
(P) or
Temporary T 4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: None
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then com lete the chart below.
5a.

Pond ID 5b.

Proposed use or purpose of 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
number pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments: None
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 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ?Tar-Pamlico ®Other: Trout
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason for Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) impact Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
or Temporary required?
T
131 ®P ? T improvement Little Fisher River ® Nos 28,000
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments: As the stream is restored, impacted banks will be reshaped and vegetated (many areas currently contain no
trees)
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Not applicable since this is a restoration project, The project, as designed, will improve existing stream conditions.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
All equipment will be kept out of the stream unless absolutely necessary to complete the work. Most stream work can be
accomplished from the top of the bank. Disturbance of streambanks will be limited to work that can be stabilized at the end of
each working day (pemmanet or temporary stabilization) (see attached plan, page 2). BMP's will be used as needed to
prevent sediment from reaching the stream from stockpile areas.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. [] Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: [] warm [] cool []cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? [] Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 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
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Yes No
? ?
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Agricultural area, best BMP's will be
used, meets all criteria for a low denisty development even though this is not a development.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certfed Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply):
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
6. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 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)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes ? No
letter.)
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.
Waste water will not be generated by this project
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 ? 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?
Contact NC Wildlife Resouces Commission, Ron Linville.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Knowledge of area as retired NCWRC Fisheries Biologist and contact with NCWRC.
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?
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? While not in a FEMA designated floodplain, the site is
not identifiled on the Surry Co. GIS system as being in the 100 yr. floodplain.
Joe H. Mickey, Jr., Agent

Authorization letter attached
I k &=a, //, 9-16-09
/-"Applicant/Agent's Si pdt Date
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name (Agent's sign ture s valid only if an author' tion 16tter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
LOWE/NICHOLS STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT ON A SECTION OF
THE LITTLE FISHER RIVER, SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared By
Foggy Mountain Nursery, Lansing, North Carolina
August 31, 2009
Introduction
Mr. Kenneth Lowe, L & H Enterprises, Low Gap, contacted the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS) for assistance in repairing eroding streambanks along the Little Fisher River on his
property (Figure 1). After several visits to the site by NRCS personnel, it was determined that the site
would qualify for funding under the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP). In July 2009 Mr.
Lowe contacted Mr. Glen Sullivan and Joe Mickey, Foggy Mountain Nursery (FMN), to do a site
design and construction of the project. Site visits were made on July 16 and August 3, 2009 by FMN
personnel to determine the type of measures needed restore stream habitat and to stabilize eroding
streambanks. This proposal outlines sites (Figures 2 - 5) that need to be addressed, the methods to
correct the problems and restore stream pattern, bank profiles and instream habitat. Photographs of
the 2,082 linear feet (If) of stream reach proceeding from the upper end of the project to the
downstream end are shown in Appendix 1.
It should be noted that all of the work except for one instream structure will occur on the Lowe
property (Figures 2 - 4). One log vane is planned for the Nichols property at the lower end of the
reach (Figure 5). As funding agency, the NRCS, Waynesville office, has approved this plan
(Appendix 2).
Project Description and Methods
The Little Fisher River at this location has a drainage area of 8.9 sq. mi. The upper Little Fisher
River watershed flows off the Blue Ridge escarpment and consists mainly of forest lands with small
pastures scattered throughout. At the Lowe site the river enters a wide, flat floodplain and terrace that
is mostly agricultural lands used by L & H Enterprises for growing nursery stock. It is obvious that the
Little Fisher River through this bottom was channelized many, many years ago. Sites have been
identified in need of restoration: installation of riffle/pool stream structures and current deflectors and
modification of the streambed and/or banks to restore or establish stream meanders and bankfull or
inner berm benches (Figures 2 - 5). Cross-sections (dimension) data was collected from five sites
along the stream reach through the Lowe property (Figures 6 - 10). Width/depth ratios ranged from 13
to 49.5, entrenchment ratios ranged from 4.7 to 9.1 and water surface slope was .0051 (Table 1). The
Little Fisher River at this location is classified as a C4 stream type. Sinuosity is 1. 1, low for a class C
stream, a result of past channelization activities. Two cross-sections were surveyed across stable
riffles (Figures 6 and 8). Three cross-sections were surveyed across areas in need of repairs (Figures 7,
9-10). Typical cross-section restoration designs are shown in Figures 7, 9-10) indicating how channel
dimensions and or pattern will be improved throughout the reach. Note that the width of the floodplain
ranged from 250 to 300 ft is not plotted on the cross-sections. Methods proposed to restore stream
dimension and pattern to a more stable condition are typical riffle bank reshaping (Figure 11), log
vanes (Figure 12), log/rock J-hook vanes (Figure 13), root wads (Figure 14), and rock cross-vanes
(Figure 15) or a combination of these methods. Permanent revegetation should consist of native
species.
In addition to the above restoration methods, an existing stream ford, damaged by eroding
streambanks will be rebuilt at a new location where the streambed is stable (riffle area) or where a
grade control can be installed to create a stable condition (Figure 3). Natural Resource Conservation
Service guidelines will be used to construct the stream crossing.
A trackhoe with a hydraulic thumb will be used to handle materials and install all in-stream
structures. All trackhoe work can be accomplished from the top of the bank. A chain saw will be
available on site to cut logs to proper lengths and to remove trees leaning over the stream (>45°) that
could pose a problem in the near future.
Once a bank repair site has been completed, disturbed soils will be reseeded with a temporary and
permanent ground cover seed mixture and covered with straw and/or an erosion control blanket.
Disturbed streambanks will also be planted with native shrub and tree species to provide a deeper root
system for long-term bank stability.
Erosion control
All construction materials will be stockpiled at a central location away from the stream.
Disturbance of soils will be limited to work sites that can be accomplished and stabilized on a daily
basis. Disturbed soils will be seeded with a temporary ground cover of millet, rye, or winter wheat.
Streambanks will be permanently seeded with a riparian seed mix (only native species should be
planted at the site). After seeding, the surface of the sloped bank will be covered with erosion control
matting and anchored in place with wooden survey stakes and landscape staples. Disturbed areas on
level ground will be seeded and mulched with straw. Stockpiled soils within 50 ft of flowing water
will be surrounded on the down-slope side by a silt fence. Any high ground areas where soil is
disposed of will be graded, seeded, and mulched as soon as soil moving is completed. Following
completion of all work, the riparian area will be planted with native trees and shrubs.
Spill containment
All equipment supplied by the contractor will be in good working order and should not be leaking
any fluids that could contaminate the stream or property. Any spills of hazardous materials will be
cleaned up immediately with contaminated soils disposed of according to state regulations.
Trout Waiver
The Little Fisher River at this location is classified as Designated Public Mountain Trout
Water/Hatchery Supported by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). It is also
classified as C - trout by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) from the NC-VA line to
SR 1615 in Surry County. Instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are
prohibited during the trout spawning seasons of October 15 through April 15 to protect the egg and fry
stages of trout. For this project we are asking for a trout waiver so that the project can be constructed
during the fall/winter of 2009/2010. Correspondence with WRC personnel (Appendix 2) indicates that
they have no objection to work occurring during the trout moratorium because the Little Fisher River is
considered marginal trout habitat. WRC personnel indicate that if the project is completed during the
winter, it will not interfere with their trout stocking program along this section of stream during the
spring and summer of 2010.
Conclusion
These stream restoration measures will reduce off-site sedimentation, improve stream profile and
pattern and provide in-stream habitat for aquatic resources in the Little Fisher River. Establishment of
an improved, vegetated buffer will provide long term bank stability, filter out pollutants, and provide
cover and food for many wildlife species.
2
FIGURE 1: 2008 aerial photo identifying the section of Little Fisher River proposed for stream
enhancement on the properties of Kenneth Lowe (L & H Enterprises of Low Gap, Inc.) and Herman T.
and Gaynell H. Nichols along the Little Fisher River, Low Gap, and Surry County, North Carolina.
s
'zII
t;
s Proposed work area
r.att'4t Fisher _
- r x River
:.x. •, f :g .,f'a'r wl x 4 ,
e
n
Kenneth Lowe, L & H Enterprises of Low Herman Thomas Nichols and Gaynell H.
Gap, NC. Nichols
8662 W. Pine Street, P. O. Box 25, Low 367 Old Low Gap Road, Mt. Airy, NC
Gap, NC 270240025 270309773
Parcel ID: 4071-00-95-3824 Parcel ID: 4081-00-05-7644
Township: Stewarts Creek Township: Stewarts Creek
Calculated Acreage: 81.68AC Calculated Acreage: 68.88 AC
3
FIGURE 2: Plan view stations 0+00 - 5+75 showing proposed restoration measures, Lowe site, Little
Fisher River, Surry County. Note: Plan view survey courtesy of NRCS.
Q'+00
PI
Approximately
90 ft of bank
reshaping
Ln
0
.. Ln
a?
0
KEY:
Bank reshaping:
Log vane: ?
Log/rock J-hook vane:
Waste/stockpile area: f )
Note: All work areas are approximate
locations.
5 ".
\ Unnamed tributary
lag
3
S
Picture Key (Appendix 1):
P1 - LDS (looking downstream)
P2 - LUS (looking upstream)
P3 - eroding bank
P4 - LDS
P5 - LDS
P6 - LDS
P4
r^?- Stump cut leaning sycamore
tica tree for 6 - 8 logs for vanes.
4+00
*Big sycamore tree
P's
`Q
5+00
Approximately 30 ft of bank
reshaping
a
XS 1 NRCS cross-section, station
5+80 _
Match line
/--l-oca-t
fallen maple
ss channel and
or structures.

goo
'240
4
FIGURE 3: Plan view from stations 5+75 - 11+50 showing proposed restoration measures, Lowe site,
Little Fisher River, Surry County. Note: Plan view survey courtesy of NRCS.
Match I
180 ft of bank
reshaping.
n
0
ro
u
o,
0
,--Location of 12' Corrugated Plastic Pipe
/ ocation of 6' Terracota Pipe
cn
o XS 2

pfa
Picture Key (Appendix 1):
P7 - LDS (looking downstream)
P8 - Eroding bank
P9 - LUS (looking upstream)
P10 -eroding bank
P11 - LDS
P12 - LDS
P13 - eroding bank
P14 - LUS
8+00
Walnut tree
XS 3 rt
`4?
-go
PIT`
KEY:
Bank reshaping:
Log vane:
Log/rock J-hook vane: Nommmomo.
Rock cross-vane:
Note: All work areas are approximate
locations.
9+00
Rock cross-vane
for habitat
enhancement in
a long riffle. 10+01
Reshape point
bar -
Approximately 86 ft
of bank reshaping
Match line
11+00
Sycamore an
black willow
trees
5
FIGURE 4: Plan view from stations 11+50 - 17+50 showing proposed restoration measures, Lowe site,
Little Fisher River, Surry County. Note: Plan view survey courtesy of NRCS.
Approximate location of
new stream crossing in
stable riffle.
P14,
Approximately 120 ft
of bank reshaping.
,
k.

KEY:
rBank reshaping: x'
Creation of new point bar:
;;;;;;•
Fill area:
Log vane:
Log/rock J-hook vane:
New thalweg location: - - ,
Root wad: ??
Stream crossing: VSAqVSM
Waste/stockpile area:
Picture Key (Appendix 1):
P15 - LDS (looking downstream)
P16 - old stream crossing (non-functional)
P17 - LUS (looking upstream)
P18-LDS
P19 - LDS
P20 - eroding bank
P21 - LDS
P22 - LDS from spring confluence
P23 - LDS from top of bank
P24 - LDS eroding bank
P25 - LDS
P26 - LUS from top of bank
Location of old, non-
functional stream
crossing. Right bank
section washed out.
4t!

Remove dawned \
popular stump and
trunk •
D71
XS 4/ T ... _',
\/ Match
Approximately ...°?
150 ft of bank
reshaping and x r........
fill and moving`
c 16+0????°'? ?
,
of thalwe to <
create a better
meander s ., `+??+
alignment. ? 97+ ?*•
XS
log vanes.
Note: All work areas are approximate locations.
for
6
FIGURE 5: Plan view from stations 17+50 - 20+82 showing proposed restoration measures, Nichols
site, Little Fisher River, Surry County. Note: Plan view survey courtesy of NRCS.
Lowe Property / Nichols Property
atch /
? a •
line ay /
-Stream Crossing
i •
Picture Key:
P27 - LDS (looking downstream)
'` 18*00
=as±00
KEY:
Log vane:
Power pole
and line: ....................................40 .............
Note: All work areas are
approximate locations.
: 20 ton cgs,
J,
gi
/
7
8
CS7 "?
00
? ?o
Ito 0 "A',
N D
? .7
C
a? m
N 7
W F.y O.
C A
S
t
W O A
C.
V
W '? v
o ?
b
S
C?7
s
0o I? o
o ?
0
O co w cfl co W w (D (D
OD Cfl O cn
m
O
O
N
e CD
O
N
O
W
O
o
n
c
O ?
? O
cD ?
n?
co ?
C ?.
? n
c o
CD
O?
n CD

n
r
O
C
?-t
r
O
O
CD
O
G
0
O
n
O
cD
O
CD
z
(D
7\1 I I - m
I
I
zz

?iC W 5
v +'

W Q
145 00
°
U
I I w

a
p
? v?
I
-- a? > "o
3
o

- C)
LO
Raw

N r

- o o
a o ? '. o
C C N ?

14 _

bA
^o
Q 3 Cc n M
y a1

? CV
?
cd

zz
--
0 x W
•? a w p

i

u
o
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn co ?

v -
w
9

ti
R n,?
OY" 0
0
U
N
U
N
Fir
N
a?
a
U
C'
Cl)

? I

M
f. O ? O
O
N m
o - --
_
V on ?
U U ¢ v?
U = tj

0 U
' y,
it O a3 7 Q

- -
- O
LO
O

O
M
O
N
0
U ?
fti ?
O
yRS
W

U 0,? 3-do •
0
00
O
Con
00 I- CO LO M N O O

v

rn

O

CA O

CA m

0)

rn O ?

co
? o
? a v
L
C
W
d
?o
A
?a^
3
G Ca
r+
y 7
C C
v Oa
3 =M
as
U ?Q`o
V
_z
w
a ?
? W
10
w
•b
cd
u
E
a?
to
O
-o
N
O
O
bb
a?
3
Cd
a?
N
N
i-i
N
CC
a)
C6
Ln
cn
N
E.
E
rA
Cd
En
Ln
O
d-
o
a?
c
O bA
Uw
a?
a
v a
w ca.
O
I,-

0
0 ?a?0o?n
EGG
Q?

L

? N N
_
CQ CC
0

ON 00

° M M
3
?
m
O
N
0
i
a?
Qc)
00 1- (O L M N O 0) 00
0 O) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 00
0
0
Z Z
H C7
U) ?.
W 0
? rn
00
o ::• L ? et
U ? Q ?o r
.? CJ
w O z z
w O F- V
w a C
a?wo
11
a?
a?
0
O
o- - -- co
z Z
O
(n (q - - LO
X wi
o LU
..0 0
?, - j -
O
bA 4'
jl " r
O k
41
x?
r
0
It fl
s? - co
O bA O
N N '
- O
O 00 - Cfl
? e? o -o o
w o
N o? -- - `°
? '? ce u O b1
3 o.? -- - O
^O ? +' a> aci ? ?
N y cC O p ' i O
O n 3v o
>
03 - - -? °
? M
N
?' 3 as
a
L
C
w
a
u O
3
o? ?n
? ? c N M
? ? AO
s
b ? N ?O
C c .-+ ri
ao
? c
U ?Qroo
?.a V
O F- V
za?
rx?-wo
50
.-w O ti Co L co N O O co f
O O O O O O O O co co co
w
12
FIGURE 11: Typical bank reshaping to create a stable bank and erosion control and planting
components. These cross-section views show a vertical, eroding bank (left bank, looking
downstream) before and after improvements.
Cross-section view before work (existing condition)
1
.;
? a ..
.+?,1' ?? 1. ?k ??? ?!. b `?1e ,? ?1..,+•a
Cross-section view after work
Pasture grasses, little valve for bank
stabilization or stream shading.
Vertical bank showing area to be
reshaped.

Rooted trees, 2' to 6' tall.
Herbaceous vegetation.
Live stakes 18" to 24" in length.
toy, aL ,?,} sta.. d Yµ b' F
Erosion control blanket 4
- 8 ft wide, anchored with
wooden stakes/live stakes.
Water level
'.`
I
14
13
FIGURE 12. Typical log vane structure installation.
PLAN VIEW
/4110
Angle from ban 15-30°
End of log
buried a
minimum of 5
ft into the
bank at inner
berm or
bankfull
elevation.
Use footer log or root wad to
support the back end of the log
and back fill with large rock or
` riprap.
4
PROFILE VIEW
Footer
?.. •?-.??? .ems.- '' ?. y L
T
dW
Place geotextile fabric
filter cloth on upstream
side of log fastened with
large headed roofing nails.
Drape cloth from log back
into the streambed
towards the bank. Place
streambed fill material
over the top of the filter
cloth to stop all flow from
going under the log.
vation 4 444,
Bank slope 2-7°, small streams up to 20°
14
FIGURE 13. Typical log/rock J-hook structure installation.
PLAN VIEW
Angle from ba
4A
End of log
buried a
minimum of 5
ft into the
bank at inner
berm or
bankfull
elevation.
15-30°
4
rocks
Construct cut-off sill of
rock or use a large log.
Place geotextile fabric
filter cloth on upstream
side of log fastened with
Use footer log or root wad to large headed roofing nails.
support the back end of the log Drape cloth from log back
and back fill with large rock or into the streambed
riprap. towards the bank. Place
streambed fill material
over the top of the filter
cloth to stop all flow from
going under the log.
PROFILE VIEW
Elevation4 444
Bank slope 2-7°, small streams up to 20°
n water level
Flow

n
EMIL.

d r o-

?d
Y
Y
}

I
I
P Y bh+? C^
k
' '1

W Y
t"k q x
4

.
L 7

15
FIGURE 14: Typical root wad structure showing plan and cross-section views. Note: If required,
footed logs should be >8" diameter an installed below the streambed so that root wads rest on top of
the footer logs. Root wads should be a minimum of 8 ft long and >8" log diameter. Large gravel,
cobble and boulders should be placed behind the root wads to fill any gaps. Fill material or sod mats
should be placed behind the root wads and covered with an erosion control mat (if sod mats are not
used), seeded, and trees, shrubs and live stakes planted on top of the structure.
N
AC"
CROSS-SECTION
VIEW
Large rock with
smaller cobble
Footer log, if needed
16
FIGURE 15. Typical cross-vane showing plan and cross-section views. NOTE: There should be no
gaps between the rocks in the cross-vane.
Footer rocks
Top rocks
Vegetation planted at
inner berm and/or bankfull bench
PLAN VIEW
17
a „F
TABLE 1: Summary data for five cross-sections surveyed on the Little Fisher River, Lowe site, Surry
County.
XS # FEATURE XSA WBKF MDBKF MXDBKF WFPA WDR ER LBH LBR HYDR WP
1 Riffle 68.6 29.9 2.3 3.2 250 13 8.4 4 1.3 2.2 31.9
2 Pool 71 33.1 2.1 3.7 300 15.4 9.1 5.5 1.5 2 34.7
2
Design Pool 72 37.7 1.9 3.7 300 19.9 8 5.8 1.6 2 36
3 Riffle 69.7 36.9 1.9 3 200 19.6 5.4 5.9 2 1.8 39.3
4 Run 64.7 32.9 2 2.8 300 16.8 9.1 4.2 1.5 1.8 35.8
4
Design Pool 74.7 37.8 2 3.5 300 19.1 7.9 4.6 1.3 1.8 41.4
5 Riffle 73.4 60.3 1.2 2.9 286 49.5 4.7 5.1 1.7 1.2 61.5
5
Design Pool 87.1 56 1.6 3.5 286 36 5.1 5.9 1.7 1.5 56.8
Water surface slope 0.0051
Thalweg slope 0.0052
Sinuosity 1.1
Stream Type C4 Channel bed materials dominated by gravel.
KEY:
XSA = cross-section area (ft)
WBKF = width bankfull (ft)
MDBKF = mean depth bankfull (ft)
MXDBKF = max depth bankfull (ft)
WFPA = width floodprone area (ft)
WDR = width/depth ratio
ER = entrenchment ratio
LBH = low bank heght
LBR = low bank ratio
HYDR = hydraulic radius
WP = wetted perimeter
18
APPENDIX 1: Photographs (P) documenting existing Little Fisher River conditions on property
owned by Kenneth Lowe, L & H Enterprises, Low Gap, Surry County, North Carolina. Photographs
were taken on August 3, 2009. (Key: LDS = looking downstream, LUS = Looking upstream)
P1 LDS P2 LUS
Ninety ft of eroding bank to be repaired and stabilized with bank reshaping and two log vanes.
P5 LDS - 30 ft of right bank that
needs to be reshaped and protected
with a lop vane.
P4 - leaning sycamore that needs to
be stump cut and location of log/rock
J-hook vane.
19
P3 - close up of 6 ft eroding bank
shown in pictures P 1 & P2. Note that
staff is 4 ft in height.
P6 LDS - this is the site of the NRCS cross-section
and start of eroding right bank to be reshaped and
protected with 2 log/rock J-hook vanes.
APPENDIX 1: Photographs continued
P12 LDS - showing 86 ft of right
bank that needs reshaping and
protection with two long vanes
20
P7 LDS - 180 ft of eroding right bank and location P8 - showing eroding and undercut
of corrugated and terracotta drain pipes. Reshape bank between the two drain pipes.
bank and install two loo !rock J-hook vanes
P 11 LDS -showing location of
proposed log/rock J-hook vane
and rock cross vane.
APPENDIX 1: Photographs continued
P 15 LDS - showing 120 ft of eroding
right bank that needs shaping and
installation of two log vanes.

P17 LUS - from lower end of 120 ft
of eroding bank.
- t,>

P 16 - showing site of stream crossing
that has washed out. Stream crossing
will be rebuilt further upstream in a
stable riffle (see Figure 3).
t ifi'p _`W
!?.?M? .R
AY k:
P 18 LDS - showing narrow buffer
that needs protection with a log
vane/root wad combination.
21
APPENDIX 1: Photographs continued
as / ,

i

P21 LDS - showing location of
proposed new thalweg. Leaning trce,,
will be stump cut and logs used for
vanes. Foreground, area of XS 4.
rl-u - snowing eroumg DanK an area
to be filled and protected by root
wads and location of new thalweg.
3"i -
P22 LDS - showing 150 ft of eroding
right bank and location of proposed
new thalweg (spring enters stream in
lower right corner of picture).

P19 LDS - showing area to be filled
and start of new thalweg (- - - ).
Area of XS 4.
3fi° It
* r?
P24 - showing part of the 150 ft of
eroding streambank.
22
P23 LDS - from top of bank showing
proposed new thalweg alignment.
Area of XS5.
APPENDIX 1: Photographs continued
¦
Am? w 1, .
4C
P25 LDS - showing lower end of the
150 ft eroding streambank and
location of proposed new thalweg.
Area of XS 5.
P26 LUS - showing eroding bank and
location of proposed new thalweg.
Area of XS 5.
23
P27 LDS - showing undercut bank
and location of proposed log vane.
APPENDIX 2: Email correspondence from the Natural Resource Conservation Service on approval
of this plan.
From: Stokes, Jake - Waynesville NC
Date: Tuesday, September 01, 2009, 4:45PM
To: Joe Mickey
Subject: Revised Lowe plan
Joe,
Thanks for the quick turnaround! I've been covered up today and will be on the road the next two days. I
apologize, but I haven't had time to thoroughly review and discuss with Alan everything that we need to cover for
our approval. However, I believe this package is ready to go to permitting as any additional comments we may
have would not significantly change anything you've proposed.
Regarding who should sign off on these plans before they go to construction, I need to speak with our State
Engineer to get some final clarification on that. He is on vacation this week and will be back next Tuesday. I do
not think any formal signature or approval is required for these plans to go to permitting. Feel free to call me
tomorrow, Thursday, or any time that I am working out of the office on my NRCS cell at 828-506-2258.
Jake Stokes
From: Joe Mickey [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 5:18 PM
To: Walker, Alan - Waynesville, NC; Stokes, Jake - Waynesville, NC
Cc: Sullivan, Glen (Foggy Mt. Nursery); Davis, Tom
Subject: Revised Lowe plan
Jake,
As a result of our phone conversation this afternoon, I've moved the proposed stream ford crossing as shown in
Figure 3 an added this wording to the text on page 1: "In addition to the above restoration methods, an existing
stream ford, damaged by eroding streambanks will be rebuilt at a new location where the streambed is stable
(riffle area) or where a grade control can be installed to create a stable condition (Figure 3)."
I've added a typical riffle cross-section (Figure 6) and the following text on page 1. "Methods proposed to
restore the stream to a more stable condition are improving the typical riffle bank profile (Figure 6) through bank
reshaping (Figure 7)__"
I hope this satisfies your concerns with the plan. If these do not work let me know. Thanks for your input.
One final question, can you or Alan certify/sign off on this plan or do we need to get an independent engineer to
sign off on the plan before we submit it for permits?
Thanks for your help.
Joe
Joe H. Mickey, Jr.
283 Timberbrook Trail
State Road, NC 28676
336-366-2982
JHMickey(o)-surry.net
"Water is the most critical resource issue of our lifetime and our children's lifetime. The health of our waters is
the principal measure of how we live on the land" Luna Leopold
24
APPENDIX 3: Email correspondence from the Wildlife Resources Commission concerning granting
of the trout waiver.
Sent 8/3109 9:05 AM
Hey Joe-
I was on leave last week and I'm getting caught up on my a-mails this morning. I concur that there's no need
for a moratorium at this site and I'm glad to hear that it will be getting some restoration work done on it. The
habitat is in such bad shape that there really aren't many good stocking locations on this property in spite of the
fact that it borders such a long stretch of river. Do you know if there are any other landowners in this vicinity
wanting restoration? Two parcels downstream from this one is a site owned by Johnson Family Farms - you
access it from Lowe Road off of Pine Ridge Road. It's in even worse shape since the owners have channelized
the upper part of it recently and raped and pillaged much of the riparian trees. It borders about % of a mile of
river, but we had to quit stocking it last year because the entire stretch has become a shallow, homogenous run
with no holding water. Plus, since corn prices went up, they're now planting so close to the edge of the water
that we can't drive the truck alongside the creek to stock. Anyway, I don't know that background of what led to
the work on Kenneth Lowe's property. But if it is part of a concerted effort to work on this section of the Little
Fisher, then this tract would definitely be worth looking at. See ya.
Kin Hodges
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
District 7 Fisheries Biologist
179 Stonebridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Sent July 28, 2009, 8:22 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Linville [mailto:[e-mail]] (WRC Western Piedmont Permit Coordinator)
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 8:22 PM
To: 'Kevin Hining'; 'Joe Mickey'
Cc: 'Hodges, Kin (WRC)'
Subject: RE: Little Fisher River
-that sounds fine with me. (in reference to Kevin's email below) Joe, send us copy of the 404 application and
refer to these messages.....
Sent July 28, 2009, 6:21 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Hining [mailto:[e-mail]] (WRC District 7 Fisheries Biologist)
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:21 PM
To: 'Joe Mickey'; 'Ron Linville'
Cc: 'Hodges, Kin (WRC)'
Subject: RE: Little Fisher River
I'd be surprised if wild trout are present at this location, so I don't think a moratorium is needed. I think the main
use for this stretch is as a hatchery supported stream. From what I understood from Joe's email, waiving the
trout moratorium might result in the work being complete by the opening of the 2010 trout season - I think that's
the best action. I'm excited about the work at this location because we have good access here for trout stockinc
and fishing. Habitat improvements would just make it even better.
Thanks, Kevin
Sent July 27, 2009, 8:40 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Mickey [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 8:40 PM
To: Ron Linville
Cc: Hining, Kevin (WRC); Hodges, Kin (WRC)
Subject: Re: Little Fisher River
25
10/4 1 mentioned in my email that the site was DPMTW/HS. No wetlands/bogs on the site. They were probably
there 100 years ago but they have all been drained, ditched and filled in. Just a big flat bottom growing nursery
stock. We'll keep an eye out for the rattlers.
One thing to consider, if we do the work in the spring it will coincide with the start of trout season so the area
should not be stocked during 2010 if the work is done in April-May 2010.
How is the leg doing? Can you drive yet?
Joe
Sent July 27, 2009. 10:08 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Linville (WRC Western Piedmont Permit Coordinator)
To: 'Joe Mickey; 'Hodges, Kin (WRC)' ; 'Hining, Kevin (WRC)'
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:08 AM
Subject: RE: Little Fisher River
Joe,
On my database, I found the river is Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters - Hatchery Supported. BNT are
indicated downstream, but nothing upstream indicated in my data. Kin and Kevin may have better field data
though. I found an indication for Bog turtle, Glyptemys muhlenbergii (NCT, FT S/A) and Timber rattlesnake,
Crotalus horridus (NCSC) in general area, but not close to work site.
I suspect these are SMB waters, but guessing a bit. As far as the moratorium, Kin or Kevin can make the
moratorium call. If forgo the moratorium and have trout fisherman using these waters, we need to be able to
defend our call. We need to be consistent with other moratorium calls in the area.
Later, Ron
26
AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER
This agreement made and entered into by and between Foggy Mountain Nursery/Joe H.
Mickey, Jr., (Agent) and Mr. Kenneth Lowe, L & H Enterprises ("Owner"). The Owner
hereby grants the Agent permission to act as the Owners', agent to obtain all needed
permits from all units of government including, but not limited to, the United States
Army Corps of Engineers and the State of North Carolina to accomplish a streambank
stabilization and riparian buffer project on the Owner's property.
Signed:
(Property Owner's Signature or designate)
(Address)
A-)e-- a 7eJ 2
(Town, state, zip code)
33(0 - 3.` .Z -110
(Phone number)
p e?,
Date: /(
Foggy Mountain Nursery, 2251 Ed Little Road, Creston, NC 28615
336-977-2982 or 336-366-2982
Agent/date: i - Y-O
AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER
This agreement made and entered into by and between Foggy Mountain Nursery/Joe H.
Mickey, Jr., (Agent) and Herman and Gaynell Nichols ("Owner"). The Owner hereby
grants the Agent permission to act as the Owners' agent to obtain all needed permits from
all units of government including, but not limited to, the United States Army Corps of
Engineers and the State of North Carolina to accomplish a streambank stabilization and
riparian buffer project on the Owner's property.
Signed:
(Property Owner's Signature or designate)
(Address)
(Town, state, zip code)
(Phone number)
Date: O,* -O y-
Foggy Mountain Nursery, 2251 Ed Little Road, Creston, NC 28615
336-977-2982 or 336-366-2982
Agent/date: '` y _v
Surry County road map to Lowe/Nichols Little Fisher River stream restoration site.
h y' , 1
Y " rwK '4 k?:l..i 1 - 1 Ikdl. r l "?
f ?? "19a 'l_111HIPf AY it,
6?11110 111 11''
AM Wal _/ y ,?P F LF J.' S,fnfYjF%, h}? i (?. I N F: ,
/
:, qtr"?c'?A.y Sa igYIIIIH r
W&JOK
j au 1, .
p?• Y S'i k;.l.
4 fy V
<T
Lowfiap C ?i I NAr_e??rnt a
n f MA l WP, W.ih1
'Th. SAL
?OLORCIYSSo POUNfn PEAK "rq "
1mr? Sy :.pa1 aYa. 11 EV. ;.n54 _,s $
4 MIN. gC1.IlW; 1 ?C 1.:., 'r (.
FILEV 61l9u1 to n ?"
"AD
PAN,
.011
=?+- 9.25'??`(? - "•p??'a?'. °1::?1N ?8'?°:9 •. x+,c 'k??j??:.? .?_ ._r?d r ,?.
M , N'AAHIbR Mih.` Ladenia 'a4r'"
s
r ?*f ,
•jQ?? frv: eso .K
Qak Grove, `Y?
HOKILN
CM '
?? ? l•,?' ? C? ? ?tt?- V_ y-_`•+1Eµ,/?[?P;
1
?, pIQHIGK{!glYiN ? •' ygr?'RG ' ° '?-.... may? <?
l dd " t n' IfS ?;?'t yN .? a m .? n k r? Y f 5etin
i. w x ,4 111
K a Blovba5fore 9 `a?,?4' e r
as
111 ?•K`AUA1n. ` 7.•?v.' .ty ?i1 :. i r
Lowe/Nichols Little Fisher River stream restoration site location, Surry County, NC (Lambsburg
USGS Quad).
..04 .54 .09 r

N
C
O
N C7
U
t(?
O Z C
2?M
c N
O
U?
N
3
o
.o
Va
19
f
7"1 jl?l
1
Sm

UUSLVU9 UU?L?U? UU"VU? UUGG9U9
ppp? €
? as ?* iF
0
0

.ALE .94 008
m
OOE

0) M
O w
..04 .94 v09 N 0
O
rn
rn m
a
T
N
Z
0
i o fn
'a -
N Z U
7 N
f9
O N
In O.
-oo
?U
co
c
0
z
d
?a
O
Cl)
x
o
O
Q N
O
C
O.
O O O
N O M
n
N
m O
N NN1 Z
n ` (n
O o h O
m
? N
mC
Z? ZU
..LE .94 e08 0?
N
n
tel.
I
?Np
f0
m
c
o ^,
M d
U .?
L ?
O L
Z u)
7 ?
U
?` m
C 3
m o
O
U
Z
0
O
Z
a
C
0
Z
W
W
J
a
0o n
m c
0
N
N
>
.m.. ? L
p? .O y
0 a 3 ?o
-cu -co
-
a) -p '0 a) 2
E
c
L
y °
W m lo
(n 0
N m
_ V N

-

d
m w y
c U

.
to

N

N C O

x
m
y ? C
Z T cn
U C
o o N
cn a) p y
t w
In N y y Z
Q Z (m N
'O V E N
N
a0 3 m N N O
m
3
m O
¢ E U•
Z
y y o
Z n
m rn
e
Q °
N 0
E n
Q O
p
•
Q m m
3 0 o °'
o n'- ui
S

o .D

o
0
nN
3
E o
r L
o c

n T
E m I
o Q E a
d n 0 L U o a) m o o m
5
Q E
o
y m H
7 -v
.2 a) Z
7 j m
3 ° N E
cL
`

m
i6 J
in
(n
w ., y
y
L p c N
°
i l6
? .n Z fr
? E N=
c N O
°' O N O
"?

y m
w
T
omy
ag
yY
o
dm
m
E v
o 'm a) c
ov?o
Z O c

E ?
m U)
Ua? cc
= Q O
°
T m
.? L C p. L
y
to
O o
y
- N O O o co
° U .o
E2 a
i
Z Q m nm
L "O -O 7
O Z`

U)
N
m(a -
.E E
a; o T
U a)
may .. n
O a)
n y
H ma)
a E o )o
i
U y
H Y -2
n ( ?? a?EmE
= L
E
n (
n F
.
o
y
m
? c m

a o
!
U
L
n
C rn
T
c W O
Y

y
W

N T
2 N

3

M

m
O.
U)
2, m v)

m iy T O y

d
AD

N
E
N

w

? 0

O {gyp

a) O
>
L al 7 L L
O c (9 O O a
.
O
U
W U
O

uJ
C la
? w
N
(n
0
f0 U
O
J y

E LL

Ta
A
li

O
N
a -
: y
+ l
IL 3 f
a v a
Q o
CL
y
N
d Y
y m
a]
d
'6 E
{a
i 2• y
p>
O
(a
a
2 a)

`

O

O C ?. ..-
n _ d
=
a «, n
d T i
V
p p >
U'
0?/
N
7 O
O
?
>.
N .
a
N
O_
Q O
cc L
3
=
3 LL O N N N w LL L O p
? G QI T O O Q

C
N

N

O C O
U) o m m
O

U
N la

0 C7
C
m
J

N
Jla?
C U
N

a
COL
U
O
CC
C
N
?
C
N
N
>
Q1
COO
c

.
C
.0

U)
?
O
U)
')
O-
w
O

w
m
c a

o
? ?
u ®
X ?
x
<
?(
O
O
>
+
I?I
o
=n
1a
Ilf
? o y
<n
O) C 1
C)w
0 0
N CV
n o
mm
a
T
N
Z
U)
0o
Z05
O a)
(n w
- m
O
(n a
?U
m
c
0
co
z
al
V
H .Z
(? 41
7 ?
0 =
w.2
? to
? m
m 0
Z U
91
Soil Map-Surry County, North Carolina
Lowe site - Little Fisher River
Map Unit Legend
I Surry County, North Carolina (NC171)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
BbB Braddock fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 2.3 1.5°x6
BbC Braddock fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 6.6 4.3%
BbD Braddock fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 1.8 1.2%
CsA Colvard and Suches soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded 39.4 25.8%
DeF Devotion-Rhodhiss-Bannertown complex, 40 to 95
percent slopes, very rocky 11.9 7.8%
WfC2 Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex, 8 to 15
percent slopes, moderately eroded 20.0 13.1%
WoD Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex, 15 to 25
percent slopes, stony 27.5 18.0%
WoE WooWne-Fairview-Westfield complex, 25 to 45
percent slopes, stony 43.5 28.4%
Totals for Area of Intere st 153.01 100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/17/2009
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3