19991424 Ver 1_Complete File_19991230

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY

December 28, 1999

Mr. John Dorney
Wet1ands/401 Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621

99'424

Dear Mr. Dorney,

This letter is regarding the submittal of the attached 3 copies of the NCWRP
stream restoration project on the South Folk of the Mitchell River in order to meet the
requirements for the Stream Restoration General Certification (effective November 23,
1999). This certification replaced WQC #'s 1663, 1272, 2665, and 2102.

Unless we are notified from your office within 30 days, we plan on proceeding
with the implementation of the construction phase of this project.

5316,

If you have any questions regarding this project, please give me a call at 733-

attachments: Stream Restoration Plan for South Folk of the Mitchell River (3 copies)

',,~'::,

cth ,<\
()j- ~-'
~-'o :~- ,'-'
" tP ,J:;,:\,
~' ' , ',;Y\~.~
\~~;~~,,' ~,:,t> '7>",...

~'. "
_.v~ ""~. ".<"f
~' 04' ~', 'c"
\s;~;~::;;,:;:~;'/"

P.O. BOX 28535, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0535
PHONE 919,733-7015 FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SO,*, RECYCLED/IO,*, POST'CONSUMER PAPER

-

/~>'C

L
401lSStE ,~ \ It '2.

DWQ ID: _ CORPS ACTION ID:, . . . .

NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (pROVIDE NATIONWIDE PElUU'r #) 27

PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2. APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3. COORDINATION WITH THE NC DMSION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF TIllS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE FJELD
OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN (7)
COPIES MUST BE SENT TO THE NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY,
ATTN: JOHN DORNEY, 4401 REEDY CREEK ROAD, RALEIGH, NC
27607. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE.

1. OWNER'S NAME: NC Wetlands Restoration ProlU3lll

2. MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 29535 1619 Mail Service Center

SUBDMSION NAME

CITY: RaleilZh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27699-1619

PROJECf LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDMSION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
White Rock Road. Thurmond NC, Surrv County

3. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (HOME) _ (WORK) 919-733-5208

4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENTS NAME OR RESPONSmLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
Jeff Jurek 919-733-5316

5. LOCATION OF WORK (pROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: fumy - NEAREST TOWN: Thurmond

SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ECT.) 1 mi. north on White
Rock Rei (SR 1329) off Havstack Rd (SR 1328)-northeast out of Thurmond

6. IMPACI'ED OR NEAREST STREAM/RNER: South Fode of the Mitchell RIVER BASIN: Yadkin Pee-
Dee

7. (a) IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER, (SA),
mGH QUALITY WATERS (HQw), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-ll)? YES ~ NO 0 IF YES, EXPLAIN: Mitchell River is trout waters

(b) IS THE PROJECf LOCATED WITIllN A NORTH CAROLINA DMSION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES 0 NO ~

(c) IF THE PROJECf IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST OF
COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION? _ . _ , ,

8. (a) HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON TIllS
PROJECT? YES 0 NO ~ IF YES, PROVIDE ACfION I.D, NUMBER OF PREVIOUS PERMIT AND
ANY ADDmONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401 CERTIFICATION): _ . . . _

(b) ARE ADDmONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPEClED FOR TIllS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES 0 NO ~ IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPAlED WORK:, _ . _ .

9. (a) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBERS OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 4.0

(b) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
0.0

10. (a) NUMBER OF ACRES OF WElLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECf BY:

FILLING:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:

EXCAVATION:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:

(b) (1) SlREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPAC1ED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF RELOCATED,
PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFIER RELOCATION:

LENGTH BEFORE: 2220 Ff AFIER: 2220 Ff
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): 33.5 Ff
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: 2.0 Fr AFIER: 2.5 Ff

(b) (2) SlREAM CHANNEL IMPACfS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: m PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: . . . . _
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: m CONSTRUCTION OF A DAMlFLooDING: _ _ . _ _
OTHER: see attached olano

11. IF CON'STRUCfION OF A POND IS PROPOSED; WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? _ WHAT IS THE EXPECfED POND SURFACE AREA? _ _ _ . .

12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED? (AIT ACH PLANS; 81/2 BY 11 DRAWINGS ONI.. Y)
Channel reconstruction. relocation. fillinl!: Trackhoe with mechanical thumb.

13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Imorovement of water <malitv (stabilizinl!: erodin2 banks. fence cattle
out of stream). restore historic stream dimension. oattern. and Drofile,

14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT TIllS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN
WETLANDS (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACfS)

15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACf THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND/OR
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY
LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECIED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: n/a

16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACfTHE STATE IllSTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF IllSTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA
WHICH MAYBE AFFECIED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACIED n/a.

17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOL VB AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OT THE USE OF PUBLIC
(STATE) LAND? YES ~ NO 0 (IF NO, GO TO 16)

(a) IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY Acr? YES 0 NO ~

(b) IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE YES 0 NO 0
IF ANSWER 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIAlE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STAlE
CLEARINGHOUSE WI1H THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECfED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGEIT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].

18. THE FOLLOWING I1EMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OF FilL MATERIAL INTO
WETLANDS:

(a) WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES, AND
PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18,21,26,29, AND 38).
ALL STREAM (INTERMI1TENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON
THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OF 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET
OF THEm. EQUIVALENT.
(b) IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PRODUCT.
(c) IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
(d) ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
(e) WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? cattle
(t) IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? _ . . _ _

SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LEITER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE US MAY NOT BE IMPAClED PRIOR TO:
1. ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2. EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DMSIONOF WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATION, AND
3. (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONI.. Y), A LE'ITER FROM THE NORTH
DMSION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
IS CO ISTENf WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT

)J-:2t-1 ~

OWNER'S/AG

(AGENTS SI NA: VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATIO LE'ITER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED).

~

OCT 22 '99 12:54 '

,y

To Whomever it amy CoOoerIi,.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRON MEN" AND NATURAL RESOURCES

DMSION Oil!' WATER QU.Al.I'T'Y

October 20. 1999

1, Larry Howard, give the North Carolina Wet1a.ad$ Rc:stQr.moD. Program
pennissioo to act as my agent in procuring any euvUoomenral p0UDits necxied to perfonu
stream RStozation 011 the South Forie of the M,itcbeU River rwmiDg thIough my propc:rty.
This property is I mile up Whit: Rock Road, off ofHaystaclc: Ro~ near Thunnond.
North Carolina in Suny County.

~L1t/aJ

Mr. Lany Howard
2810-E Cmiage Rd.
Winston-SalClft, NC 27106

P.O. 8t:l'lC ~.sas, Q",I.C'CIot, No1tTH C...-.olo.NA 27628..c11158S
PHONIE ."-730-7015 P'AX IH..7;S....".
"". 1!;1IfUAL Oll'JI'ORT"'"'TT I A5'5"~.AT/VIl &CTIOI'I ~M"1.0TER . ~ Qll1:YC:LIl:7/fO,. oeC".cOHsuMe... ".9l:lt

919 733 5321

PAGe:.1a2
** TOTAL PAGE.e2 **

"..

SOUTH FORK MITCHELL RIVER
Surry County, North Carolina

N.C. Wetlands Restoration Progr~m
NCDENR DWQ

I i.':"'~;~'.~:"'(;<"~~
I if J /2 Ili1 r-:-""'" ' ,
"!~rJlr; ,,: 'it fI",..
l i;;r i~:' ", ' ":~<
~L " 3 0""

October 1999

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Surry County, NC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 IN'TRODUCTION....... ............... ..... ...................... .................. ................................ 1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.. ................... .... ,.... ................ ........... ........... ..... 1
1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTNES ..................................................................... 5

2.0 EXISTlN'G CONDITIONS.................................................... ...................... ........... 6

2.1 W A'TERSHED ......... ............................. ............................ ..... ..................... 6

2.1.1 Description...... ....... ................................ .................................. ....... 6
2.1.2 Landuse and Zoning ........... ....... ..... ............... ............. ......... ........ .... 7
2.1.3 Development/Stability......... ...... ............................ ............ .......... .... 7

2.2 PROJECT, SITE...................................................... ..................................... 8

2.2.1 General Description..:... ........ ........ ............................ .................. ..... 8

2.2.2 Soils............ ............................... ............................. .......................... 8

2.2.3 Terrestrial Plant Communities ...................................................... 10

2.2.3.1 Pasture..................................................... .......................... 11

2.2.3.2 Riparian Floodplain ........................................................... 11

2.2.3.3 Hillslope............. ..................... .:............. .......... ................. 11

2.2.4 Wildlife Observations ................................................................... 11
2.2.5 Aquatic Organisms and Habitats ................................................... 12 '
2.2.5.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrates .............................................. 12
2.2.5.2 Other Aquatic Organisms.................................................. 13
2.2.5.3 Instream Habitat .................... .......,................ ..................... 13

5 .0 HABITAT RESTORA nON................................................................................. 14

5.1 STREAM BANK VEGETATION............................................................ 14

5.2 RIPARIAN BUFFER. ....................... ........................ ................................. 14

8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................ ....... ............... 22

TABLES

Table 1. Benthic monitoring metrics for each station. .................................................... 13
Table 2. Morphological characteristics: existing, reference, and proposed reaches ...... 17

FIGURES

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 7
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17

Project Location Map....................... ....................................................... ......... 2

Site, Vicinity Map .......................................... ................................. ..................3

Aerial Photograph ........................... ..................... ....... ..................................... 4

Existing Conditions ......................................................................................... 9

Stream Revegetation and Riparian Zone .......................................................16

Proposed Design................ .............. ........ ............. .............................. ........... 19

Typical Cross Sections....................................................................... ............ 20

Bedform ................................................................................... ...................... 21

1

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Surry County, NC

11

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Surry County, NC

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) in conjunction with the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Surry County, North Carolina has
identified a reach along the South Fork Mitchell River as a potential stream restoration
site. This portion of the stream, known as the Howard reach, flows through property
owned by Mr. Larry Howard. Based on preliminary mapping, the reach to be restored is
approximately 1580 ft. This portion of the stream has previously been straightened and
relocated. Currently, the land surrounding the reach is used as pasture for livestock and
the stream is used as a water source for the animals. Extensive erosion is present along
the stream banks where livestock congregate. Water quality has been compromised as a
result of all of these factors.

Restoration will require determining how far the stream has departed from its natural
stability, and what the stable form of the stream (channel dimension, pattern and profile)
is likely under the current hydrologic conditions within the drainage area. Once the
stream's potential has been determined, restoration techniques on the site include:

· Alteration of stream channel dimension, pattern and profile to achieve stream
stability.
· Placement of natural material structures in the stream to reduce erosion and enhance
aquatic habitat.
· Stabilization of stream banks with herbaceous and woody vegetation.

1.1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The South Fork Mitchell River property, 113.7 ac in size, is located off White Rock Road
(SR 1329) between Highway 421 and the Virginia state border approximately 1.5 miles
northeast of Doughton, NC (Figures 1 and 2). The current reach of stream to be restored
is approximately 1580 feet flowing through the property (Figures 3 and 4). Mr. Larry
Howard purchased 113.7 acres in 1971 from H. V. Douglas who is thought to have
owned it since the early 1950's. Mr. Howard timbered the land in 1978 and replanted the
following year. There are no future plans for development of the property according to
Mr. Howard.

Currently, there is a 6-acre pasture located adjacent to the stream on the west side, which
is owned by Mr. Howard. Livestock were recently fenced out of the stream on this side.
The adjacent landowner to the east is Mr. James Claude Harris, who also has livestock,
has not secluded his cattle from the east side of the stream at this time. According to Mr.
Howard, in the last 2 to 3 years the landowner upstream of the Howard property has
changed the landuse adjacent to the stream from soybeans or tobacco to a pasture. It is
thought that these cattle are not secluded from the stream thus, causing increased
sediment supply to the stream.

1

T\
\
/
l
)

1
I

o

1

2

3 Miles

I

N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
NCDENR _ DWQ_

FIGURE 1
Project location Map
South Fork Mitchell River Site
Surry and Alleghany Counties, North Carolina

,t p'$ t,Jt ,,,,,~
\'--,l, \ :.!',i~~
'" \\\ '- ~1j \J \ C
\\ ""'-" ff i : "
<-' -~"J\;' / \ ~
..., ~~~ '.t
I ~";f=~
" ( ,
''I '"
i), \
.""

o

SOURCE: US Topographic Quadrangles:
Roaring Gap, NC, 1971
Thunnond, NC, 1971
"Maplech@ U.S, Terrain Series"', @Maplech@, Inc, 603-433-8500"

N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
NCDENR _ DWQ_

FIGURE 2
Site Vicinity Map
South Fork Mitchell River Site
Surry and Alleghany Counties, North Carolina

o

300

SOURCE:
Aerial Photograph - Surry Co, NRCS;
Property Une, C, Phil Wagoner-. RLS, 1996,

'.. .J
N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
NCDENR _ Dw.'Q_

FIGURE 3
Aerial Photograph
South Fork Mitchell River Site
Surry and Alleghany Counties, North Carolil1a

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Surry County, NC

Livestock are the main factor in the degradation and impairment of the stream and
surrounding riparian areas. This element has caused severe bank erosion, altering the
channel's dimension and adding to the sediment load of the South Fork Mitchell River.
The increased sediment supply has induced disturbance of the channel bedform features
and impaired instream habitat. There is also evidence of prior channel straightening. This
has altered the natural pattern of the stream as well as impacted the channel bedform
relationship. In several areas, the channel is degrading or down-cutting due to the channel
straightening and livestock access. In other areas the channel is aggrading or filling in
with sediment. At its present state, the channel does not have the competency to
transport the sediment and water delivered to it by the watershed.

The restoration plan has three main components:

1) restore the stream to a stable dimension, pattern ,and profile
2) protect a minimum 50-foot buffer around the stream
3) exclude the cattle from the stream while providing cattle crossings

1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

This project has the following goals and objectives:

1. Provide a stable stream channel that neither aggrades nor degrades while maintaining
its dimension, pattern, and profile with the capacity to transport its watershed's water
and sediment load.

2. Reduce bank erosion and filter pollutants through vegetative plantings and buffers.

3. Improve aquatic habitat by reducing the silt and clay fines in the streambed caused by
bank erosion.

4. Improve aquatic organism habitat with the use of natural material stabilization
structures such as root wads, rock vanes, woody debris, and a riparian buffer.

5. Provide wildlife habitat through the preservation of riparian and upland landforms
surrounding the South Fork Mitchell River.

6. Exclude livestock from the riparian areas.

5

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Surry County, NC

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 WATERSHED

2.1.1 Description

The South Fork Mitchell River, a third order stream, is located within the Piedmont
Physiographic Province of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The headwaters originate
about 3.3 miles northwest of the project area. This stream flows southeast from its
watershed boundaries through the project area. The South Fork Mitchell River [Index
#12-62-13] is classified as a Class C water body.

The watershed is approximately 1792 acres or 2.8 square miles and is oblong in shape
(Figure 5). Seven percent of the watershed'is located in Allegheny County. The Wilkes
and Surry County border is the watershed boundary in the southwest. The far western
headwater boundary is defined by Roaring Gap road (SR1478) located in Alleghany
County. The northern, eastern, and southern watershed boundaries are defined by
forested ridgelines (see Figure 5). The South Fork Mitchell flows for about 53.5 miles
until it joins the North Prong Mitchell River to form the Mitchell River, which is
classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW).

Topography of the area is characterized as rolling to hilly and contains steep slopes along
the ridgelines and flat floodplains adjacent to large drainageways. The watershed gradient
is approximately 10.6 percent with the majority of the fall occurring near the ridgelines.
The floodplain near the project site is wide and flat. Many of the higher elevation sites
within the watershed are densely forested with sporadic timber clear-cuts.

Soils in upland areas of the watershed are mainly Evard-Cowee complex and Chestnut-
Peaks complex (Figure 6) (Surry and Allegheny Soil Survey 1970). The Evard-Cowee
series has slopes ranging from 25 to 70 percent and Occurs in mixed hardwood-pine
forests of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. This series consists of 55 to 65 percent
Evard soils and 30 to 50 percent Cowee soils. These Ultisols formed in residuum from
gneiss and schist on mountain ridges and side slopes. These soils, are deep and well
drained. Both have a loamy surface layer and subsoil. Permeability is moderate and
available water capacity is moderate for Evard soils and low for Cowee soils. Shrink-
swell potential is low. The seasonal high water table is below 6 feet. A significant
amount of gravel is mixed within the surface layer of Cowee soils. The Chestnut-Peaks
complex ranges in slope from 8 to 50 percent and is very stony. This map unit consists of
40 to 60 percent Chestnut soils and 30 to 40 percent Peaks soils. They occur on upland
ridges and side slopes in mixed hardwood-pine forests of the Southern Appalachian
Mountains. Both Inceptisols, these soils formed in residuum from gneiss and schist.
Both have a loamy surface layer and subsoils. Permeability is moderately rapid and
available water capacity is low . Shrink-swell potential is low and the seasonal high water
table is below 6 feet.

6

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Surry County, NC

Tate-Colvard complex and Braddock gravelly loam soils are dominant in drainageways
and low-lying areas in the watershed. Refer to Section 2.2.2 for a complete description
of these soils.

2.1.2 Landuse and Zoning
The predominant landuse within the watershed is agriculture. Livestock and row crop
production is prevalent throughout the region. Steeper hillslopes remain forested with
sporadic clearcuts. Residential landuse is light with housing densities of less than one
house per acre. Based on the existing soils and landuse, this watershed is characterized
as having an SCS Curve Number of 59.

This watershed is not zoned for development according to the Surry County Office of
Planning and Development. '

2.1.3 Development/Stability
The portion of the South Fork Mitchell River to be restored is classified as a Class C
water body and is not included as one of the seven protected watersheds in the Surry
County Watershed Protection Ordinance (1993). However, little future development is
expected within the watershed boundaries. Based on discussions with officials at the,
Surry County Office of Planning and Development, current landuses are expected to
remain the same with li~tle to no development in the watershed.

7

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Suny County, NC

2.2 PROJECT SITE

2.2.1 General Description

This site is oriented in the southwest comer of Surry County off White Rock Road (SR
1329). The entire property consists of 113.7 acres as shown in Figure 7. The property is
currently being used as a tree farm. There are no plans 'to change this landuse in the
foreseeable future. Livestock have recently been excluded from the stream through the
use of fencing.

The main drainage on the property is the South Fork Mitchell River. This third order
stream has a bankfull width ranging from 24 to 42 feet and mean depth ranging from 1.6
to 2.7 feet with a channel substrate consisting of silt, sand, pebbles, and gravel. The river
enters the site at the northwest comer of the property and flows approximately 2700
linear feet between property boundaries. The topography of the area consists of broad flat
floodplains with rolling hills to the north and steeper slopes to the south of the project
site. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (1981) South Fork Mitchell River
Property is within Zone C (Figure 8). Zone C is registered as an area of minimal flooding.

The stream, which now exists on the western edge of the property, appears to have been
previously channelized and relocated to the toe of a slope. Large meanders occur in two
locations divided by long straight reaches. In both meander bends exists heavy erosion. In
the southern reach of the stream, a dirt road, is being threatened by meandering. Cattle are
causing excessive erosion access paths throughout the northern reach of the stream. There
is a stable cattle crossing near the middle of the property. Moderate vegetation exists
along the stream with several areas of dense large deciduous trees along the bank. Several
areas have woody debris in the stream. There is an above ground power line that crosses
the property to the north of the stream, however, no other utilities are on site.

2.2.2 Soils

Based on a review of the Surry County Soil Survey (1994), soils on the property are
primarily Tate-Colvard complex, A small amount of Braddock gravelly loam is present
in the upland areas. Based on a field survey of the property, the soils were largely
consistent with those mapped in the Soil Survey. The soils are shown on Figure 9.

The Tate-Colvard complex consists of 40 to 60 percent Tate soils and 30 to 40 percent
Colvard soils. Tate soils are very deep, well drained soils located on benches, fans, and
toe slopes in coves in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Slopes range from no slope
to 15 percent. They formed in alluvium and derived from felsic to mafic crystalline rocks
such as granite, mica gneiss, hornblende gneiss, and schist. They have a loamy surface
layer and subsoil. Runoff class is low on gentle slopes and increases with steeper slopes.

8

~

.

.
.
,
.

.
.

.

z
~
o

J
I
i
I

.
.
.
.

.
,

~

,

.

.

.

.
.

.
.

.
.
.

.

, ...

~
Z

~
C)
~ C
C'
Q.. -=
~ e
Z tn .- 0
C ~U
Q~ 0.1=
.-.- Q)
~c I'o.:t:&n.c-C
w W]cut
...J ..: ~00.1:0
<( e '~~ ::>U~~Z
u -Ill
(I) 1;;-
(.) 1::2 enZ ~ O)e~$
s: wW
Q. ili_ ~c LLc.2oc
~ U)U .- tn LL :)
~ 1;;G) 0
,cz Ji~=u
z g~
~ en;:)
~ CI)
.
~
z

I~
~ I
i;
II
!lie
li~ ~~ ~
o ~~If;m!~lll
ai III1 H l ~ ~ ~ ~ Bi
C)
~

I
l~ ,tlllll.

CIt
~
( u ~~~~I
; ~ ~:!f.1
lD ~~ I~d~~
~.i ~l!l21" !
~II l~e:~~~
:il;o i;li!~
0... <r~: !~f"'il
g~1Il j!IJd~1il
Z '~~lli;!ij
il"!IJ I...
~;!le~~;lmil
~...!ll~O~c
~~ ;t"'g ~g
~!Cld"'~1i
i~5 ~il!i;~
h~~~~Q8~~
.L ,,", ,1,.

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Surry County, NC

However, runoff is lower when forest litter has not been disturbed or had only partial
disturbance. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is moderate. Shrink-
swell potential is low. The seasonal high water table is below 6 feet. Colvard soils are
very deep, well drained soils that formed in recent alluvium on flood plains in the
Southern Appalachian Mountains. They have a loamy surface layer as well as subsoil
and surface nmoff is slow. Permeability is moderately rapid and available water capacity
is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high water table is from 4 to 6
feet. The Colvard soils are subject to occasional flooding.

Much of the acreage of both of these soil types is cleared and used for pasture and crops,
including corn, small grain, burley tobacco, and truck crops. Many of the areas with the
Tate soil series is forested with scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), northern red oak
(Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), and Virginia pine
(Pinus virginiana). With understory plants including mountain-laurel (Kalmia latifolia),
rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), greenbrier (Smilax
spp.), flowering dogwood (Comus florida), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia),
honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and flame azalea
(Rhododendron calendulaceum). Colvard series soils have many of the same species as
the Tate series soils, but also include several floodplain tree species such as sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), riverbirch (Betula nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), and ash
(Fraxinus sp.)

Braddock gravelly loam consists of very deep, well-drained, and moderately permeable
soils found on footslopes of ridges and colluvial fans, and high stream terraces. Slopes
range on the project area from 2 to 8 percent. They formed in the colluvium and
alluvium derived from a mixture of crystalline rocks. The have a loamy surface layer and
clayey subsoil. Braddock soils have slow to moderate permeability in the subsoil and
moderate to moderately rapid permeability in the substratum. Runoff class is low to
moderate on nearly level slopes. Available water capacity is moderate and shrink-swell
potential is moderate. The seasonal high water table is below 6 feet.

Although most of the soils in this series are forested with a mixture of hardwoods and
pines, the Braddock soils within the project area are used for cultivated crops and pasture.

2.2.3 Terrestrial Plant Communities

Most of the terrestrial plant communities on the property have been heavily.disturbed by
livestock activity. Much of the soil in the area around the stream has been compacted or
has eroded along the banks. Vegetation in the riparian area has been damaged due to
physical impact and grazing. For purposes of this project, three plant communities are
described, including pasture, riparian floodplain, and hillslope (Figure 10).

10

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Surry County, NC

2.2.3.1 Pasture

A large portion of the property is actively grazed pastureland. Pasture vegetation
includes, but is not limited to, fescue, clover, buttercup (Ranunculus spp.), violet (Viola
spp.), verbesina (Verbesina occidentalis), and grasses. Pasture occurs on mostly on one
side or the other of the stream. Although the pasture is not included in the Flood
Insurance Rate Map's IOO-year floodplain (see Figure 8), the area is low and flat
compared to the hilly surroundings. During field visits, livestock freely roamed from
pasture to stream with no barricades preventing livestock entry into the water. The
pasture often abuts the stream bank with little to no woody vegetation along the pasture-
side corridor. Sporadic larger trees occur along the reach on the pasture size. These
include black cherry (Prunus serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum), black walnut (Juglans
nigra), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
Livestock access areas into the stream are extensively eroded along the stream banks.

2.2.3.2 Riparian Floodplain
In. areas where pasture does not occur and hillslope is not at the edge of the stream, small
riparian floodplains adjoin the stream channel. These areas are low on the landscape, and
in some cases, damp along the toe of slope. Riparian vegetation is prevalent and includes
black walnut, black cherry, red maple, sycamore, persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and
tulip-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) in the upper canopy. Mid-canopy species include
spicebush (Lindera benzoin), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis). Low herbs and ground cover includes Japanese grass (Microstegium
virmineum), yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), and false-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica).

2.2.3.3 HiUslope
In areas where the slope meets the edge of the stream exists species common but not
exclusive to drier sites. Overstory vegetation includes Fraser magnolia (Magnolia
frasen), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis),
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus
alba), and chestnut oak (Quercus prinus). Mid-story and groundcover includes witch-
hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), mountain-laurel
(Kalmia latifolia), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).

2.2.4 Wildlife Observations
Wildlife and signs of wildlife were noted on several site visits, however, no formal
wildlife survey was performed. Signs of Eastern white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) included scat, browsed vegetation, and fresh tracks along the streamside.
Raccoon (Procyon lotor) tracks and scat were discovered along the streambanks and on
point bars and large woody debris in the stream channel. Former beaver (Castor
canadensis) activity was evidenced by several old stumps and gnawed sweetgum trunks
in the floodplain. However, no new activity in the project vicinity was noted. Several
dusky salamanders (Desmognathus sp.) and green frogs (Rana clamitans) were either in

11

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Surry County, NC

or along the lower portion of the stream. None were found in the upper reach,
particularly where cattle were invading the stream.

2.2.5 Aquatic Organisms and Habitats

2.2.5.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrates

Diverse communities of benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from three stations on
the South Fork of the Mitchell River. A total of 66 taxa were recorded (Appendix E).
Seven orders of benthic insects were recorded including 10 taxa of mayflies
(Ephemeroptera), 9 taxa of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata), 7 taxa of stoneflies
(plecoptera), 8 taxa of caddisflies (Trichoptera), 7 taxa of beetles (Coleoptera), 1 taxa of
dobsonfly (Megaloptera), and 21 taxa of true flies (Diptera). In addition to the insects an
oligochaete, crayfish (Cambarus), and 2 small snails (Elimia and Physella) were
recorded.

At the time of collection, station B had the most organisms as well as taxa compared to
the other two stations (Table 1). From this data, all stations appear to be in excellent
condition considering the number of taxa found. Station B also had the most EPT taxa
collected although all stations appear in good-fair condition based. on the number of EPT
taxa. All stations have about the same values for diversity. Station B rates the highest
according to the biotic index, but again all stations rate in excellent condition. All
stations have a relatively low percentage of chironomdae and similar EPT/chironomidae
ratios. Judging from the analyzed data, all three stations have benthic macroinvertebrate
communities that are about the same in their similarity to the community at the reference
site.

Therefore, according to the benthic macroinvertebrate survey, the river appears in good to
excellent condition. However, the conditions within this section of this river may not be
sufficient to support natural communities of the other trophic levels. This stream has
sections of highly eroded banks from cattle entering and leaving the stream, which adds
sediment to the streambed. The benthic macroinvertebrates may be diverse and abundant
within this stream because despite the eroded banks, a variety of habitats are still
available. These habitats include: cobble and gravel, woody debris and leaves. The trees
that do remain along the stream bank may be the main reason the benthic
macroinvertebrates continue to do well in ~s physically degraded section of stream.

12

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Surry County, NC

Table L Benthic monitoring metrics for each station.

Metric Station A Station B Station C
Total No. Organisms 213 341 146
Total No. Taxa 33 53 34
No. EPT Taxa 14 20 18
Shannon-Weiner Diversity 4.319 4.315 4.147
NC Biotic Index 3.917 4.30 3.675
%Chironomidae 13 11 8
EPT/Chironomidae 4.3 6.1 8.2
Similarity to Reference 0.34 0.38 0.38

2.2.5.2 Other Aquatic Organisms
Several fishes were observed during benthic macroinvertebrate collection including
darters and shiners. Crayfish were found throughout the reach and were incorporated into
the analysis. No bivalves (freshwater cl~ms) were observed in the stream. Several water
snakes were encountered during the field surveys.

2.2.5.3 Instream Habitat
Within the reach currently exist a variety of instream habitats. Riffles contain an
assortment of sand, gravel, and cobble substrates for benthic organisms. Several pools
contain rootwads from fallen trees and large woody debris jams, which serve as cover for
fish and other organisms. The substrate is silty to sandy within the pools. Other areas
along the reach have undercut banks with root mats overhanging the water's edge. Areas
in the northwestern portion of the site have several rhododendron thickets along the bank
providing shade for the stream. Although good instream habitat exists, many areas have
been degraded, particularly where livestock have trampled banks and disturbed the
channel itself. Erosion, compaction, and livestock activity have resulted in the
degradation of aquatic habitat.

13

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Surry County, NC

5.0 HABITAT RESTORATION
5.1 STREAM BANK VEGETATION

Vegetation that develops a quick canopy, extensive rooting, and substantial plant
structure is needed to help stabilize slopes of the restored stream channel in order to
reduce stream scour and runoff erosion. In riparian environments, pioneer plants that
often provide those functions are alder, birch, dogwood, and willow. Once established,
these trees can create the environment required for succession of plant species including
river birch, maples, sycamores, and other riparian species.

In many areas of the stream, vegetation is adequate along the banks, particularly areas
where the hilly terrain extends to the stream edge and livestock have not been invasive.
Both large and small trees as well as shrubs and herbs help stabilize these banks.
However, in other areas such as pasture, newly created meanders, and bare areas along
the bank where erosion is extensive, revegetation will be necessary. Hardwood trees
currently standing along the stream bank will not be disturbed. Revegation efforts will
try to emulate the natural vegetation regime along the stream corridor. A mixture of
seeds, plugs, and transplants will be utilized onsite. Proposed species to be planted in
these areas include the following:

River birch (Betula nigra)
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
Black willow (Salix nigra)
Spicebush (Lindera benzoin)
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima)
Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis)
False-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica))
Native grass mixture

These planting areas are shown on Figure 14.

Planting will be performed between November and March to allow plants to stabilize
during the dormant period and set root during the spring season.

5.2 RIPARIAN BUFFER

A 50-foot riparian buffer will be established on alongside the new stream channel (see
Figure 14). This buffer zone is currently vegetated with a mix of herbaceous vegetation,
shrubs, and trees. Areas devoid of vegetation within this buffer will be planted with
species similar to the native vegetation within the existing riparian areas. A mixture of

14

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Surry County, NC

seeds, plugs, and transplants will be utilized onsite. Proposed species to be planted in
these areas include the following:

River birch (Betula nigra)
Red maple (Acer rub rum)
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Black walnut (Juglans nigra)
Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
Spicebush (Lindera benzoin)
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Native Grass Mixture

Areas that are currently vegetated will remain undisturbed and succession allowed to
proceed naturally.

15

t'C' Pf T

!il~~.~ ~~il .
~!Iiili~e!
cllle~;:!ii~i
i11!mi~.~Ii'i~
liiih~!'~I!
Id~b b~ z
a~~I~~ '* Q
t1j88 SpE 3J
. Iii i~ ai~
~~'i~; ~i~
...J ala ~.~
I~in~ I~~
i!ill~i:~ ~ ~
~iil~~ n I
jlI
t"

.

a:

~~
.~ gJ
I~
~n
+-i
i!
z
rn

(1
,

I

I

.

.

~;J,
O~
i~
:~o
/~
,/ ~~
Ii!
Z
rn

IIll11 : II 1ft

o

illil:~li_11 ~
h~1 (ii~h!
i I It
I Ii

!.

z
c.n h
~ ~
o <;
c.n 3 !!I~
c: c.n .....
~o CD
n ~ I'DA z ~
o Clm O;a
C (J'!!lo-n Om
;t 0 - _ m ~A.
-< *"... erGl Z~
... 9.:s C ;aO
Z~(rQ ~O~
o n :s :s <. ;J>.:
3:- ::r c.n a........ <;;::!
!..:;: . .a=.. t) 0
O!!CD2!! Z
0... <' -g
o (IJ ::!. ."
=.. 00 I'D
.:s :I
o Gl
i ~

,

.

,
f

!3
0."
~~
%0
-I
~Q
. ~~
Z
m

,
.

.

.. :
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-:

,

(i)

~

(")
V>
(")
~

.

TABLE 2: Morphological Characteristics
Existing, Reference, and Proposed Reaches
11
Variables
Stream. type (Rosgen)
Existing
Channel
E4
Big Branch
Reference
Basin Creek
Reference
Proposed
Channel
E4
C4
C4/E4
2
3
4
Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.)
Bankfull width (Wbkf) ft - range
(mean)
Bankfull mean depth (dbkf) ft - range
(mean)
2.8
24.3-42.2
(33.5)
1.6-2.6
(2.0)
1.9
21.5
2.0
8.0
30.7
1.9
2.8
25.3
2.5
5
6
Width/depth ratio (Wbkf /dbkf)
Bankfull cross-sectional area (Abkf) sq ft - range
(mean)
10.6
52.3-69.2
(64..2)
10.8
42.8
16.4
57.4
10.0
64.0
7
Bankfull mean velocity (Vbkf) fps
4.4
N/A
7.35
4.7
8
9
10
Bankfull discharge (Qbkf) cfs from manning
Bankfull maximum depth (dmj ft - range
(mean)
Ratio bankfull maximum depth to mean bankfull depth
(d../dbkf)
300
3.1-3.5
(3.3)
1.4-1.9
N/A
2.5
1.3-1.4
420
2.5
1.3
300
3.8
1.5
11
Lowest bank height to maximum bankfuIl ratio
1.6-1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0-1.8
12
Width of flood prone area (Wfpa) ft
350-500
130
85
350-500
13
Entrenchment ratio (W�./Wbkf)
10.5-14.9
6.0
2.8
14_20
14
Meander length (L,,) ft
245-451
185-260
350
180-330
15
Ratio of meander length to bankfull width (L.(Wbkf)
7.3-13.5
8.6-12.1
11.4
7-13
16
Radius of curvature (R,) ft
23-80
42-55
77-134
40-80
17
Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull width (R� /Wblf)
0.7-2.4
2.0-2.6
2.5-4.4
1.6-3
18
Belt width (WbIO ft
135-219
31-44
105
135-219
19
Meander width ratio (Wbi�Wbxf)
4.0-6.5
1.4-2.0
3.4
5.3-8.7
20
Sinuosity (stream length/valley length) (k) ft/ft
1.6
1.1
1.02
1.6
21
Valley slope (S,uey) ft/ft
0.0167
0.00879
0.0139
0.0167
22
Average slope (Sa„d = (Spey /k)
0.0103
0.00831
0.0141
0.0103

TABLE 2: Morphological Characteristics
Existing, Reference, and Proposed Reaches
Variables
Existing
Big Branch
Basin Creek
Proposed
23
Pool slope (S pool) ft/ft -range
Channel
Reference
Reference
Channel
0.008-0.0
(mean)
(0.002)
0.0
0.005 - 0.006
0.0
24
Ratio of pool slope to average slope (Spool/Savg)
0.194
0.0
0.348 - 0.432
0.0
25
Ratio of riffle slope to average slope (S
26
idSa„ g)
Maximum pool depth (dpoo) ft - range
1.7-4.3
1.8-2.0
1.3-2.5
1.7-2.5
3.0-6.2
(mean)
(4.4)
4.0
3.1
5.0-6.3
27
Ratio of pool depth to mean bankfull depth (dpaoVdb>f)
2.2
2.0
1.6
2.0-2.5
28
Pool width (• poo) ft
36.0
17.8
40.6
25.0-30.0
29
Ratio of pool width to bankfull width (Wpool /Wbkf)
1.07
30
Pool to pool spacing (p -p) ft - range
0.83
1.32
1.0-1.2
33-195
(mean)
(110)
98-180
224
127-177
31
Ratio of p -p spacing to bankfull width (p-p/Wbkf)
3.3
4.6-8.4
7.3
5.0-7.0
Materials:
Particle
size distribution of channel materials (mm)
D16
< 0.062
0.06
4.8
< 0.062
D35
8.0
0.30
20
8.0
D50
35
3.0
38
35
D84
100
50
130
100
D95
170
100
230
170

z
n
.

~
. !!I
~
-v ZC
n ::r ;;a a en
g cr!:g -n B~
::J ~O"D - men
-< ~ a m G'l z.....
.. >::!".Q.C "'0
z>:o ,., ctv
O~::J om <~.
::3.::r CD _ -<::I
::r CD sa tII. U1 "0
- .... - 1IJ
Q~CDcg z
a~ ."
s:., 0
Q G)
~

ter "f T

I!I;:;U;I
4B~~~ij!!
iU~;I~i;~
I~jilii !i~ Z
e~iii~UlJ ~i~ 10
8:<: .c"::1 I J> -I
ul~'" 0",
. 1I1J>:~BI ~S m
Sili=~~SI ~1lI
..~, ~j!h" tl
i1i!il~i!'" '"
~"'rt.~d ~~
J!I!~a;~ S6~
· Ie ""rn
~!iI"~81l1 '. ;,
t1 ~ 0 e ~'
'I~i~~ fii .
;iI~~ n j
~

..

~
iZ
t
r~
i!
z
m

/

/

~~;::
Gl.
Z
...I~
: n
: J"m
: ~~
If!
Z
m

.
.

')It .~~
1,,1...0 'l"i;("'Ws.l~;) ':~~ ~ti"\i,':!t~;,i:Z{
. li11ij"H"''!',.... .
~
I ~ ~ I: III j i i ~
~~~"i!~~lii
I ~ ii ii'
if 1
I ~
. i!
l

~3 .. :
>>." i~ .
.
~O ,
.
Rim ,
%0 ~o .
.
~~ .n .
/nm
%tJ ~
-t .
JnQ m
;lID
~~ It:
.% -
"m
i"'!' I I
%
m
i
,
:
:

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - RIFFLE

BANKFULL STAGE
25'

A=64ft2

dmax = 3.8'

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - POOL

25-30'

<O!k
o Sf.
Op~

dmax = 5.0 - 6.3'

NC Wetlands Restoration Program
NCDENR DWQ

FIGURE 16
Typical Cross Sections
South Fork Mitchell River Site
Surry County, North Carolina

J.
"

I
1
,
,
.1
I
I
I
I ~I
,f
,
I
I
I
I
1
1
,

~
j
(f)

l'i 'l:

Stream Restoration Plan
South Fork Mitchell River, Surry County, NC

8.0 REFERENCES

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Surry County Flood Insurance Rate Map.
Community Panel Number 370364 0100 B. 1981.

Hey, Richard and Dave Rosgen. 1997. Fluvial Geomorphology for Engineers. Wildland
Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

Martof,' B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
NC.

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality. Standard Operating Procedures, Biological Monitoring. January, 1997.

Palmer, W. M., and A. L. Brasswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill

Radford~ A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.

Satphin, Ronald. Surry County Office of Planning and Development, Personal
Communication. 1999.

Schafale~ M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
.. North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, NC.

Surry County Watershed Protection Ordinance and Amendments. i 997.

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1976. Soil Survey of
Alleghany County, North Carolina. .

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1996. Soil Survey of
Surry County, North Carolina.

Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell, and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
. Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.