19951201 Ver 1_Maps_19951227

r
C' PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
11 OF 13
RJW SHEET N0.
NOTE ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
SEE TABLE THIS SHEET FOR ENGINEER ENGINEER
RIPARIAN EXISTING FENCE & BANK VEGETATION STATIONING
SHRUBS EXISTING GROUND PROPERTY LIMIT
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN PROPOSED GRADE CONTNNERIZED SHRUBS - -
WALKWAY r' p,
ls,~ J y ~ EVERGREEN p DEAD STAKE i
SHRUB ~ ,~,y - - i
~'•q. 9 _ DEAD STAKE STAKE 2~1 SLOPE
ti ~ -x ~ ~ . / N Y,, ~ r
I I
I R MATTING ~ ~ NATURAL F BE ' ~ ~ LIVE 1.51 SLOPE 1
e ~ STAKE ~ I I
ROCK TOE PROTECTION ~ i 2~ NATURAL FIBER MATTING ~ REVEGETATE WITH CONTaNERIZEO
i NATURAL F~ER MATTING O,t` SHRUBS OR LIVE STAKING
REVEGETATE WITH CONTA~RIZED PRIZED S NC - T T
I SHRUBS OR LIVE STAKING ~y F
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION _ _ _ , STATION 2.00 - ' - - ~ DEAD STAKE COIR FIBER ROLL TOE PROTECTION
- NOT TO SCALE TOE T TION
ROCK PRO EC
FIBER MATTING/ ROCK TOE DETAIL TAIL
NOT TO S( FIBER MATTING/ COIR FIBER ROLL DETAIL NOT TO SCALE
NOT TO SCALE
25' - TYP. RIPARIMJ FOREST
HK~t FLOW
RIPARIAN 8' - TYP, ROCK JOINT
SHRUBS LOW FLOW
PROPOSED •x - - -
PEDESTRIAN "''r. " WALKWAY ~ EXISTING i
~ WALL (TO J v •~y, f r f ~ BE REMOVED) ~ ii OEAD STAKE
ii
ii i ~ LIVE STAKE ~ 2~1 SLOPE
i
ROCK TOE PROTECTION EXISTING WALL CONi FIBER ROLL ~
(CLASS B) tT0 8E REtdOVED) LIVE STAKE i
~ EXISTING AND PROPOSED LIVE STAKE
BANKFULL
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION
STATION 6.00 ~ NATURAL FIBER MATTING
NOT TO SCALE CLASS B CLASS 8 ROCK tD,~ B ROCK tD,~ • 16")
1/3 DIAMETER OF RO )IAMETER OF ROCK BELOW
STREAM INVE STREAM INVERT
STREAM WVERT ~•~i NVERT
TYPICAL SECTION -ROCK TOE/JOIN t0E/JOINT
PLANTING PROTECTION ON DOUBLE COIR FIBER ROLL
TOE STABILIZATION DETAIL
RIPARIAN SHRUBS NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
LIVE STAKES N~
25' - TYP.
HIGH FLOW ~Y,,.
I ~ .IY f•Y 'r
8' TYP. , , r. LOW FLOW LIVE STAKE
/ N 1.51
u SQUARE CUT
- - - - - - - - NATURAL FIBER MATTING I TOE IN TOP 6" (MIN,) DEEP, 0.5 FEET MINIMUM OVERLAP REINFORCE WITH STAPLES WITH UPSTREAM FABRIC ON
ROCK TOE PROTECTION ~ 25' MINA~1 FOR BUFFER 16" SPACING( AND BACKFILL TOP OF DOWNSTREAM FABRIC
(CLASS B) BUDS (FACING UPWARD) D•5' 6~, 6..
C/L LIVE CUTTING I' - - - - - - - - - - - TOP OF BANK
PLANT WITH LIVE (t TO 2 OIAMETERI
STAKES OR - STAPLES 18" SPACING
TYPICAL SECTION AT RELOCATION RooTED sHRUes n - - - - - - - STAPLES MAR. 2' SPACING w_
STATION 0.75 (R) ~ -I 0 ® ® ® ~ ® ® ® ~ ~ I. ~ >
NOT TO SCALE LIVE STAKES _ 2' TYP. F a RAt~OMLY SPACED - - ~ - -f I o
ON 2 F00T CENTERS 2'STAPLES SPACING-F~-?I 3
Ex>STNG CHANHEI BANK cNO c~loNC) W 2' iYP, ~ ~ -
< -
ANGLE cur 3o°-as°
EXISTING & PROPOSED I ~
BANKFULI d ~ ~-FLOW TOE PROTECTION ~(n~ (CLASS B STONE>
b ry b ry
..i EXISTING CHANNEL INVERT S? sr ~F TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
STREAMBANK STABILIZATIO TABLE F
TR TMENT STATIOI~MVG*== DEAD STAKE NATURAL FIBER MATTING WITH
- T LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK LIVE STAKES AND ROOTED CUTTINGS
NOT TO SCALE
!R) 0.00 TO ; ' 3•• 0.50 TO 3.00*• 1 (R) 0.00 TO 1.73•
COIR FIBER ROIL NOTE
2 s o ~•oo• COIR FIBER ROLL TOE MATTING TO BE ROLLED LENGTHWISE ALONG STREAMBANK EXTENDING BELOW THE TOE PROTECTION AND A MINIM M N U
NOT TO SCALE OF ONE FOOT FROM TOP OF BANK. IF MORE THAN ONE ROLL
STABILIZATION DETAIL NOT TC ~ 3.50 TO 0~• ~ 3.00 TO 5.00¦* IS REQUIRED, MID~BANK OVERLAP SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF
~ 3 8.00 TO 9.0 7+5o TO 9.00•= ~ NOTES ON DEAD STAKE PLACEMENT ONE FOOT AND SECURELY FASTENED WITH STAPLES.
2" X 4" (UMBER SAW 2" BY 4" DIAGONALLY
~ 1) STAKES ARE TO BE 2 INCHES BY 2 INCHES BY 36 INCHE`, 7.00 TO 8.00 IY 36 INCHES LONG. TO PRODUCE 2 DEAD STOUT STAKES NOT TO SCALE
~ 2)STAKES ARE TO BE SPACED EVENLY ALONG THE FIBER R ~ CJ 5• TO 7.50¦¦ THE FIBER ROLL EVERY 2-3 FEET.
tff NOTE
~ 3) STAKES SHALL BE FLUSH WITH THE FIBER ROLL WITH APF ILL WITH APPROXIMATELY 2/3 OF LIVE STAKES WILL 6E USED ALONG OUTER
z ~ SHRU85 THE STAKE PLACED INTO THE BANK. ~ _ -LIVE STAKES MEANDERS AND HIGHLY ERODABLE REACHES.
o ~ ! N ~L~ D ALL OTHER REACHES WILL BE STABILIZED WITH
-STATIONING REFERS TD CHANNEL THALMEG• 4) STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT APPROXIMATELY A 45 DEGf Y A 45 DEGREE ANGLE TO THE BANK. CONTAINERIZED NATIVE SHRUBS.
a~ NOT CONSTRUCTION BASELINE. w~ STR EAM RESTORATION PROJECT
5)STAKES SHALL BE PLACED THROUGH THE WEBBING. 3BING.
T~'10~~ FOR - W V REED CREEK EA ER PARK

ASHEVILLE N.C.
DATE JANUARY 12, 1998 NOT TO SCALE

i
PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
s ~ . ,
i.. 12 OF 13
V ~ ~ ~ it 6`~ t"r R/W SHEET N0.
~ 1 ~ ~1'~, ~ 'l; ROADWAY DE51GN HYDRAULICS
} ~l ~ ~ is~, c~. m ENGINEER ENGINEER
f ' ~ i N
j' f t~ \ i v '^J~ 01 f ~ \ ~ ~ l) ti
' ~ ~ ` ~ ~ Q
Z ( ' ~ ~ ~ w k1 ,
G?" f. ~ i'~w, ~ Q.' ~ 1 _ "ti, z
, N
~ r o
j j ~ i~ ` 1,4 ~ O ~ ti ro. ~ tY
j y ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ' , ~QF~P1..~ ~rF. ~
( ~ p ,~,,1 , ~ U " ` 44L i y u
W ` \ / 1k. ' S i , . N U+ t V A :p
7 ~ i `i ~ 1 i Y~ ~ ' , R ~ I , ~~s.~ j~ ~ ~~4 ~ . `.~i..
~ .4
;~.U , , ~ F~'•, ~ o ' w . , ~~4'~•
~ ~~E ~~K~or; , ~
~ s x'00 ,o ES~ , .
,~~q,tr ~q~ ~ ~ , - o- 9~.
i ' I T~ A ~v1!'~}~ 430;,,",~,,` ~-i , waew~ N`. ~,,5
-t ,7f7UST s ( j
..1 ~
•y,~ ~ o.
O H
, u• ' , f. , i , y r
~ r M.H ~ , , + Q• ( , ~ ~,h• ' ~ 1 •r ,
\f~t~F?I ~E: ~'RF~iODE~,, ,}P,.E & ,i 'I~ ~iKt~;~ 'r>. R~~IOD~S .o, ~::~::F;' ~ '
I ~ ? V 1 ~ 1 d~, ;;,lei x' ;d` . •y ' ~ ~ ~ ~ j~ ~ ~ V ~ f`, ~r,i' E•:j ~v z hM•H,, ~ 'y
~ S S C , L1S _ ;,r,; '~,1 s '4~'
z a:. E ,fin ~
~ t 9
, ~ ` ~ ? ~ ~ J . ~ ,
~ ~ lz 59 s~ E,a' ( 'n ~ c 's }''92.,30' a? 1 •p ~ ~ i~ s

1 ~ .H.R ` 1 0 . o ,~PEDESTR~~
J Cl I J`'~ T, ap Kt. N t , • ~ BRIDGE'•{$~ L~WOSCAPE ` _ ° I
cG~.c.c;,~ ~ P~ OTHERS) PATHWAY, o N
s S
• E N t.. 0 HERS) N ,
J ~ , ~ ~ , E '~Si:'•fii~5::;>:t•:• f :•:i•i:•:k:;.:;~::•:::;: ",dCHgItJ l.1hIK FEtdCE--<'' , ~,(%~ii s~ii ~ ~ r
~lr - ASPF~A~T PAPKIP~,G ;;,er•:-r:•: ::ac;•::••.~
, , ,
J - » , PROPOSED ~ , L SAP ~ ~
( 6° DocwoaD 6`~; M' E ~ PATHWAY 6 ,
» .a::::;<>;,•; (BY OTHERS)
a N.~:::'.~:. i , , i c , ` ? ,
k ,
.Y I i ' t . . ~ . p 'Si ~ i + ' F , .:n.• MINIMUM .W , , -rpoc~.l i~ 4c~ 'r~, STREAM BUFFER , •
I ~uiSGr~i. a4r •P~' ~ 9 ~ ~ F.';"S ~ s •
• ~ as ~ o ,r,a .5•' r. MH. ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ w.. 9 ,Lt. El0 . s
x, ~ •i~~ ~9.
I . ~ .a ~ , . . . ~ , ~s\ ZONE 1 RIPARIAN FOREST/ SCRUB SHRUB
" A_ '0 .39
, :i 5 nW~. • . .
' ' OPOSEO r LAAgSCAP } ; ,1 ~
1 , - r•,:: 1- ~ PATHWAY ~ •N v \ \ ; S o ~
. ~~~3 . (8Y 0TH R > ~ ~ ~ - ~
it ~ • ~ ~ ~ "'io ,c ; ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , \
o PJ O' ~ ~ ~ , I \ - ZONE 2 RIPARIAN EVERGREEN SHRUB
i ~ ~ k ~ r' ~ , N n ~ ~ 59L£i. H~p.'~PAD ~ -_._-i_..__ aui ~rtia ~ ~ ` ~ r' ''v ~ ~9..'.
DOUBi.E ~ r' ~ , ~ ~4 k v~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~V ' /
1 ( ~ o ~ TrNiVIS COURT r~ x; - ~ ` a t 1~ . 1 ~ ~ G ,
~ -~,~,i ~ , ~~ca y
} ( 4 ~ S 'tl i ! 1, ~ ~ °t• 1 ~DUGOU • , G
' SS s~ ~ i~ i , } i°i v. r 4 ''A;.F:,i.'<< CONC. 8074 ~~1, //1 1 M iX \ ~ \
~ ,k EXISTING T N W ~ ( ' t S 0 E ALL ~ .x;~-' ~ • . ZONE 3 RIPARIAN FOREST , •
;t k ' BE REMOVED) . ~ 1 ' • ,,:,r :~~a:••::: 6 . ! y ~ i ' q~~ ~ P,, . / 1 ~ 1\'\\
° , , ,F'<o i( ' ~ ~ a V ~ / ~ / . ~ .~y
~ "__--i-----%~ ~ iE-.---i i ~ "At . ,.~y,:'i 'C ~ ~ rwaw mat\j ~ _ - / ~ ail : ~ ~ v ~'v
- ~`!4 . ii 11 ° y •
' , _ , " " , . , / , . _ .
- ~ - ; , ~:a,: ~ I a , 1 - - :~LL~_,.---~.u,--------~~-.---___~ ~ WALKWAY 1 ~ c4~ r
~ ~ I :.}'~•F:):?',:, tw pan - +y - ~ / 1` ?~4R\,. Sta+E u~510p'Cnl NN~RA" '~.m, ~ , ~0~ ~ 'R , iQp WE.44tP PlAlf
_ , , , , ~ ~IG~ ~ .'fs;~ss~.~'~. E1USfING~ PE[?~STRIAN; RI E ~r~ ~ •//r 'iS'e`V0 , f ~ ~'~d\~'
c ; I I >--'J--~ _ , • ' ~ ~ , ~
( • _ . . ~ ~ ~ ~as +L ~ ~ r . 5 ,~85' ~ "o, ~ 0 6 ~ , r , • ,
. ~ . t ~ . • ~ - ~ / , . - ~ ~ , , i; 1 - jj • ~ I
. _ ~ ,Q _ 7,~ ~ `
8- ' - Q; ; i.. 'N";;v,_:•;;i;_ir7:!j.:;:i:i:5?}}:::.w x -fir
12r~. ~ • _ J ~ , , » ~F) ,.~I-e J,;' :}F z ''76.x65 t•. ;..i _ `~TM:8;i~ 2 ' i_~ F ~ F , , w ~ 1' ,..1, "x'44;: v::::::: ;,:::.}i!~ '/r,.. • • ':'tr'+::::~~. - and u1te.,
~ ~,:j, f . ~1 t ~.~_3~- i 'J.FTr3;,, ~ ~ .,..tip r ~jy~.. x' f
o F- . ~'6. 209
(7 ~ - yip } ~ ~ - } "1~:8.9~~PC. - ' -4~ 20 ~ ~',t"' ~•i' ::i:~.'} Syr{a~y4,:~1.~~~,~
SEA ~ ( ~ .ba 8p w . . G
~ ~ },T ~ ` ~y x.5,6 a~ ~ ~ ~ .~00}<i g 1 _ I _ I i (1 ~ ~ t"~ ~F,~ -...yam .,.r 2080 ~.)`4 y,~ ro
~ ~ ~ .,,r" W~ . ~ ~ ~ r. • i STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
I ! 9
~ t ~t... Q --4~~,-. , FOR REED CR -WEAVER PARK I a ~ EEK
cn~ J t 73' ~ ~ ~ I o f
i I I f I ,~r ASHEVILLE N.C. RB,~, pG ~ ~ .460 i ~ f m
t t o a iD.B.155' PG.,~~ I ~ ~ DATE JANUARY 12,1998 SCALE•1 - 40

I

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
r` a^ PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
D' 13 OF 13
r` r R/W SHEET N0.
~ ' ROADWAY DE51GN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
Zone Acres Qnt Botanical Nome Common Nome Unit Size Individual Overall Spacing
Minimum Minimum Type Spacing Spacing
Riporion Forest/Scrub Shrub tIMS) tOMS) , ~ ~
1 0.63 Shrubs 50 AmelancNer aonodensls shadbush serviceberry each 3-4 ft container grown 10' 8.3' random
50 Vacclnlum argusflfdlum lowbush blueberry each 1-2 ft container grown 10' 8.3' random 1/8 OF ROOT BALL TO BE SET
50 Aronio orbufffdlo black chokeberry each 1-2 ft container grown 10' 8.3' random 5D Cams raaemoso gray-stemmed dogwood each 3-4 ft container grown 10' 8.3' random ABOVE FINISHED GRADE
3° MULCH
FJIRTH SAUCER 3" HIGH
Trees 30 froxlnus pemsylvanlca green ash each 1" caliper balled & burlap 15' 8.3' random FINISHED GRADE 2 STRANDS OF
30 twercus pokulrls pin oak each 1" caliper bulled & burlap 15' 8.3' random :,,,~;tiN - ra...:vwo;AN ~ ,J..,.a, w ~ 12 GAUGE GALVANIZED WIRE
30 Befulo nfgro aver birch each 1" caliper boiled & burlap 15' 8.3' random ~ui-~i 15 Acar rudrum red maple each 1" caliper balled & burlap 15' 8.3' random ~ ~I~ =¶h~ TWISTED FOR SUPPORT
Ri Orion Ever reen Shrub 15 Cerds aonodensis red bud each 1" caliper balled & burlap 15' 8.3' random ~ ~ P 9 REMOVE BURUP FROM TOP OF BALL 2" - 6°
s I pp TOPSOIL MID PF1~T 3: t RATNO b~ UPRIGHT STAKES 1 /2" RUBBER HOSE
2 0.17 > I MIN. BY VOLUME. BACKFILL IN 9 DYERS.
Shrubs 30 Rladoda~dron maximum rosebay rhododendron each 3-4 ft container grown 10' 10' random - - - a _ _ . pl WATER EACH DYER THOROUGHLY.
30 Kalmla bllfdlo mountain laurel each 3-4 ft container grown 10' 10' random - 15 Nornanells vlrginJono witch hazel each 3-4 ft container grown 10' 10' random BURY ~ D ROPE GUT FLOOD PUNTS TWICE WA OM TOP OF BALL
15 Ilex vertldllolo winterberry each 3-4 ft container grown 10' 10' random VARIES VARIES WITHIN FIRST 24 HOURS T _ grin, 3° MULCH " RtNR~_
3 SAUCER 'DEPTH OF BALL
¦
Riporion forest
3 0.12 B~ B AND BACKFlLL MX
~ B AND CONTAINER GROWN 3:1 RATIO
Trees 15 Tsupo aoraodensis eastern hemlock each 1" caliper bolted & burlap 15' 8.3' random N~ 10 8etub dgro river birch each 1" caliper bolted & burlap 15' 8.3' random NOT TO SCALE TOPSOIL TO PFAT UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE PLACE STAKES PARALLEL UPRIGHT STAKES EXTENDED
r0 WALKS AND BUILDINGS TO FIRM BEARING
Shrubs 34 KdMa laflfoila mountain-laurel each 3-4 ft container grown 10' 8.3' random
25 Homomells virglniono witch hazel each 3-4 ft container grown 10' 8.3' random container grown
B ~ B
NOT t0 SCALE
STREAMBANK STABILIZATION
Live Stakes 385 Sdix aoPtdl Bankers Owarf Willow each 2-3 ft cuttings t ~"-1~ " dio.) 2' 2' random
385 Canua omomum Saky Dogwood each 2-3 ft cuttings t ~"-1 y" dio.) 2' 2' random
ZONE 1 60 AireloncNet ConaabrWs shadbush serviceberry each 1.5-2 ft container grown 4' 4' random
60 Voacfdum onpusfl/dlum lowbush blueberry each 1.5-2 ft container grown 4' 4' random 60 AroNe orbNifdio black chokeberry each 1.5-2 ft container grown 4' 4' random (OMS)
60 Corms roa~moisa gray-stemmed dogwood each 1.5-2 ft container grown 4' 4' random
Zt)~ 2 20 Rlaabdendron naximum rosebay rhododendron each 1.5-2 ft container grown 4' 4' random 20 KdMa loflfdk mountain laurel each 1.5-2 ft container grown 4' 4' random
20 Ibx vertldllda winterberry each 1.5-2 ft container grown 4' 4' random S~
l~~`
Z01~ 3 We Stokes
1. An overall minimum spacing distance (OMS) is assigned to the planting
configuration (see plant schedule).
2. An individual minimum spacing distances (IMS) is assigned to each
individual species (see plant schedule),
Plan view Not To Scale
z
~o
a~
tee} tee}
w~ STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
FOR REED CREEK -WEAVER PARK

a~ ASHEVILLE N.C.
a~
ae~ DATE JANUARY 12, 1998 SCALE NOT TO SCALE

~ c; ~ ti , PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
0^ s ~ 'r , 4 OF 13
~ + ~ ~ ~ , R/W SHEET N0.
61 2 , ,p G ROADWAY DE51GN HYDRAULICS
~ ~ ~ r • I s ENGINEER EN6lNEER
.4 lv + ~ i ~ , O~ ~ ` rt ` '0~?i n'
~ ` 9, 9 0
t~zt~ S ' ~ z
` ~~''r'~ \i ~.Y.
N + o ' q; z
' t ~ p o
~ 4 + Q U
, ~pHa• DRE A Z ~ f L,
W P~ + ,
1. V ':1J:: I
~ f fnC K ~ ~ s cl
VERN o Q hey'. E ~Hqp p u c K ,rte ~
WIC I E~, JR;, A ~ W ~ a g1v1 R , ~ S9: GS~r1e. ~~e
_ NODES, ' .o , r,.:. e c W 5 t p, 9, ~NG
Q•~TR~ST a..~• s , 4.8.7 EE''. ~ . _ `'ti 99 ~
, - -'L 'ti p~ ~
O , t ~ t \ P
F. r~ H , i v • w. \
-7 iv ~ i .4' \ , ~ .
M.H.t ~ ~ t
V~RNE~'RNODES,, Jet &''~N~LL~IAI~ W. RHODES ~ r: • • _ , ~ \
t7 D~ c ~ • ~,r f . , i•., M.H• t \ WA VIA ~ K ` C~ BAN T ~ \ ,
,R • S,T ~0•,TRUST`EE ; ~ s , ••ti- , . \
. _ t~ ' ~4 ~ \ ' ••:~V 1 J~ ~ v I
N ~ ~ 'r ~ o ~ ~ ~v s
~ e , y
' S9" r xr s c \ F ~ ,
E'. 192.30,.. q \ ' i 1,3~ \
, A H T DITCH , J W \ • O kk r ,
ro ! \
•CONC.CURB ~ p a !'t .1 ti ~ ~ 1~:d : M.H.
` 'r'
p, i 4, r , CHNN LMK FENCE n ',1;~ \ - ASPHALT PARKIP}G ~ c+ ~
1". V. \ 0.~.96tPG. 7'~~ p,;.~.. r , . ~J , \
J , ~ ~:r , ,
~TRE'AI~', ~ ' ' + , ~p Z ~ _ , ~ s ~ 8
6° Docwooo 64 MAPLE Cf IA~INEI', LANDSCAPE ' , B ' PATHWAY \ . \
` ~ ~ (@Y OTHERS) ' ;i \
, , Q ~ ~ 11c ,
' ~ , ;'1, f ~ i~', A i ' ~ 'y 30'MAPLE P,6.21PG.65 '~`;:%,A, A Y c ~ n, \
a 3 ti ~ "iii 'r ~ <V. \
-ROCK ~ G~ ~ . ~ICN. 0~' , 0~' 0~ \
~ s A%`, \ , 2 . o . o 'i ~ M.H. \ \
' ° <x x`~'; < c BALL FIEID s :f, \ u ' ~ ' s \s
a ~ RE ATEO ; ;t \ 1~ 90
~ N P TRIAN ~~\lS
. yV 0 ` , ' . ~ , Q G
LANDSCAPE t . f<~.,;~. 1-%~~ ~ ,t i F ~
W PATHWAY t''' ,,t.~~: ~ ~ , \ ,
l@Y OTHERS) ~ ~ ; ~ ; ~ >I , o I ~e S I s t t ` ~ o , \ ~ ` c~i`• \
y, _ O ti~ ~ ~ t f~~M S + ~ `t p 20 Mfihl; S ~ h ' ~ t po
in ' ~ + f:; ~ r ` o N ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ r, \ ' \ G.
fv i ~ r G. r ~ O CO G E 1 I ~ . ( t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
z , , ~ ~ ~ _ ~ DOUBLE ' ~ i I e1u n¢n ~ c I c x~ G ~ ~ ' ~ ~ , + l ~ t i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ j
TENNIS COURT ' F', ~ I ; + + + i 9 ° - / ~ ,q v :K( .w` 3
m ' , 20" MAPLE + c @ ` ~ 1 ~ /1. ! ~l , ~ ~
' ~ '~'ti 24" MAPLE ~ + r s"~ i :'`T' r `i. , :•iY. , DUGOUT , i i
~ \ ! ; ~ \
«~'h~DY' STONE WALK
. ~ (TO BE REMOVED) ~ o'° ~ , ,
• / ° - .L nl S ~ E t i n'1 ~l,L ~ ~
I, i , , , ° \
' ` e.'Ar ewa ~ \ ° ~
• \
r t ' , v "A}}• w. °rat wep B. BALSAM , ' L ' ~ ' - i ~i ASPIWTaxanrc ~S ~ \ \ s
• t ~ r EXISTING ~ I ~ , . . ~ 1- , ~ ~ i WALKWAY a~ ! ~
•l OV NLf "V' t l:4 I ',p ..A. V ~ 1.110 I 1. i/ C ~ g p, ? , P~ STOP IKTpICK
'i' ~ raw rR~ufA PNr ! r,
~i cS 0 1 s e rye
~ -t5~35,> E~(IS~ING; PEQ~STRI'AN '@RIDGE , ~ >.`::::~:z.. r
, , ~ SHR =20 ,S,g;r. ~ t C, ~ ~ Q/ 1 . .,4••, ~ ~sr n~ i i' !r 7~ ~ . S -~'Y~S
ues 4 , 5 ,gs' I _ ~ 80 6 I ,
• , ~ ' _ - :,l:~i: _ _ _ - ASPXI~T PMM71G \
~t_ ! ~ \
~ .e: raj. ~0A465 - r _ ~ I. W I . - t jy ' ~ ~ ,1 P • • HJ.::.;v::2:~~:A~:.'•.'•`• a, h;{5:. ~ onc. curb \
PATRI~~A-~ SF~t~A Y _ ..z.~.. a'' ~ ~7 and tier
D.B.1481 PG.595.. ~1`a~1..1 °:1 -~-.....I ~66•~~,~, .~r; z S. -Og I"an"'`''..-~..;:'x..~'-~L , . ~:rr
Sao I 1 1 I ~ I- r I ~ ~ ~ - "•1V -83a _ _ _
I I 1 I - I , _r, •I. `?~:.PC.w4 080 .:~t._ =..S`,: _ ;
I L At ..I,. ~s ac. BOOK s~6 1. ~ 424,) na-~ '~a?•r:;Y::,: :.k:. v::..;
I I I I f AGE 511 r ...f,...:. ~ I I 11 ( ~ ~ I " 1 , REAM RESTORATION PROJECT s ~ :~t'
t-~ I I I I I 9 I a ~ N.. , BRID
~ t r r~c,nv~;Q I I I I I I ~ ~ 1 12 I D I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ :~-r-. ~ , _ - FOR REED CREEK WEAVER PARK . ,a a .
I 1 (~It1 r I , I I I I 13 13 ~ I I ~ I
t~ d ons~ h t~ rat I I M o - ,-t;, ASHEVILLE N.C. ~ o.a. ~ I I I 43 PC.460 I m I ai I
I I I I I ~ I I I I ~ I ° i o ID.6.1557 PG.~38 DATE: JANUARY 12, 1998 SCALE: 1" = 40'

EXISTING GROUND EXISTING FENCE EXISTING CHANNEL BANK
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN PROPOSED GRADE (NO GRADING)
WALKWAY
---------~-,rte-__------- I--------- ~ T ~.-I i 4
~
~ -r ~ -
~ 1
~ i r ~ ~ i
NATURAL FIBER MATTING J' r EXISTING & PROPOSED
I ~ 2~1 SLOPE i ~ .OPE - BANKFULL
~ ~ ADDITIONAL FLOOD-PRONE AREA j ~ e` ROCK TOE PROTECTION (GRADE AND REVEGETATEI I
1 EXISTING CHANNEL INVERT 0?'3
I NATURAL FIBER MATTING I REVEGETATE WITH CONTAINERI; MATTING ~ S (F r ~~r 11TH CONTAINERIZED ti
SHRUBS (SILKY DOGWOOD, BLA DOGWOOD,BIACK
WILLOW, OR ARROWWOOD) ROWWOOD)
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION A-A' _ _ I I-
TATION 2.00 ~ ~ S
NOT TO SCALE ROCK TOE PROTECTION COIR FIBER ROLL
FIBER MATTING/ ROCK TOE DETAI COIR FIBER ROLL TOE )E DETAIL
STABILIZATION DETAIL NOT TO SCALE
NO NOT TO SCALE NOTES 1) STAKES ARE TO BE 2 INCHES BY 2 INCHES BY 36 INCHES LONG.
25' 2) STAKES ARE TO BE SPACED EVENLY ALONG THE FIBER ROLL EVERY 2-3 FEET.
HIGH FLOW
8'
LOW FLOW - 3) STAKES SHALL BE FLUSH WITH THE FIBER ROLL WITH APPROXIMATELY 2/3 OF
- PROPOSED THE STAKE PLACED INTO THE BANK.
PEDESTRIAN - ~a , j WALKWAY _ ~ EXISTING I
D r''`j,• `rl WALL ) w 4)STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT APPROXIMATELY A 45 DEGREE ANGLE TO THE BANK.
II 0 a I EXISTING ~ W a 0
II I WALL y o t~
II II _ I O I~ 0
I I a o a
ROCK TOE PROTECTION ~ a 0
A A a
24"
DEAD )EAD ~
~ STREAM PEG 'EG
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION B-B M BOTTOM
STATION 5.75 0
NOT TO SCALE 12 GAUGE WIRE _
1
~ a ~ ~ ,
~i
~ 2~1 SLOPE
LIVE BRANCH LAYER J' I
PLAN vlEw ~ NATURAL FIBER MATTING ~ REVEGETATE WITH CONTAINERIZED
~ SHRUBS (SILKY DOGWOOD, BLACK
LAYER LIVE E NATURAL FIBER MATTING WILLOW, OR ARROWWOODf -LAYER LIVE BRANCHES TO A ~
BACKFILL MINIMUM 6" OVER LIVE MINIMUM DEP1 BRANCHES WITH EXISTING TOPSOIL BRANCHES SF MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 . LIVE _ Q,~. BRANCHES SHALL BE A MINIMUM - Fib
PROPOSED 25' PROPOSED LENGTH OF 4 PEDESTRIAN HIGH FLOW PEDESTRIAN FROM THE BI LENGTH OF 48" AND SHALL PROTRUDE ST C~
WALKWAY WALKWAY FROM THE BANK A MINIMUM OF 24". F
BRUSH \1 B' LAYERING COIR FIBER ROLL TOE PROTECTION r~--
LOW FLOW ~ 12 12 GAUGE WIRE
I ~ N , =
I ~ it I ~ BANKFULL ELEVATION i
I
ROCK TOE PROTECTION ~ 25' MINIMUM I .
I I i FI A T IR FI BER M T LNG/ CO BER ROLL DETAIL
C/L C/L DEAD PEG
CROSS-SECTION NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL MEANDER SECTION C-C'
STATKNV 7?50 PLAN VIEW & TYPICAL SECTION -BRUSH L~ NOT TO SCALE 3RUSH LAYERING
NOT TO SCALE
II,
~I
_
~ - - ~ _
t- ~ _

~ r;
NATURAL FIBER MATTING ~
1 VGS
PROPOSED 20' ~ ~ PROPOSED 't' ROOTED PLANTINGS PEDESTRIAN FLOW PEDESTRIAN)
WALKWAY i % ' WALKWAY
:1 ~ 10 ti
_ _ LOW FLOW _ _ _ ~ CLASS II ROCK ~ '
' i~ CLASS II ROCK (I LASS II ROCK (D,~ • 16")
I ~ ~ fV i i ` ` BIOLOGS ~ 1/3 DIAMETER 0 1/3 DIAMETER OF ROCK BELOW
STREAM STREAM INVERT
~ I 25' MlNM(1M I ~ ~ _ „ I ~ STREAM INVERT :AM INVERT
_ ~ ~ ~~r
C/L C/L
TYPICAL SECTION -ROCK TOE/J K TOE/JOINT
TYPICAL TANGENT SECTION D-D' PLANTING PROTECTION ~TION
STATION 8.50
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
r c c
C
SCALE: AS SHOWN
L
~ ENGINEERS 10 NORTH C ION DETAILS AND TYPICAL SECTIONS 1
C r
Nr VALLEY, xoa,~E eBe CONCEPTUAL STREAM RESTORATION U C
K C-7 "U ,,,a,,,s_,aoo REED CREEK, WEAVER ER PARK, ASHEVILLE, N.C.
TECHNOL 06 IES SHEET 2 OF 2 T a
C C U
C C
f

4,f~ j~iq ; ~ d" y~," a F F zp. : r,~p l.ata P~ a ' ~ Sa " ~ a r k k ~ ~ ~ I
e q~ .~,~,4 a t ~ ~ ~ ~
a ~ ~ P~ rid F- ~ x, J'~. w ' ~ ¦ ,k~..., ~ 1
,
4 t4k ,ac ~ vp. N ; , ~'~°+7++ ~ 1 7
1 r
• . ' t , ~ . 1' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; x,1,9 ~,a• ~ . ~ ~ ~ ` ~ 'o N 1 ~
,-~x , ~ „y~9. r ~ !gym r i ~ ,.q. P,.:,, ~ ~ n' ~ D
A , ~t 4 , ; x x 1 d
~i'h . t ' ~.1.. 1 z
f~..~ ~ , 4 ~P ~ ~ "S, , ~ ~ ~ , 1 S
~ N~ 0
1 z ` o
* 'k ~ ~ . , r ~ r ~~1, 0 1 ~ c~
`r f, ~ ~ ~ z. ~ ~ 1 U
a I ~ 1 Z
, `
. } £,..n. ~ T 'tt 1
r.~ z 1, ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ? N ~ M.H.
. Y. ~ ~ ~ ~ 3*` ~a t w~~ 1 fir, ti ~ A , ~ 1
a t^ ~ 1
+~^I sy 1 ~t ~+~.~,y ~ ~u 1's' ~
1
1
~a,+ ~a~~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o & ODDS •(ti ti ? s 1
l
~ ~~s i . ~ ° ~ x ~,MT. ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TRU BANK & F , s, ~
~ s ) P ~
; s~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ TR.3 ,~0 ~ N
- \ ' ~ 1 , ~0 ~ O
- ~ \ i y
~ d~' ~ ~ \ ~ \
icini a ~ ~ ~ s ~ ; ~ ~s \ sT ~ \ P`"F,,
~ % ~ \ 1
s e v 1 e ~ M.H. 1
` ~0v , s i ` r W ~ ~ \ -
ua ran e ~ '',w ~ ?'1 s ~ ` w,~ c , , 1
~ o, SCALE 1 2000 V NE RHODES, ,1R~ & WILLIAM N1~RHODES ~ 1
V \ ~
Q WACHgVIA BANK & TRUST CO.,TRbSTEE Q ' s ~ \ , ''N \ ~
~ D.B.854 PG.9., ~ ~ Ogo ~ \ ~
° ~ c~ ~ \ s \
II^^ ~ ~ L V) ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ w.
~ ~ ~ s +5 0 ~ s s,~ o~\ s ~
. ~ 9 ~ ~ o ~ As '~o s,~,, ~ \ ~
1.00' S 83° 0' S " ° 'n N 9 E 192 ~ N 4, " \ ~ \F
BANK CLASSIFICATION .30 ~Q1.30 ~ ~ \ o \ ~ es \ ~
o
EXISTING STREAM CHANNEL o ; HALT DITCH ; ~ PTE TIAL vl W ~ ~ o ~ ~ FU R •
~ o I . J GRID ~ \
9+~ , RELOCATED STREAM CHANNEL ~ ~ ~ PROPOSED \ )POSED ~ \ ~
DNC.~~e 1 . WALKWAY ~ M.H. LKWAY " ~
' . ~ ~ , \ ~
n n- Z w I _ S M.H. CLASS A REGRADE ANO PLANT I , - - I.H. I \ a ` \ ~
8+ • CHNN LINK FENCE \ ~ " \ ~
„ „ - ASPHALT PARKING ~ ~ ~ ~ ;
CLASS B BRUSH LAYERING ; ; ~ , D,B. 1 PG.3771 ~ i ; , ~ ~ \ a ~ ~
a 1 , 1 ~ , \ 1
_ ~ ~ , CLASS C COIR FIBER ROLL 1 ~ SCD~E ` 1
~ ` , ' s ~ ~ ; ~ ~ A \
s DocwoaD a.. MAPLE ~ s i s S ~ \ \ 1
CLASS D -ROCK TOE/ JOINT PLANTING PROTECTION - ~ o ~ ~ N \ \ \
~ $ ~Q , s . ' \ , • \
MAp P.B. 21 PG. 65 ~ 3t LE CLASS "E" -FIBER MATTING/ COIR FIBER ROLL , ~ ' u. \ O
~ ~ ~ \ \ °
' ~ ~ , s \
" " - TIN /ROCK TOE ~ ~ ~ ' I CLASS F FIBER MAT G F ~ BALL FIELD f ` f,1.H. ALL FIELD ~ \ s
O 1 ~ \ \ ~
i ~ .r , r 1 1 L.P.
STREAM BUFFER ZONE ~ y / ~ ~ 7 3 r s ~
1 Re~OC TED', ~ ~ \ G F 1
W RK IN THIS AREA ~ x" MAPLE1 ~ ; NO 0 PEQEST IAN ; r N ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ p ~ , v, v
W BRIDGE ~ ' / ~ , \ 1, .J. o
~ ~ ~ 'o ~ ~ ~ \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~
o ~~5~,. a' wiPligE r O ~ ~ ~ , ~ 20" MIU'LE v- ~ ~ , ~ ~ \
~ 3 i . ~ g ~ 7 *',00 r I ~ v ~ ~ ` ~ ; I \ ~ ~ \ r
~ W ~ CONCRETE i I N ~ ~ ~ o - ;
Z N, F ~ BLEA+CV£R PAD ~ ~ eiu rm • U LE I ~ ~ I DO 8 s~ wi ' 1 ~ ~
TENNIS COURT ~ ~ ~ I \ ~ /
0 20• MAPLE .Il ~ , ~
~ ' • ~ 24• MAPLE DUGOUT , e v. I 1 \
• ~ ~ ' ~ ' , ~ u ` ~ LPG \ < 1 , \ ~ i ~ ~ h
~ M 't50
6 ; , ~ ~ ~ I ' 8" ~/PRE ; r r 1 i ~ i \ ~ ~ ~ 1
. rr 1 ~ ~
,f ` a~.Wiw
JiJ~' \ ~ / ~ \ i \ - ~ ~ \ ~''P
I ~ ~ ~ „ ~
~ r u ? X00 ~ B"BALSAM , i ~ aooa eao~ _ ~ ~ rr 1 Q ~ r ~ \ i `l~`
ri tQ EXISTING / \ ~ • ~ \ c ~ Y~
- ~ ~ - - , '.6 T~~ LEGEND: V . , _ - _ ~ -1 _ WALKWAY / \ / ~ ~t~
~ ~ . 4 SO, 1litGY~LF~ _ - . p ~ ~ ~ \ '~6 ~ . ° r- _ \ ~ ,
C ...POINT NOT SET sTEPS ~ , ? 1 ® ~ o ?awr1w 1 1 awc,our ` '-i \ 4,, ~ 6;
....IRON PIPE OR PIN SET 154 EXIS ING PEDE TRIAN BRI E ~ 1 ' F ...,SPIKE OR NAIL SET ~ r ' \ / 1 ®
N 83, (TO E RELOCAc7ED) h ~ r• E.I.P. • EXISTING IRON PIPE OR PIN .y.,~~ sops 1 L; A. w /1 L.~ t
s 59" I~ 158. ~ ~ -X---X- FENCE LINE ? ~ I - ?Og 2 ~ ? ? r I 0 214. i4' O~0 - _ -
C• CURVE (SEE CURVE TABLE) J I I I - ~ ~ E.I.P. ~ pip ~~i-_~"~----_'• ~ ~ \ "
L• LINE (SEE LINE TABLE) ? I I IN 83° y ~ ~ + ,c ? ? I , I O Sg W Imo` ~ S~ 1 50 ~ ' \
U.P.• UTILITY POLE t ~I`~ D ~ ~.03'`~ ICTOR C. SH61gL,Y & ~ 8,,21) pG,4® I I ~ I I N , M.H,• MANHOLE A~ IA K. H AL'Y••••. I } z ~ 5 ~ 83 20'SS I N 83° - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ona curb \
RlG S E I W I ~ I I r••••... L.P.• LIGHT POLE ~ ~ ~j •I. 20 59" W i Z _ and guff
D.6.1481 PG.595 ••I,a~~ I ''I•••.p:e.,a,4 ~G.,B I I C.B.• CATCH BASIN $ I I~ ~ 6 I 2 1 ~ ~ I D.s,,22o
---P--- • POWER LINE I ~ ~ ' ` pG.62; 2 ~
---W--- • WATER LINE I I I I I 8 I I ~ I , I i~ Y ~ , D.B. ~ M - ~ \ ~
---T--- • TELEPHONE LINE I I I I I I PLAT BC PIAt g ~ ~ 1218 PG.S78 I ~ ~ I (n 424.75' - - _ _ _ _ 00 8 + ~ fl
---S--- • SEWER LINE I I I I i W.M.- WATER METER I I I I i PgGE I ~I~ ~ h I""~ 5 ~ N s / + I 11 I I ~ ~ I I 'r
I I I I I 9 W.V.• WATER VALVE 9 I I I I O I~ O I
C.M.P.• CORRUGATED METAL PIPE I I I I I 10 I I 12 I O I S O t ~ I
I I I P.V.C.• POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE I I I 13 c~ I~ I QI
I I f I D•B,743 pG,46 0 + I o I m I ~ O I D.B.1 ~
i I 1 ~ ~ ~ 557 a~
~ i I I Q I O I ~+•aJj's \ [
SCALE: 1" = 40'
ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS CONCEPTUAL STREAM RI 1
10 NORTH PARK DRIVE RESTORATION PLAN ( +
( Q
C C
K 7'7 HUNT VALLEY, MD. 11030-1888 PA'. REED CREEK, WEAVER TECHNOLOGIES [phone] PARK, ASHEVILLE, N.C. r
SHEET 1OF 2 T 0
f
u

0

Technical Report

H(m- I
TIP No. R-230E
State Project No. 8.1841702
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 96-ICC-03
Contract No. A302659
Prepared for.
-.-
??-s.,_. yl S
{f€/ ?yF` i Yc
N? _r ? '?: il' ?1 ?'?1 ;ilk ELI ?:11;11
En 7111WID
Prepared by:
Ifn. T.
jj

0
0
1vC -A
s ? ? 4.«. sM 41. a
03p,port
v,
-(801DIC.0 ft iream Ion
f St
'Resturafl
Reed Creek'
I V*
e Me,
-8iMll inn
NWQ
4VI - F-
ti ado ?flvcfVo. ;8.1841702
4s° ?h Y N D J Co6sulting•Project No. 96-KC-03
tr V o..A302659 .
?'? ,k ?. 'e f ^.Ff .i.? .,?.?«_?-r. .dam ,.-w •b w- u. .+
1 14
.' t
,j. ffi/7 r. 7? • '.. '1 t,) j s . ?- ?- mow" I._
x ? - °r :.tmee t of ??_asp(?l `
71.
'? t 11
_'ts'` • r4 1 U ?i' { '?{?'y ..7i1 TYJ?a °'+? 5i °"?+"„ y ?-?`
LJ_
rv ix? . ? ..Al a I kofh , Inc. -., .
Calm. an
X 0C XCew©
rTl
y ? April 14, 1907
:- 4
ll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT GOALS ...................................................... 1
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................ 1
3.1 Watershed ....................................................... 1
3.2 Site Description ................................................... 4
3.3 Channel Description ............................................... 4
4.0 PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN ............................................ 7
4.1 Planform ......................................................... 7
4.2 Cross-Section ..................................................... 7
4.3 Bank Stabilization ................................................. 8
4.4 Park Features ..................................................... 9
5.0 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ........................................ 9
6.0 REFERENCES ........................................................ 10
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX B HEC-RAS OUTPUT AND CROSS-SECTIONS
APPENDIX C USGS REGIONAL REGRESSION DATA
0
9 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has completed this Conceptual Stream
Restoration Plan for the restoration of Reed Creek to satisfy permit requirements associated
with the proposed improvements to Route 74 in Buncombe County. These improvements
along Route 74 required the relocation of Gashes Creek, a tributary to the Swannanoa River.
In addition to the rehabilitation of Gashes Creek onsite, a Site Search was conducted (KCI,
January, 1997) to locate streams requiring restoration in the Swannanoa and French Broad
watersheds. Reed Creek, a tributary to the French Broad River north of Asheville, was
selected as the candidate stream available for restoration Figures 1 and 2). Two (2)
additional potential restoration sites were located in the Swannanoa watershed, but
landowners were not willing to participate. Availability, existing bank erosion, lack of
riparian buffers, potential for water quality improvements and educational opportunities
established Reed Creek as the primary candidate for restoration. The reach area identified
for restoration is the portion of Reed Creek in Weaver Park between Murdock Avenue and
Merrimon Avenue, approximately 400 meters (1,300 linear feet) along the channel
centerline. The restoration will include approximately 670 meters (2,200 linear feet) of bank
stabilization. The restoration methodology applied for this project and presented within this
report includes fluvial geomorphological principles, innovative technology for creating
stable channel geometry, planform, and bank protection using various bioengineering
techniques.
2.0 PROJECT GOALS
In addition to meeting the permit requirements for restoration, the goals of this restoration
project include:
Develop an environmentally sensitive approach to stabilizing the stream channel using
fluvial geo morphological principles and bioengineering measures.
• Restore habitat and reduce erosion potential along Reed Creek through revegetation,
in-stream habitat improvements, and bank stabilization
• Improve water quality conditions downstream through the stabilization of channel
sediments, shading, pollutant uptake, flood attenuation.
• Integrate stream stabilization and habitat enhancement goals with opportunities for
educational advancement and park utilization.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Watershed
The watershed draining to the project site is approximately 600 hectares (1,470 acres).
Watershed limits to the east are defined by the northeast-southwest trending Beaucatcher
and Sunset Mountains reaching elevations of approximately 944 meters (3,100 feet) above
B
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i

i
wr ? •
1 [17 1'af
w
r?i / L 2 »V) tKt f
1? S iL 11. I Q 13 V
i?
y p
Q/
3 O f ... lLl .f? a,,
?• X911? r a ?!•Y r?? "

?4? 6?
?' It
73
0

Y
f i
.L ? ll '?l J??? I i , •
IT+ i O ? { I i! U W
11 ll (S r ,?lV.l
O I' J?Y? F.? ysN U \ , t. ,
r 4y ? .
Lr_
f-
<''• u'.yff r t .?
?u
Figure 2. Location Map
/d chAavillA Mr [ Jiiarfl
\- ----- - ----7 - - - --------/
u
mean sea level (MSL). Weaver Park is situated in the foothills at elevation 634 meters
(2,080 feet) above MSL. The watershed is comprised of a combination of residential,
commercial, and institutional land uses. Residential areas occur as singular, large and more
recent homes along the mountain ridges to more concentrated and older developed areas in
the foothills. Commercial and institutional zones are less prominent in the watershed and
are also more common in the lower watershed area, particularly along Murdock Avenue and
Merrimon Avenue. Development in the watershed has likely reached a maximum (Al Kopf,
1997). The relief and degree of urbanization of the watershed [approximately 300 meters
(1,000 feet)] and it's influence on site hydrology, are likely the most significant watershed
characteristics impacting the channel restoration design. The precipitous relief reduces
surface storage of runoff causing a reduction in lag time to peak flows and an increase in
flow quantity. Urbanization influences exacerbate "flashy" hydrology with impervious
surfaces (reducing infiltration) and networks of storm drains and curb and gutter systems.
These watershed characteristics create unique (and often difficult) conditions for a channel
to establish a stable form.
3.2 Site Description
Weaver Park is approximately 2.7 hectares (6.6 acres) in size and is comprised of a baseball
field, basketball court, tennis courts and children's playground. Park mapping, including
topography, boundary survey and utility locations was provided by the Asheville Parks and
Recreation Department. The property is triangle in shape and is defined by Murdock Road
to the east, Merrimon Road to the west and single family residences to the south. The park
is relatively flat from Murdock Road west towards Reed Creek than slopes up from the creek
to the tennis courts and Merrimon Road. Reed Creek enters the park from the southeast
corner through a double cell (6 feet X 8 feet) box culvert under Murdock Avenue. The
channel proceeds westerly along the southern property border for a distance of
approximately 200 meters (500 feet) then turns north and enters a culvert under Merrimon
Avenue for a total distance of approximately 530 meters (1,300 feet). Park landscaping is
typical with well maintained turf throughout and occasional large trees, primarily boxelder
maple (Acer negundo) and silver maple (Acer saccharinum).
3.3 Channel Description
Reed Creek in the project area is classified as Class "C" waters according to the Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). The channel is perennial and is comprised of a substrate dominated by gravel sized
material. Some reaches of Reed Creek exhibit a bi-modal distribution of sediment (high
proportions of fines in addition to gravel) typical of urban and degrading streams.
According to the Asheville Parks and Recreation department (Al Kopf, 1997), Reed Creek
originally traversed the center of the park property and was subsequently relocated to the
west. In addition to the relocation, channel encroachment likely occurred to accommodate
park features such as parking, walkways, and the various recreational facilities. Particular
encroachment has occurred along a reach approximately 82 meters (200 feet) in length,
in the southwest section of Reed Creek where stone and concrete walls have confined the
channel.
1

1 3.3.1 Planform
At its current location, Reed Creek exhibits a fairly straight course with minimal sinuosity;
a measure of the ratio of stream length to valley length. The estimated sinuosity is 1.1. The
low sinuosity is likely due to both the confinements of the Weaver Park recreational features
and the stream gradient (approximately 1.3%). This slope is sufficiently steep to reduce the
development of well established channel meanders. Based on empirically derived data,
other features of channel planform including: meander wavelength, meander amplitude, and
radius of curvature typically correspond to the channels bankfull dimensions; particularly
width (Leopold et al. 1964). Assuming the channel form is in relative equilibrium with
watershed sediment and water inputs, average planform relationships for a given bankfull
width can be generated. The estimated bankfull width (based on visual observations and
preliminary cross-sectional data) of Reed Creek is 4 meters (10 feet). Table 1 compares the
derived channel planform features based on empirical data and that of Reed Creek for a ten
foot wide bankfull channel section.
TABLE 1. Comparison of Empirical Data and Reed Creek Channel Features
Feature Empirical Data* Reed Creek
Meander Amplitude 17 meters (57 feet) 11 meters (36 feet)
Meander Wavelength 37 meters (120 feet) 70 meters (230 feet)
Radius of Curvature 7 meters (23 feet) 12 meters (40 feet)
*From Williams, 1986
The poor correlation in the empirical data to observed Reed Creek features are likely
attributable to the historical modifications of the channel and its current urban setting. The
empirically derived data on stream channel characteristics used for comparison were
generated from streams in relatively undeveloped watersheds.
3.3.2 Riffle-Pool Complexes
Q Riffle-pool complexes are important features for the establishment of in-stream aquatic
habitats. Their establishment is directly related to the planform features discussed
previously. Pools and riffles generally establish (on average) at spacings associated with
one-half the meander wavelength or at approximately six times the bankfull width.
Therefore, at Reed Creek, pools and riffles should be spaced at approximately 18 meter (60
foot) intervals. Since the planform features of Reed Creek do not match the empirical data,
riffle-pool spacings are also inconsistent and variable. Evident in Reed Creek are poorly
defined complexes which could be classified as extended pools or run reaches.
3.3.3 Channel Batiks and Riparian Zones
The majority of the channel banks along Reed Creek reveal influences of erosion. Bank
erosion causes are likely attributable to a flashy flow regime, channel encroachment, and
lack of bank vegetation. The most severe erosion is located immediately upstream or
3
downstream of channel confinements (Photo #6) and in the lower reach at the downstream
end of the property (Photo #3). The bank degradation appears to be the result of fluvial
entrainment of unconsolidated soil material associated with high channel flows. The lack
of riparian vegetation in establishing a root matrix to protect the soil is likely a significant
cause of erosion.
3.3.4 Site Hydrology
Preliminary existing hydrology to the site was established based on the following two
methods:
1) discharge estimates from USGS regression equations
2) discharge estimates based on site specific geomorphic measurements
The establishment of site hydrology is a key feature in the development of stream restoration
design plans. Key features include the determination of recurrences and associated flood
elevations for selected discharges and the channel's dominant discharge or channel forming
flows. These are important for the establishment of stable channel geometry and the
determination of appropriate elevations for vegetative establishment.
J The USGS Regional Regression Equations for North Carolina (Blue-Ridge Piedmont Urban)
revealed discharges ranging from 22m3/sec (789 ft3 /sec) for the two year event to 78m3/sec
(2,742 ft3/sec) for the 100 year storm (APPENDIX Q. These estimates are likely on the
high side since the model averaged imperviousness and slope throughout the watershed;
which does not accurately represent the study area. The slopes are steep in the eastern part
of the Reed Creek watershed, yet imperviousness in this region is low. A second set of flows
were calculated using the standard (not urban) Blue-Ridge USGS regression equations. The
estimated flows using this method ranged from 7.3m3/sec (256 ft3/sec) for the two year event
to 34.8m3/sec (1,228 ft3/sec) for the 100 year storm. It is likely safe to assume that flows for
this watershed fall somewhere between the estimates generated from these two models.
Better flow estimates from more detailed hydrologic models (e.g. TR-20) would be
necessary to improve the determination of runoff volumes based on detailed watershed
mapping.
The second method of determining flows in Reed Creek involved the use of data collected
onsite and used as input to a hydraulic program (HEC-RAS). Five (5) field run cross-
sections at selected reaches were obtained and estimates of channel slope and roughness
(Mannings coefficients) were used as input data into the HEC-RAS hydraulic program.
Average channel slope used is 1.2% and an estimated roughness coefficient of 0.03. A
series of discharges ranging from 0.710sec (25 ft3/sec) to 8.5m3/sec (300 ft3/sec ) were then
run through the model to observe the resulting flood elevations at each section. Based on
the HEC-RAS results (APPENDIX B), bankfull flow was estimated at 2.8m3/sec (100 ft3
/sec). Discharges exceeding the current banks of Reed Creek required a discharge of over
7

8.5m3/sec (300 ft'/sec). Since these flow estimates were based on site-specific data, they
were used as the foundation for the concept design plans.
During the final design stage, more detailed modeling of the Reed Creek flows will be
conducted. This may involve the implementation of a fully automatic flow monitoring
program through the installation of pressure transducers and data loggers. The additional
data will be used to refine the design and determine more accurate tractive forces on the
proposed bed and bank materials.
4.0 PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN
The Proposed Concept Plan for the restoration of Reed Creek is provided in the back of this
report. The plans illustrate, in detail, proposed changes in planform, cross-section, bank
stabilization details and park features. The proposed Concept Plan to restore Reed Creek
attempts to accommodate both improved in-stream and riparian conditions and the current
use of Weaver Park. Obviously, attempts to restore Reed Creek to historical stream
conditions (through the center of the park) would be illogical and excessive. Therefore, the
proposed plan will work with the current gross channel location, and improve channel
conditions by slightly modifying attributes such as sinuosity, channel cross-sections, and
bank slopes. Key to the development of the plan is the expectation that watershed conditions
are relatively static with insignificant changes in watershed hydrology and sediment loading
anticipated. In addition, since Reed Creek is located in an urban setting with competing
adjacent landuses and utilities, the degree of desired channel movement is minimal.
Therefore, the proposed plan will establish a framework from which the channel will have
the ability to adjust slightly, yet not impact adjacent utilities or property.
4.1 Planform
The proposed Concept Plan for Reed Creek will maintain the majority of the current channel
planform. Due to the degree of encroachment and adjacent properties along the southern
property edge, minimal lateral change in channel location is proposed for the first 152
meters (500 feet) (Station 0+00 to 5+00). Proposed shifts in the downstream channel
sections occur near Station 5+25, 8+50, 9+50 and 10+75. These adjustments serve to re-
establish riffle-pool sequences and improve the flooding efficiency (reduce stream power)
of Reed Creek.
4.2 Cross-section
From Station 0+00 to 5+00, cross-sectional changes are proposed to reduce the existing
steep channel banks, particularly along the north side of the channel and obtain additional
flood prone area on the south side with minimal grading. Targeted stable slopes will attempt
to remain at 1.5:1 (upper limit for effective bioengineered slope treatment) or less. Cross-
sectional adjustments for the lower reaches include the removal of the stone wall near the
existing pedestrian bridge and replacement of a section with more available floodplain to

? ?D
the north. Three (3) sections of relocations will also occur from Station 7+00 to Station
8+00, Station 8+00 to 10+00, and Station 10+50 to 11+00.
The determination of the appropriate cross-sectional dimensions at these locations was based
on the field evaluations of relatively stable reaches, floodplain/terrace features and the
preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. Site features appear to indicate the
development of a two tiered or nested channel. Note tiered floodplain surfaces on Photo #4,
Photo #5, and Photo #7. The most stable reach section observed exhibiting this feature is
near Station 8+50 (Photo #7). Using a Mannings coefficient of 0.03 and slope of 1.25
percent, a discharge of approximately 2.8m3/sec (100 ft' /sec) filled the low flow of this
channel section. The high flow region retained a discharge of between 8.5m )'sec (300 ft'
/sec) to 14.2m'/sec (500 ft' /sec). Similar results are evident on HEC-RAS Station 5. Based
on these results the proposed channel template will be designed with a low flow to convey
100 cfs and a high flow to convey flows in the range of 8.5m 'sec (300 ft' /sec) to
14.2m'/sec (500 ft' /sec). At cross-over reaches (riffle areas) the proposed low flow is 3
meters (10 feet) wide by 0.6 meters (2 feet) deep and the high flow channel is 6 meters (20
feet) wide with a total depth of 1.2. meters (4 feet). At meander locations the low flow
section will be reduced in width to 2.4 meters (8 feet) and increased in depth to 0.75 meters
(2.5 feet) to enhance pool development.
43 Bank Stabilization
The proposed location and details of the bank stabilization techniques are illustrated on the
Concept Plans. Five (5) types of bank stabilization and combinations of techniques are
proposed to stabilize the banks of Reed Creek in Weaver park. The following describes the
use and intentions of each :
1) Brush layering - Brush layering is a technique where tightly configured rows of
live cuttings often black willow (Salix nigra) are placed perpendicular into the bank
with growing tips oriented stream-ward. This technique produces a thick zone of
vegetation along the bank and is often used in areas of high potential velocities and
tractive forces.
2) Fiber Rolls - Fiber rolls are manufactured rolls of fiber (often coconut) and
impregnated with various seed mixtures. Fiber rolls are generally staked into
channel banks and are excellent for protecting bank toes in lower tractive force
environments such as in cross-over reaches.
3) Rock Toe/Joint Planting - This technique involves the use of a combination of
bank protection using rocks and vegetation. The bank face and bank toe are
stabilized with appropriate sized rock material and selected vegetation (containerized
or posts) are interspersed between the rocks and into the bank substrate. This
technique is used typically along banks receiving potentially high velocities and
tractive forces, such as at sharp stream bends and adjacent to roadway culverts. This

method is proposed along the outer meander of Reed Creek in the vicinity of the
existing pedestrian bridge location.
4) Fiber Matting with Rock Toe and Fiber Roll - This technique is a combination
bank protection with fiber matting and toe protection using either a rock toe or fiber
roll. After the bank is graded, fiber matting is fastened down over exposed surfaces
and planted with stakes, posts or rooted vegetative material. This technique has wide
applications and can be used in along most re-graded streambanks.
4.4 Park Features
To increase public interest and education, the proposed restoration will incorporate the
channel improvements with a pedestrian walkway and associated landscape features (trees
and signage). The goal in incorporating park landscaping is to both educate the public on
the constructed channel restoration and to establish a controlled pathway for pedestrians.
Walkway locations will be situated to provide adequate riparian buffer for the stream and
reduce pedestrian stream impacts. The existing pedestrian bridge will be removed from the
meander location and relocated downstream to a more stable cross-over reach. Signage may
also be developed describing the channel restoration activities and the implemented
stabilization techniques. Additional design considerations include the selection of a re-
vegetation plan to accommodate park safety concerns such as reducing potential thief hiding
areas. Plant species selection, size and spacing will need to be considered during final
design to address these concerns. The Conceptual Plan illustrates that all of these design
features can be incorporated to the benefit of the stream proper and park users. All park
feature designs will be coordinated through the Asheville Parks and Recreation Department.
5.0 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
The estimate for construction of the proposed channel improvements along Reed Creek will
primarily be associated with the final selected bank stabilization techniques. Since channel
relocations are minimal and slopes will remain relatively constant, cut and fill quantities will
likely be balanced onsite. Good site access and maneuverability within the park should also
aid in keeping construction costs relatively low. The proposed techniques in the Concept
Plan vary in costs for materials and installation involvement. However, it is estimated that
construction of the proposed Concept Design will range from $197.00-$230.00/linear meter
($60.00-$70.00/linear foot) along the proposed channel centerline.
F
EJ
6.0 REFERENCES
Graf, W.L. 1975. The Impact of Suburbanization on Fluvial Geomorphology. Water
Resources Res. Vol. 11. p. 690-692.
Hicks, D,M, and P.D. Mason. 1991. Roughness Characteristics of New Zealand Rivers.
Water Resources Survey, DISR Marine and Freshwater, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Kopf, Al. 1997. Asheville Recreation and Parks Department. Personal Communication.
Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in
Geomorphology, p. 522, Freeman, San Fransisco.
Newberry, 1995. Rivers and the Art of Stream Restoration. Geophysical Monograph,
American Geophysical Union, p. 137-149.
Williams, G.P. 1986. Ariver Meanders and Channel Size. Journal of Hydrology,
Vol.99. p. 147-164.
Wolman, M.G., 1967. A cycle of sedimentation and erosion in urban river channels:
Geografiska Annaler, Vol. 49A., p. 385-395.

10

J
J

E-'
l
7
7
71

7

APPENDICES
j

L
L
C
F?',

J

APPENDIX A
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
7

Photo # 1: View from Pedestrian Bridge Looking Downstream
Photo # 2: View Looking Downstream Near Station 2+00. Tributary Entering Left of Photo.

n

Photo # 3: View Near Station 10+75 Looking Upstream.
Photo # 4: View From Pedestrian Bridge Looking Upstream.
P?l

Photo # 5: View Near Station 4+50 Looking Downstream.
Photo # 6: View From End of Stone Wall Looking Downstream. Note Eroded Right Bank.
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Photo # 7: View Near Station 8+75 Looking Upstream.
Photo # 8: View Upstream of Double Box Culvert at Murdock Avenue.

t

Photo # 10: View Near Station 2+25 Looking Upstream.

Photo # 9: View From Murdock Avenue Looking South at Weaver Park.

a
C
D
APPENDLY B
k

N
r?
u
HE, GRAS OUTPUT AND
CROSS-SECTIONS
Jall,
0
0
0
S co Ln I? t` O v v N m N M O O N M Ln v m N
U CR m m Lb O Co M M O Ln lA 'C V M O O O O O n f` t` O m
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
?
O

7
O
i
LL
M n O N m m co m m 1- m cD LO r-- O O (D r` O C\j LO -11'
L N r*.: O O CD m m m q O r O O M V m O M I? N V m Ln O N
t-? co N m N r r? 1- O 00 V tD O 00 m m O co N m O

r r N r N N N
M
0
l
O V m O M N m N r Ln m 1- r M 1- M (0 V M V O M O m
c7 c0 Cl? Ln O O N n N r O O V V 1? to O N O O V CO T CO O
Q m O CD m m N m LO cD co O U) co V Cl) cA 1` m y ai

. Cl) V N N N V r- r N U) CO Cl)
fT
0 ..

O LO co C) V N 1- O CD LO N m co N N V N 'V• 1- LO CO N m co
_ V M V M N O Ln q c0 h q t\ M Ln (D O V M M N N O
E V LO c0 1` O V LO GD m O N co Cl) It 't -t LO f, co LO co V LO CD 00
L
U N
?

f? N N M m m m LD m N LO co V O r- co C) N O f- N 1"
O O N M t` V o O V 1- r- O ? Ln M N co O M M
CL O O O V m m 'V• t0 m LO co cD (D N V• 1- co LO LO M V
O
.. N N N co 1`
T
r N co m v m M N n O In V V m c0 1- m m
O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O
* O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
(? O O O O O O O O O C) C) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
W
r N V M M M W O (D r CO L17 CO m m N t` M M t? m 1? N T I?
> M m 1l (` v N CO CO N LD c0 N r CD O O O M N h Un CD N
cl n 1` w m O O C) m y O N M V N M V• 0 M M V 0 m
lJJ m m m m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r O O O O O
T O O
V
uj
? m Ln V O N v O f? O N f`
m o? O m Un m 1? M c0 N N N
M (D I? tb M m N N ch LO
ti m m m m m O O O O 0 0
I O
•?
U I
r 1? m V O O m m N V cD M (D M T O 1- O N E N m m w 1-
> O V O m Ln O V T m 1* Ln O m M O M O N N LD r V O O N
O I? ? M tb Q) O O N O M V N M V M M V to ?
W .•. m m m m m O O
T O O O O O O
r O O O O O O O O O O
T O O
T
N

O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N w m m m m cD CD CD m cD
W CO O C0 O CO CR c0 c0 O O Ln Ll) U) Uj Ln V V• V' V V• T r r r r

L
.-. m 0
m m M
m LO
m LO
m m
m to
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O N
O N
O N
O N
O N
O
U T T r T T
C.
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
fS LO O O O O In O O O O In O O O O m O O O O m O O O O
N N 0 O O O
l N w a O Cl N In O O O N LO O O O N LO O O O
U N C
) r N CO r N M r N M r N CO
a "
ci - '
w

cc r r r r r N N N N N M M C) co Cl) V V V V V Lo Ln Lo in LA
4!
d
L
U
(9
tU
0
N (n
3: 2
I ! ?I
0
! LO
N
!
i
N
i
o
! I
LO !
m 0 ? i
cz I r o
?> !
!I
I
i
i I
LO
0
0 0 0 0 0 co 0
(11) uol;ena13
? I
U) q c) cj
co
I I
LO
co
O
co
i
Ln
N
O
? N
co U) o
i6
. I ? \ T
I ?
i
i
I ? Q
I I ! v?°
i
LO
(O Ln Cl) N O
O O O O O O O
T T T T T T T
(11) UOIJUA013
I I I
! In V co N C to
cm:
m
I I
N
O
I N
I
I
LO
I ?
co
? II w
>
co I o
cn
? I
I I ? o
i
I ? I
? I
i I P
I I
' I
I
0
LO v co N O m
O O O O O O O
(11) UOIJUA813
I
; c i 3 (p U) ) Q ©
I I
0
o
I I
I
I ; I
I
co
? I I
I
I ? I
I I
I
I I a
N
L n
a) CZ
czU) I o
?> i
I I
I I
I I I
I
I I ?
I I
N
O
co N O rn co
O O O O O O rn
T T T T T
(11) U0IJUA013
II _
1 N ?? f") I N c (n
I ? CD
O
co
r
I
I '
o
N
T I
> c
co ? T o
a? ro
65
I i I
I ,
I
I I
I '
N
I
I
I
O
i
o rn co n co in
o rn am am rn m
T
(11) UOIjUAal:j
0
0
APPENDIX C
USGS REGIONAL REGRESSION DATA
0
0
0
0
a
U.S.G.S. Regional Regression Equations for North Carol ina

Reed Creek Flow Calculations
Blue Ridge-Piedmont Area Equations

Drainage Area = 2.30 mi

02 256
Q5 433
Q10 581
Q25 806
Q50 998
Q100 1228

Piedmont Urban Equa tions

Drainage Area= 2.30 mi
Impervious Ratio= 0.22
Length of Main Water Course= 1.60 mi
Slope= 112 fbmi
Lag time T= 0.40 hrs

1 02 789
1 Q5 1267
Q10 1634
025 2094
Q50 2424
Q100 2741
0

Nom'-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAPUMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
Ms. Cyndi Bell
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NoRRIs TOLSON
SECRETARY
August 14, 1998
[ (? T
SEP t
,, 1?._ t?t???YU51711C I?f 4r1
Re: Reed Creek Wetland Mitigation Site, Buncombe County,
TIP Project No. R-2306 WM
Dear Ms. Bell:
Please find enclosed the As-Built Report for the Reed Creek Mitigation Site
located in Buncombe County. Joe Pfeiffer, P.W.S., of KCI Associates of North Carolina,
has certified that the site was constructed according to construction plan sheets, with any
exceptions noted in this As-Built Report.
For completeness purposes, the following information has been included as part
of the As-Built Report: (1) Letter of Construction Compliance, (2) As-Built Plan
Sheet(s), (3) Planting Plan Sheets, (4) Contract Proposal, (5) Summary of Costs, (6)
Estimate of Quantities, and (7) Photos.
If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact Phil Harris, Wetland Mitigation Coordinator, at 919-733-7844 (Ext.
301). Thank you once again for your continued support and cooperation.
Sincerel ,
t
David C. Robinson, Ph.D, P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager
Enclosures
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE
Dr. V. Charles Bruton, NCDOT
Mr. Phil Harris, P.E., NCDOT
'ZI
07/30/98 08:57 q^^704 208 :1201 DIV OF HIGHWAYS
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:919-(' ?-9ry4 Jul .u "Zjrj Z?:ur r .mil
STATE oF. NbATH CAROLINA
DEPARTIENTOF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B HUNT JR: : P.O. Box 2 20I. RAE.ctc;a N.G. 27611.5201 E. NORMS TOLSON
GtaYFANOR i. I ( Sk"'TARY
1,F:T-TER OF' COIY,STREJ_C-TLQN f_'0MkLI AAa .
'PQ Box 3279'
Ashcvil e NC 28802-
July 30 1998•
State Ft0jiiC.i-*4' ibcr- 8..184! 705 (R.2306.NVM)'
County: Buiicumbe
Descript{ori:. ; Recd Crcek Midgatiorr-Site
MEMORANDUM _ i
TO: :::Mr: Phil Hards,-P.E.,
,Nvetland Atigaliort Caardir ator
FROM: Mr: Max Phillips;: Resident Enginecr
SUBJ9CT 'AReed.Creek Mitigation, Site(
Construction aftlie.Rerrd"Cieek wetland mitigation sitr? wa4 monitored and inspected by
,
my office ri.confotmit?s with construction b1><ins-preb; rcd by NCDQT.'.
I hereby ceiti6 .that the Reed Creek piojec (ias been constricted according to plait sheets,
exccpt:in the case of *tnin field revis{ons,tftat aiG ibtcd 6n 'attach6a plan sheets and any
narrative .atti 6iircrits .td thi.s.lettcr. I'
Every effort:tivas pi'iide.tO .constniet this`s{te rn accordance-with the'kest information and
guidcuicq that'?yas avallalilo atJhC'.-tit: c PleikG udvian.if ytUU need uriy additional
irtforrnatioarc•ardiu .,ti is:natter,- I ,
002
=- = KCI
-----? ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROLINA, PA.
July 30, 1998
State Project Number:
County:
Description:
8.184 170 (R 2306 WM)
Buncombe
Reed Creek Mitigation Site
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Phil Harris, P.E.,
Wetland Mitigation Coordinator
From: Mr. Joe Pfeiffer, P.W.S., ,'
KCI Associates of North Carolina
Subject: Reed Creek Mitigation Site
Landmark Center 1
4601 Six Forks Road
Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609-5210
[phone]
Fax Number
[phone]
Construction of the Reed Creek Wetland Mitigation site was monitored and inspected by my
office in conformity with construction plans prepared by KCI Associates.
I hereby certify that the Reed Creek project has been constructed according to plan sheets, except
in the case of certain field revisions that are noted on attached plan sheets and any narrative
attachments to this letter.
Every effort was made to construct this site in accordance with the best information and guidance
that was available at the time. Please advise if you need any additional information regarding
this matter.
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • ECOLOGISTS
f .A ST.A^.? 'T
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAPUMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JP_ P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR March 11, 1998 SECRETARY
Mr. Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., PWS
Southeast Environmental Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
4601 Six Forks Road
Suite 209
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-5210
Dear Mr. Pfeiffer:
Re: Consulting Project No. 96-KC-20
Reedy Creek Mitigation Site Construction
T.I.P. Number R-2306WNI
State Project Number 8.1841705
Contract Number A302659
Your proposal and cost estimate to conduct the above referenced project have been
approved by H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch, at an
estimated cost of $99,972.61. You are authorized to commence the project at your earliest
convenience, per the scope of work (with attached contract specifications dated 2/19/98) outlined
in your February 19, 1998 letter, and including scope of work as depicted in final construction
plan sheets.
NCDOT recognizes that KCI Associates is not the general contractor, but is
subcontracting the work to KCI Environmental Technologies and Construction, Inc. (NC General
Contract License # 41336), who will act as general contractor at the site.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. Please be advised that all invoices for
work performed must be sent to the attention of iVir. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.. Please be sure to
include the consulting project number "96-KC-20, project name "Reedy Creek Mitigation Site
Construction" and T.I.P. Number "R-2306WM" on all invoices and project-related
correspondence. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Ted Devens or Mr. David C.
Robinson at [phone], extensions 209 and 310, respectively.
Savi Zer,
binson,
Ph.D., P.E.
Assistant Manager, Environmental Services
Planning and Environmental Branch
DCR/eah

C1
K
ASSOC1a72-5 OF
NOM'CARCLI N& ?-t
L=dmark Center 1
+wl six Forks Road
suite 209
Raltigh. NC 27609-5210
(919) 783.9at
Februay 19 , 1998 rax Nu-, bcr
[phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Divisions of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch.
Environmental Unit
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Subject: Construction Bid for Reed Creek.Stream Restoration
T1P No. R-2306WM
Construction Fund Code g.1841705
Dear Mr. Vick:
The final design for the heed Creek design/build stream restoration project in Ashville, North Carolina,
project has been completed under KCT's Ecological Investigations open ;end contract (Contract No.
A302659, Consulting Project No. KC-09 KCI. Job.No. 1296023E1). I anl'therefore submitting to you
with this letter the construction bid for installation 'of this project. We recognize this project represents
the initial efforts in tltc dcvclopmcnt of the dcsi,nibuild mitigation component at NCDOT and will
undertake this project at a cost of $99,9772.61. We feel that this project is an important step in meeting
the long tens mitigation goals ofNCDOT in a cost effective way.
The construction of this project will be executed by our subsidiary, KCI Envirom-nental Technologies
and Construction Inc.. NC General Contractors License = 41336. We are ready to begin work upott your
approval of the costs.
A detailed breakdown of costs is included for your.re.ference. Tf you require any additional information
please do not hesitate to cuntact cue.
Sincerely,
ASc h W S
ast E i nmental Manager
PC: Jim Blake. KCI
Steve Hurt, ETC
Armchmecits
cSIV 0
4
Q`
?? >;a E3 2 d 199 8 e
:t r+ y OF 40
?1??t ?tOt
?Vc;1NcE3 0 r'-N-N ,E, c.0T.CG:5T5
iC:OT/F?c EERPNCH Fa X:aj`.'-,
KCI -associates of North Carolina
T1F Nc.. R-2306WM
Construction Fund Code 8.1841705
Reed Creek Stream xestorauon
Bid Quantities and Cost
Plants Size Quanity Price: Sub-Total Focal
Fraxinus Pennsylvsnica 30 1546.00 $1,380.00
Quercus palustris 30 546.00 51,380.00
Hetula nigra 30 :S46.00 $1.380.00
Acerrubrum 15 ,546.00 $690.00
Cercis canadensis 15 546.00 5690.00
Tsuga canadensis 4-5' 15 1$46.00 5690.00
Beruls lutes 10 ' 557.50 3575.00
Amelanchier canadensis 3' 73 57.50 5375.00
' SAY 57.UU 5350.00
Comus racemosa.
Vaccinium angustifolium 3
12" 110 57.50 5825.00
Amnia arbutifolia 24" 50 59.20 5460.00
Rhododendron sp. 30 ;$312.20 5966.00
.
Kalmia latifolia 3' 60 '531.00 51,860.00
Hammamclis virginians 3' 40 57.00 $280.00
Ilex vericilata 1 3' 15 $9.75 S146.25
Amelarchier canadensis 181. 1 60 55.20 5312.00 I
Amnia arbutifolia 13" 60 55.20 3312.00 1
Cornus racemosa 1 18'. 601 55.20 '$312.00
Rhododendron sp. 18" 20 521.85 S437.00
X.Amia latifolia I8" 20 ,324.15 : 548100
llex Verticillata 18" 20 55.20 :$104.00

Live stakes. 24" 1200 ' 50.70 $840.00

Seed
wet Mix
lb
30
57.50
5225.00
Turf Grass ba, 1 550.00. $50.00
SIS,1Z..35
11laterials Unit Quanity Price Total
Fertilizer case 1 550.00 $50.00 i
Mulch cubic yard ZO S13.00 5360.00
Soil Amendments bale 20 .511.00 $220.00
Tree Stakes ?perset 145 ,311.00 51,595.00
00
170
1
Fiber Mattis., square yard 900 51.30 .
,
$
Coir Fiber Roll linear foot 1240 $8.50 510,540.00
Stone cubic yard 160 526.00 $4,1.60.00
Stakes each 1000 50.75 $750.00
Sod Pins, fasteners, etc. 1 5165.00 5165.00
Siltfence linear foot 800 50.24 5192.00
Misc. Sandbags etc. I 5180.00 -$280.00
Blaze Orange Fencing linear foot 2700 50.60 51,620.00
Construction 'Entrance each 1 5800.00 $800.00
Stilling Basins each 6 $200.00 $1,200.00
Straw Hales each 50 54.00 $200.00
523,302.00
KCI Associates of North Carolina
,r 'TIP-Nc-. R-2306WM
Construction Fund Code 8.1841705
Equipment
Water Pump
ChaimSaws
Laser level
misc. tools
per week
per day
per weck
total

j
2
1
5600.00
540.00
5150.00 ,
$200.00
$1.200.00
5200.00
$300.00
S200.00

1,900.00
Subcontractors
00
0
00
000
54
Backhoe
Trackhoe
Demo Truck
Hydroseeder
Other per hour
per hour
per hour
daily onsite 80
32
40
10 .
$5
585.00
1540.00:
5120.00
00
8 ,
.
52,720.00
51,600.00
51.200.00
00
008
51

9,520.00
Rubble Disposal cubic yard 126 .
5 .
,
00
0 00
200
56
Bridge Relocation
Survey lump sum
dump sum 1
1 .
56:20
53:400.00 .
,
5,400.00
608.00
$9
,
Miscellaneous Costs
7% x
70
689
Freight
Sales Tax material cost
material cost 1
1 5%
2% ,
,
51,921.21
00
000
52
insuranc_ Job Cost I t .
,
00
I60
S1
Mileage per mile 4000 0.29 .
.
00
600
51
Per Die:r. per day 20 80 .
,
Warrenty potted materials 20% 52,801.45
i
S12,172.36
Labor Costs
00
192
53
Supervisor hourly 42, 576.00 .
,
00
880
56
Construction Ntanager hourly 160 543.00
0 .
.
00
516
$9
Field-Sucennsor hourly 366 526.0
00
15 .
,
00
760
58
Field Labor hourly 584 .
5 .
. 348.00
528
,

Total Cost 599,972.61
KCI r' 3=:iatO3 of North Carolina
TIP No. R-2306WM
Constructicn Fund Code 9.1641705
Reed Creek Strum Restoration _ ?_ .. _ .
Detailed Labor Cost
'ask Dcscrt tion Rate Quanity Sub-Total Task Total
576 8 S608
pre-Construction supervisor 573
Constnuction mmmager 72 i 53,096
4U ; 51,040
6
Field Supervtsor
U SO
Field Labor 515 S.i,7d4
S76 32 52.432
Construction Supervi3or 543 40 SI,720
Construction Manua
S26
330
55,980
Field Supervisor S15 480 S-7,200
Field Labor ! 517,332
S76 Sts2
post Construction Supervisor 543 16 5688
Construction "la aaQer
v 0
SU
Field Supervisor $te
0 SO
Field Labor 515 Sg iU

x76 1
0
.°
Maintanence Supervisor
$'?' 2 51,03?
Construction Manage: Std
64
51,664
Field Supervisor
S15 40 5600
Field Labor 53,296
576 0 SO
Warranty Supervisor
S»3

8

$344
Construction Manager
SZ6
32 S832
Field Supervisor Sts 64 S960
Ficld Labor a 52..136
lTotabor I 529,348
`arw= T{
?iw?rT
KC1
ASSOCIATES OF
.?-- -W---i NC M CAROL"" A. P.-L
L=dmirK Ccnw- 1
+601 Six Forks Rcad
suac 209
Raleigh. NC 27609-3210
(919)183.9'1+
February 19, 1998
Pax Nucnbcr
[phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Traiisportation
Divisions of Highway's
Plaiming and Environmental Branch.
Environmental Unit
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Subject: Construction Bid for Reed Creek.Stream Restoratiou
T1P No. R-2306Wrf
Construction Fund Cade 9.I8.11705
Dear Mr. Vick:
The final design for the Reed Creek design/build stream restoration project in Ashville, North Carolina.
project has been completed under KCI's Ecological Investigations open'end contract (Contract No.
A302659, Consulting Project No. KC-09 KC1 Job,No. 1296023E1). I anctherefore submitting to you
with this letter the construction bid for installation 'of this project. Wc: recognize this project represents
the initial efforts in tlic development of the design/build mitigation component at NCDOr and will
undertake this project at a cost of 599,972.61. We reef that this project is an important step in meeting
the long term mitigation goals of NCDOT in a cost effective way.
The construction of this project will be executed by our subsidiary, KC1 Enviromnental Technologies
and Construction Inc.. NC General Contractors License t 41336. We are ready to begin work upon your
approval of the costs.
A detailed breakdown of costs is included for your:reference. Tf you require any additional information
please do not hesitate to contact inv.
Sincerely,
1 2,
ose h fei Vme S
Sou ast E i Manager
PC: Jim Blake. KCI
Steve Hurt, ETC
Attachments
1 Z'o
4-z
`
1998 =
,a E3 20
:a_ Dt`?tStON OF
• ? 11.E
:NGNEERS
-o
(n co
m
Ca)
> cn o m

a) o
O p CD

M N
0 ti
^ Ln
r
N
p . p
V1.
r
U
N
a
O
W
? C
Q O
? op
U
U) . W
W E r
U) o p
W 3 c
Z Im .'
U
Z (? ++
N
W C =:
.0 ,0
U
p
;Y .p .
Iv ?
OIL! j
j
i
I
I
d
U
a`
c
C
?C
7
;d
vo0oL000too.cn:010c
co : Lo LO U.) : ? LO r-- Lf7 0 !! r- c . r- ; co ! C) I cc
lL
O O 7 r- r\ O 'RT O; M V 'cr 10 I LC f
r ?.O O O O Q
i0 O O O

O O ,O O O 'O O O i0 ;O ;O C );C3 IC
O'O O O C) C) O O Lc, 'O Lo lO
O!O
i

O W
O W
Z
' r (7
N to N N !n N N !n N N?fn?toi(QN
EEEEEEEEEEEEIE,EE
E - Z
---W
.
m a? a? a? a? a? a? a? a? • a? a? a? , a? ? a? c c
N N N.Cn to N Cn N U?U(n?In L)i V) C/) U) ?-'
a a o
ooCD LO toLO 0CD 000000E EL c
M M M r r r r LO Ln r L. M, (D 'T J

r ---' O
CO U ----I
ca
U,
'n
to .,
c?(n
c ?.
- a?
'7i! c,1 E
aa:? `
NINI'C
y 3.UZ,
U p
.., C :3
j ?
cC cD C a7 U
EL m¢
• O
N
N
(D
(6
E
LLJ
U cm
O C
O W
c d
)

C•
U 7
(n
Cl)
() Ec =U
:3 c M.

Cf) C: Co CL
l M L)

(p
C
c
G
)
N O N .
C
•n

v v D

cu a)
m E o o ca
r-

a?
ca
-o ° > cm

N - .

'

C E
U al :3
E-0 c•"=
( c
a)b.a
E = c
co
U, rJ.2 c m
u n cn

E `
CM =3 a) C c0 O (0
E o E E O
; (u Q

U t- O

o
U O a) E o 0 0-- Fu E
O_ (9 >, O J j O
Ut-cn-cr Y 2,? p Zm
F
a,
C
/) O -0 v
U H Q c
r
a?
m
cu
a