Ver _Complete File_20030519

t4 ?t ! V
May 16, 2003
F?
Todd St. John
N.C. DENR
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
RE: Weddington Road Extension Stream Restoration Plan
Dear Mr. St. John:
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
MAY 1. 9 2003
WATER OUALITY SECTION
EcoScience Corporation (ESC) has prepared the enclosed stream restoration plan for the
City of Concord. Please notify me as soon as possible if you have any concerns about
this plan. Construction plans and specifications are also being developed by ESC. The
City of Concord plans to accept bids on the construction plans and schedule construction
activities in accordance with the most desirable planting season. Thank you for your
time.

Sincerely,
CITY OF CONCORD
j 2i L. Cardin
Division Engineer
Olt
H. Allen Scott
Director of Environmental Services
A&-d'NZBmm0p Ceram
Ciyof&rmid • 850Wam°nC-G*m 11vd. • P.O.Box308 • C ro4NoahCadm28026
g" 910-5425 • Fax g" 786-4521 • TDD 1-800-7355262 0 mm..d. u9
1
1

1

1
n

1

WEDDINGTON ROAD EXTENSION
STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
CABARRUS COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF CONCORD
PREPARED BY:
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 101
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
APRIL 2003
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................v
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
2.0 METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... .. 7
3.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land use ..............................
3.2 Soils ........................................................................................................................... 7
..7
3.3 Plant Communities ..................................................................................................... 10
3.4 Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 10
3.4.1 Rocky River ......................................................................................................... 11
3.4.2 Drainage Area ..................................................................................................... 11
3.4.3 Discharge ............................................................................................................ 12
3.5 Flood Frequency ........................................................................................................ 13
3.6 Stream Power, Shear Stress, and Stability Threshold ................................................ 13
3.6.1 Stream Power ..................................................................................................... 13
3.6.2 Shear Stress ....................................................................................................... 14
3.6.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results ....................................... 15
3.7 Stream Characterization ............................................................................................. 17
3.7.1 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 17
3.7.2 Reference Conditions .......................................................................................... 22

...................................................................................
4.0 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN 27
4.1 Stream Reconstruction ...............................................................................................
4.2 Stream Restoration Methods ...................................................................................... 27
2

4.2.1 Erosion Control and Staging ............................................................................... 9
4.2.2 Valley and Floodplain Excavation ........................................................................
4.2.3 Channel Construction and In-Stream Structures ................................................. 29
33
4.3 Plant Community Restoration ..................................................................................... 36
4.3.1 Reference Plant Community ...............................................................................
4.3.2 Planting Plan ....................................................................................................... 36
36
5.0 FINAL DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY .......................................................................
6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 42
43

I ii

APPENDICES ........
Appendix A:
Appendix B
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
t

t
Cl
r',

1
t

1

.................................................................................................................. 45
Gauge Data
HEC-RAS Results
Shear Stress and Stream Power Worksheets
Reference Stream Data
1
LIST OF FIGURES
I Page
Figure 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Weddington Road Stream Restoration Site .............................................................. 3
Figure 3. Aerial Photograph and Site Boundary ....................................................................... 6
Figure 4. Local Topography and Physiography ....................................................................... 8
Figure 5. Existing Stream Plan View and Cross Sections ......................................................19
1
1
t
1
1
t
t
1
1

Figure 6A. Reference Stream Plan View and Cross Sections (Upper Reach) ....................... 24
Figure 6B. Reference Stream Plan View and Cross Sections (Lower Reach) ....................... 25
Figure 7. Stream Reconstruction Plan View .......................................................................... 28
Figure 8. Proposed Grading Plan .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 9. Proposed Stream Cross Sections ........................................................................... 31
Figure 10. Profile ................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 11. Stone Revetment ..................................................................................................34
Figure 12. Live willow Stake Revetment ................................................................................ 35
Figure 13. Cross Vane .......................................................................................................... 37
Figure 14. Modified Cross vane/J-hook .................................................................................38
Figure 15. Planting Plan ........................................................................................................39
I iv
LIST OF TABLES
I Page
Table 1. Stream Power (0) and Shear Stress (i) Values .......................................................16
Table 2. Permissible Shear and Velocity for Selected Bed and Bank Materials' ....................17
Table 3. Stream Geometry and Classification ........................................................................ 20
Table 4. Stream Geometry Ratios ......................................................................................... 21
Table 5. Planting Plan, Weddington Road Stream Restoration Site .......................................41

t
1
1

1
1
1

1

1
I

1.0 INTRODUCTION
WEDDINGTON ROAD EXTENSION
STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
CABARRUS COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
' The City of Concord, has constructed a new access roadway parallel to Interstate Highway 85
(1-85) south of the Rocky River (Figure 1). The new roadway, Weddington Road Extension,
extends north from Speedway Boulevard across the Rocky River, connecting to Weddington
' Road north of Pitts School Road. The construction of Weddington Road Extension was
completed in October 1999. The new road was necessitated by the rapid development
occurring in the vicinity of the 1-85 corridor. The surrounding development is part of Kings Grant
' and Gateway Court Business Communities, a planned commercial center located at the
intersection of Speedway Boulevard and 1-85.
' The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has requested remedial action to replace stream
functions for unauthorized work including the channelization, widening, and placement of rip-rap
in approximately 600 linear feet of an unnamed tributary to the Rocky River. The stream
' restoration site, hereafter referred to as the Site, is bounded by the Weddington Road Extension
to the west, Gateway Court to the south and the Rocky River to the north and east (Figure 2).
The COE has requested restoration and enhancement measures for the purpose of returning
' the tributary to "a more diverse biological system". Restoration work was not completed under
the previous owner. The current owner, the City of Concord, is submitting and implementing a
stream restoration plan of action including a detailed restoration, enhancement, or
' bioengineering plan.
This report examines a stream restoration strategy for mitigating stream impacts associated with
' the development adjacent to Weddington Road Extension. The objectives of this report are as
follows:
' 1. Classify the on-site stream based on fluvial geomorphic principles.
2. Identify a suitable urban reference stream to model the Site restoration attributes.
3. Develop a detailed stream restoration plan.
4. Establish the final dispensation of the property.
The document represents a detailed restoration plan summarizing activities proposed at the
' Site. The plan includes 1) descriptions of existing conditions, 2) existing and reference stream
studies, 3) detailed stream and plant community restoration plans, and 4) the final dispensation
of the property. Upon approval of this plan by regulatory agencies, engineering construction
1
MAF FIGURE
SITE LOCATION D- by
EcoSclencc Weddington Road Extension Ckd by JG
Coi oration ?,tP
P Stream Restoration Plan APR 2003
Cabarrus County, North Carolina Project: 02 -128
1
1
t
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
t
1
1
1
1
f
AVIAr10 LVO Nw. ` ?

3p
n? N(188 -r6 tr?(i + 1
:N
f t PROPOSED.STREAM
ESTORATION SITE
F
<? --yy I
D X r /
r
Project: Dvn Bye caa ay:
MAF JG FIGURE
WEDDINGTON ROAD EXTENSION D
APR 2003
EcoScience STREAM RESTORATION PLAN S?-
? 2
Corporation
Cobarrus County, North Corolino r1-looo
Raleigh, North Carolina 02-128
1
plans will be prepared and restoration activities implemented as outlined in this document.
Proposed restoration activities may be modified during civil design stage due to constraints such
as access issues, sediment-erosion control measures, drainage needs (floodway constraints),
or other design considerations.
t
1
t

1
t
1
t

t
1
1

w

t

I

t
I
t
1

2.0 METHODS
Field reconnaissance was performed to validate published resource inventories and to identify
areas of particular concerns associated with potential stream restoration activities. Natural
resources information utilized in support of the field investigations include U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Harrisburg and Kannapolis N.C. quadrangles), Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) mapping, and City of Concord Geographic Information
Systems (GIS). Mapping of natural resources was developed on topographic and GIS mapping
provided by the City of Concord. Current aerial photography was evaluated to determine
primary hydrologic features and to map relevant environmental features (Figure 3).
Field investigation of the Site was undertaken in January and February 2003 to evaluate
existing conditions, confirm NRCS soil map units, conduct stream geometry data, and collect
data allowing preliminary modeling of Site hydrology. Stream characteristics and restoration
plans were developed according to constructs outlined in Rosgen (1996), Dunne and Leopold
(1978), Harrelson et al. (1994), Chang (1988) and North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission (NCWRC) (1996). Site valley cross-sections were developed by land survey to
establish channel dimensions, valley type/slope, and channel slopes. Reference stream
geometry methods have been used to orient channel restoration design. Urban reference
stream systems were identified and measured in the field to quantify stable urban stream
geometry. The reconstructed stream channel and hydraulic relationships are designed to mimic
stable channels identified and evaluated at the Site and in the region. Additional measurements
come from various published sources including bankfull regional curves developed for the
Piedmont of North Carolina (Harman et al. 1999).
Stream flows were modeled by interpreting USGS stream gauge data in the region and by a
hydrology model (HEC-RAS), which also estimated stream geometry calculations and estimates
of discharge. The discharge estimates were used to assist stream dimensioning and to
determine the hydro-dynamic influences of the upstream culvert and the Rocky River.
5
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
f
1
1

a
Title:
1
1

t

t
t
t

G
1

1

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND LAND USE
The Site is located in the Charlotte Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province of North
Carolina. Physiography is characterized by moderately rolling uplands and steep slopes with
well defined, moderately sloping floodplains and drainageways. The Piedmont is underlain by a
series of igneous and metamorphic rocks. The composition varies from mafic to fellsic (silica
poor to silica rich). Based on the geologic map of North Carolina, bedrock within the region is
metamorphosed quartz diorite rock described as foliated to massive (NCDNR 1985).
The Site is located in a rapidly developing part of Concord along the 1-85 corridor. The
surrounding development is part of Kings Grant and Gateway Court business communities, a
commercial center located at the intersection of Speedway Boulevard and 1-85. The remaining
undeveloped areas are primarily located in the Rocky River floodplain and on steep adjacent
slopes. A quarry operation (Martin-Marietta Materials, Inc.) is positioned north of the Rocky
River immediately east of Weddington Road Extension.
Figure 4 shows the existing Site conditions. A sanitary sewer easement runs parallel to the
stream along the southern bank and separate sanitary sewer easement crosses the stream
near the confluence with the Rocky River. An abandoned sediment basin is located along the
road embankment along the western property boundary. The Site includes approximately 600
linear feet of unnamed tributary to the Rocky River, a narrow floodplain bench, and adjacent
terrace (Photos 1-4). Local elevations range from a high of approximately 735 feet above mean
sea level (MSL) along upland ridges to a low of approximately 583 feet MSL along the Rocky
River floodplain. Approximately 1400 linear feet of stream directly upstream of the Site has
been culverted to allow for fill and construction of commercial development. Impervious
surfaces and intensively landscaped areas account for an increasingly large percentage of land
surfaces within the watershed.
A portion of the on-site stream is incised with significant bank erosion and down-cutting. A
large, rip-rap apron has been placed within and along approximately 100 feet of the upper reach
of the stream to dissipate energy and reduce potential erosive effects from the culvert. Current
vegetation adjacent to the stream, including the road embankment to the west and sewer line
easement, is characterized by early successional grasses and forbs. A stand of mature
bottomland hardwoods is located immediately north of the stream.
3.2 SOILS
Soils of the Site and within the vicinity are primarily characterized by rolling upland slopes and
ridges divided by drainage depressions, seepages, and floodplains. Upland ridges and steep
slopes are typically dominated by soils of the Pacelet (Typic Hapludults) and Cullen (Typic
Hapludults) series. These are well-drained soils with moderate permeability and low to
moderate shrink-swell capacity. These soils consist primarily of clay loams on slopes ranging
7
t
t
A

1
t
1

t
s
1

t
t
1

60 0 60 ,-
SCALE IN FEET
MITIGATION
SITE BOUNDARY
EXISTING
CATCH BASIN
WETLANDS
/GP

\ oc
gyp;
\- -- I r
8 ,

I \
, SEJ /
EXISTING
CATCH BASIN
i LB
EXISTING l ,

---------------
MH \
10

lr
0 0 0? ?? /'

DOUBLE
9' RCBC
8'
x III ,C 4

EL.-813.5?
?-
S
I I
'I' '
S I!l;l IIC
C I
?
I
I ;IC c
I l
?I?I??
IIi?;I
?!I?I
?I

SITE LAYOUT
nt i
EXISTING
RIPRAP
INVERT
ELEV, 578.D8

PROJECT BOUNDARY
- ` 85 MAJOR CONTOUR
MINOR CONTOUR
EXISTING TREE LINE
WLB -- WETLAND BOUNDARY
- - EXISTING STREAM
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
POLE WITH LIGHT
-18" SS- SANITARY SEWER LINE
M
o SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
SITE INFALL
PRIMARY
SITE OUTFALL
EcoScience
Corporation
Raleigh, North Carolina
11 REVISIONS II
Client:
CITY OF
CONCORD
Project-
WEDDINGTON
ROAD
EXTENSION
STREAM
RESTORATION
CABARRUSAOUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Title:
LOCAL
TOPOGRAPHY
AND
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Dwn By; Date:
MAF APR 2003
Ckd By: Scale,
JG 1"-60'
ESC Project No.:
02-128
FIGURE
4
30' WIDE SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT
GENERAL LEGEND
i
C
O
L
Q
Q
Q.
R
N
O
O
t
a
L
d
Y
0
a?
t
0
w
ca
a?
0
Y
O
O
J
r
O
O
t
a
N
O
L
't
O
_
Y
O
O
L
V
m
CD
L
O
J
'i
O
r
O
t
CL
a?
V
x
O
O
0
t
0
0
a
w
a?
C1
E
O
L
N
M
O
O
CL
rn
I
1
u
Il
u
t

from 6 to 35 percent. If soil is unprotected, run-off is rapid, infiltration is low, and erosion is a
very severe hazard (USDA 1988).
Soils along depressions and gentle slopes occur to a limited extent in the vicinity. Soils in these
areas are mapped as Altavista (Aquic Hapludults). These are well-drained soils with moderate
permeability and low shrink-swell capacity. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 1.5 to
2.5 feet during the winter and early spring. Low-lying areas of this soil type are subject to rare
flooding events. Altavista soils may contain hydric inclusions in depressional areas.
Most of the soils contained within the Rocky River floodplain are mapped as the Chewacla
(Fluvaquentic Dystrochrept) series. Chewacla soils are poorly drained and frequently flooded.
Soils of the Chewacla series are considered non-hydric but may contain hydric inclusions of
Wehadkee (Typic Fluvaquents). Wehadkee is generally found in long and narrow, slight
depressions, particularly at the toe of valley slopes. These soils are poorly drained with
moderate permeability and water holding capacity. The seasonal water table is at or near the
surface, and these soils are flooded frequently for extended periods from November through
June. Wehadkee soils are considered hydric in Cabarrus County (NRCS 1996).
3.3 PLANT COMMUNITIES
Distribution and composition of plant communities reflect landscape-level variations in
topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land use practices. Three dominant
vegetative communities were identified within or immediately adjacent to the Site. The
vegetative communities include bottomland hardwood forest, scrub/shrub assemblage, and
disturbed successional growth.
A scrub/shrub assemblage characterizes areas along the lower stream banks and inner stream
berm. This assemblage contains several early successional colonizers including black willow
(Salix nigra), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and red twig dogwood (Corpus amomum). A stand of
mature bottomland hardwoods persists immediately north of the stream. Characteristic canopy
species of the bottomland hardwood forest includes American elm (Ulmus americana),
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple
(Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica).
The road embankment and adjacent sewer easement is dominated by disturbed, early
succesional growth. The predominant vegetation includes various native and planted grasses
and forbs, blackberry, elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans).
3.4 HYDROLOGY
The local hydrophysiographic region is considered characteristic of the Piedmont physiographic
province, which extends throughout the central portion of North Carolina. The region is
characterized by moderate rainfall and moderately steep valley walls of similar parent material.
In Cabarrus County, precipitation averages approximately 44 inches per year distributed evenly
throughout the year (USDA 1988). The Site is located in USGS Hydrologic Unit # 03040105
(USGS 1974).

10
r
1
L_J
F1
t
t

1
1
t

j
1
f
Hydrology within the Site is complex; including factors driven by urban run-off, stream hydrology
within the on-site stream, and hydrology associated with the Rocky River. A general description
of local drainage features and hydrology is included below.
3.4.1 Rocky River
The Rocky River may represent the primary factor in the formation and functional attributes of
the on-site stream. The Rocky River, at the confluence with on-site stream, supports a
watershed encompassing approximately 90 square miles. Significant floods from the Rocky
River have been described by local residents including complete inundation of the local
floodplain site during Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and again in the early 1990s. Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) studies indicate that the 100-year flood elevation along the Rocky
River resides at approximately 594 feet MSL. The 100-year flood event is projected to inundate
the valley floor and along the entire length of the on-site stream. Even more frequent flood
events (Le. 5-year storms) are projected to inundate the floodplain. During these larger events,
backwater conditions are expected to persist into upper reaches of the Site influencing stream
velocities, discharge and sediment deposition rates onto the floodplain and in the channel.
The Rocky River supports a channel measuring approximately 60 feet in width and
approximately 7 feet in average depth below the floodplain. Maximum depth appears to extend
up to 9 feet below the adjacent floodplain. Based on the topographic contour data, the cross-
sectional area of the Rocky River measures approximately 420 square feet. Field observations
and historic evidence indicate that the river channel appears to have entrenched slightly over
the last century. Indirect evidence of entrenchment is assumed because lateral tributaries are
down-cutting and abandoning adjacent floodplains in proximity to the river.
3.4.2 Drainage Area
The drainage area of the Site outfall encompasses approximately 1344 acres (2.1 square
miles). Impervious surfaces and intensively landscaped areas account for an increasingly large
percentage of land surfaces within the watershed. The large percentage of point source
discharge suggests the rate of storm run-off entering the current stream channel is more rapid
and intense than historic levels when the watershed was primarily forested.
The on-site stream channel originates west of 1-85 and southwest of Concord Mills. Based on
USGS mapping, the watershed includes approximately 30,000 linear feet of stream prior to the
confluence with the Rocky River. From its headwater tributaries, the stream crosses under 1-85
and extends in a northeasterly direction along 1-85 in a modified, rip-rap channel and valley.
The stream then enters a culvert, which extends approximately, 1400 feet under commercial
development, before it enters the Site.
The valleys of the upper watershed historically supported a relatively narrow floodplain area with
moderate floor slopes of approximately 0.015 (rise/run). Lower reaches of the stream supported
relatively broad floodplains with low to moderate floor slopes of less than 0.005 (rise/run).
Based on valley characteristic and a cursory review of the watershed it would appear that
meandering, riffle-pool streams might have historically persisted in the upper watershed.
Portions of the upper reaches suggest transitions to relatively high gradient, rapid-dominated,
step-pool sequences.
11

3.4.3 Discharge
Bankfull discharge represents the most difficult variable to predict within a developing
watershed. Therefore, several methods have been used to estimate bankfull discharge for the
on-site stream under various development scenarios, including regional hydraulic geometry
curves and available research (Nunnally and Keller 1979).
Discharge estimates for stream restoration utilize the definition of "bankfull" and the yearly
return interval associated with the bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is
defined as the channel dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or "dominant"
discharge (Rosgen 1996, Gordon et al. 1992). Flow resistance reaches a minimum at bankfull
stage as excess discharge is distributed within the floodplain area. Research indicates that a
stable stream channel may support a return interval for bankfull discharge, or channel-forming
discharge, between 1 to 2 years (Gordon et al. 1992, Dunne and Leopold 1978). The methods
of Rosgen (1996) indicate calibration of bankfull dimensions based on a potential bankfull return
interval of between 1.3 and 1.7 years for rural conditions. Due to urbanization, the
reconstruction of a stable bankfull channel at the Site assumes a bankfull discharge return
interval between 1.0 and 1.3. Recurrence intervals of bankfull events are traditionally based on
the Log-Pearson Type III distribution of peak-annual data.
Based on the rural Piedmont Regional Curve, bankfull discharge for a rural, 2.1 square mile
watershed averages approximately 152 cubic feet per second (CFS) (Harman et al. 1999).
Using the North Carolina flood frequency equation, a 2-year return interval would have a
discharge of 233 CFS (Pope et al. 2001). Assuming linearity of the data, extrapolation of the
1.2-year event would yield approximately 136 CFS.

'7

f
To verify regional curves, five gauged streams in the region (two on Long Creek), ranging in
drainage area from 1.01 to 31.8 square miles (Long Creek, North Prong Clark Creek, Mallard
Creek, Lithia Inn Branch) were analyzed to determine a return interval from momentary peak
discharge data (see Appendix A). Discharge values for each stream were calculated from the
regional curve regression equation and compared to the momentary peak discharge at return
intervals between 1.1 and 1.7 years. The streams varied in the amount of development in their
respective drainage areas. No detailed work was done to calculate impervious surfaces within
the drainage areas. Most watersheds exhibited suburban or rural character at the time of
measurement. Bankfull discharge was verified within the predicted return interval in two of the
five stream gauge locations. The other three gauge locations predicted close to or below the
1.1 year return interval, suggesting that actual discharge at bankfull is higher than predicted by
the regional curve or that return intervals for these streams occurs more frequently than the
average stream used for curve development.
Bankfull indicators in the field have also been utilized to predict bankfull discharge. The cross-
section area associated with field indicators has been compared to regression equations that
relate discharge to cross-sectional area in rural streams. The average bankfull cross-sectional
area was estimated between 35 and 40 square feet, suggesting a bankfull discharge of
approximately 175-200 CFS. For this project, the stable "design" channel is assumed to support
a bankfull discharge at a 1.1-year return interval of between 150 and 175 CFS under existing
watershed conditions.
12

P
n
t

J discharge (ft/sec), and s = energy slope (ft/ft). The specific weight of water (y = 62.4 lb/ft 3) is

3.5 FLOOD FREQUENCY
Flood elevations have been approximated by use of the Hydraulic Engineering Center's HEC-
RAS computer model. The purpose of the analysis is to predict flood extents for the 1-, 2-, 5-,
10-, 25, 50-, and 100-year storms under existing conditions. Subsequently, the model will be
applied to proposed conditions after stream restoration to assess potential impacts to adjacent
properties or structures, and to improve the existing culvert capacity to the extent where 100-
year tailwater elevations from the Rocky River affect outlet control conditions, if feasible.
A HEC-RAS model was developed for the existing conditions using current cross-section
geometry, calculated flows based on drainage areas, and published water surface elevations as
boundary conditions from the most recent FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for the Rocky
River (Parsons-Brinkerhoff, 2003). The large box culvert at the upstream end of the stream was
not modeled as it is beyond the scope of this study. As a result, the culvert impacts on the
stream system are not reflected in the model output. Also, the majority of the Site lies within the
Rocky River floodplain, so adequate cross-section geometry was unable to be obtained to
contain the 25-year and less frequent storms.
Results from the model show that the impacts from the Rocky River overwhelm the flow regime
for the steam (see Appendix B). Once the 5-year storm occurs, the effects from the Rocky
River take precedence over the impacts from the stream flows. As a result, any proposed
modifications to the stream geometry or alignment will not significantly affect the existing
floodplain limits.
3.6 STREAM POWER, SHEAR STRESS, AND STABILITY THRESHOLD
3.6.1 Stream Power
Stability of a stream refers to its ability to adjust itself to in-flowing water and sediment load.
One form of instability occurs when a stream is unable to transport its sediment load, leading to
the condition referred to as aggradation. Conversely, when the ability of the stream to transport
sediment exceeds the availability of sediments within the incoming flow and the stability
thresholds for the materials forming the channel boundary are exceeded, erosion or degradation
occurs.
Stream power is the measure of a stream's capacity to move sediment over time. Stream
power can be used to evaluate the longitudinal profile, channel pattern, bed form, and sediment
transport of streams. Stream power may be measured over a stream reach (total stream
power) or per unit of channel bed area. The general form of the total stream power equation is
defined as:
Q = pgQs
where Q = total stream power (lb-ft/s2), p = density of water, g = gravitational acceleration, Q =
equal to the product of water density and gravitational acceleration, pg. A general evaluation of
power for a particular reach can be calculated using bankfull discharge and water surface slope
for the reach. As slopes become steeper and/or velocities increase, stream power increases
13

1
and more energy is available for re-working channel materials. In alluvial channels with mobile
boundaries stream power is used in part for transporting sediment. Straightening and clearing
channels, as well as culvert installation, increases slope and velocities and thus stream power.
This process increases the amount of power available for erosion and sediment transport.
Alterations to the stream channel may conversely decrease stream power in a channel. In
particular, the over widening of a channel will dissipate energy of flow over a larger area. This
process will decrease stream power and allow sediment to fall out sooner, possibly leading to
aggradation of the streambed. Alteration of streams such as dredging and periodic
maintenance will alter stream power in various ways and may consequently initiate changes in
sediment transport and channel shape.
The relationship between a channel and its floodplain is also important in determining stream
power. Streams that remain within their banks at high flows (Le. urban channels) tend to have
higher stream power and relatively coarser bed materials. In comparison, streams that flood
over their banks onto adjacent floodplains have lower stream power, transport finer sediments,
and are more stable. Stream power assessments can be useful in evaluating sediment
discharge within a stream and the deposition or erosion of sediments from the streambed.
3.6.2 Shear Stress
Shear stress, expressed as force per unit area, is a measure of the frictional force that flowing
water exerts on a streambed. Shear stress and sediment entrainment are affected by sediment
supply (size and amount), energy distribution within the channel, and frictional resistance of the
streambed and bank on water within the channel. These variables ultimately determine the
ability of a stream to efficiently transport bedload and suspended sediment.
For a flow that is steady and uniform, an average boundary shear stress exerted by water on
the bed is defined as follows:
1 ti = yRs
where ti = shear stress (Ib/ft), r = specific weight of water, R = hydraulic radius (ft), and s = the
energy slope. Shear stress calculated in this way is a spatial average and does not necessarily
provide a good estimate of bed shear at any particular point. Adjustments to account for local
variability and instantaneous values higher than the mean value can be applied based on
channel form and irregularity. For a straight channel, the maximum shear stress can be
assumed from the following equation:
tima x = 1.5,r
for sinuous channels, the maximum shear stress can be determined as a function of plan form
characteristics:
tima x = 2.65 r(RC Wbkf)-o.5
where Rc = radius of curvature (ft) and Wbkf = bankfull width (ft).
1 14

Shear stress represents a difficult variable to predict due to variability of channel slope
,
dimensions, and pattern. Typically, as valley slope decreases channel depth and sinuosity
increase to maintain adequate shear stress values for bedload transport. Channels that have
higher shear stress values than required for bedload transport will scour bed and bank
materials, resulting in channel degradation. Channels with lower shear stress values than
needed for bedload transport will deposit sediment, resulting in channel aggradation.
The actual amount of work accomplished by a stream per unit of bed area depends on the
available power divided by the resistance offered by the channel sediments, plan form, and
vegetation. The stream power equation can thus be written as follows:
c) = Pgos = TV
where o) = stream power per unit of bed area (N/ft-sec, Joules/sec/ft), ti = shear stress, and v =
average velocity (ft/sec). Similarly,
CO = QMbkf
where Wbkf = width of stream at bankfull (ft).
3.6.3 Stream Power and Shear Stress Methods and Results
Channel degradation or aggradation occurs when hydraulic forces within the flow exceed or do
not approach the resisting forces in the channel. The amount of degradation or aggradation is a
function of relative magnitude of these forces and the time over which they are applied. The
interaction of flow within the boundary of open channel is only imperfectly understood.
Adequate analytical expressions describing this interaction have yet to be developed for
conditions in natural channels. Thus, means of characterizing these processes rely heavily
upon empirical formulas.
Traditional approaches for characterizing stability can be placed in one of two categories:
1) maximum permissible velocity and 2) tractive force, or stream power and shear stress. The
former is advantageous in that velocity can be measured directly. Shear stress and stream
power cannot be measured directly and must be computed from various flow parameters.
However, stream power and shear stress is generally a better measure of fluid force on the
channel boundary than is velocity.
Using the aforementioned equations, stream power and shear stress were estimated for 1) the
existing on-site upper stream reach, 2) for reference stream, and 3) the proposed on-site
conditions. Important input values and output results (including stream power, shear stress, and
per unit shear power and shear stress) are presented in Table 1.
Average stream velocity and discharge values were calculated for the existing on-site stream
reach, reference streams, and proposed conditions. Stream roughness coefficients (n) were
estimated using published values and applied to Manning's equation (Manning 1891). Bankfull
parameters for the existing conditions were based on areas obtained from the regional curve
data.
1 15

Calculations were performed on two reference streams locations on a quasi-stable urban
stream, (i.e. Rocky Branch upper and lower reach) using average stream geometry values.
Results from the reference channels indicate that total stream power and shear stress for the
lower reach is 80.4 and 0.69, respectively. The values for the upper reach are very similar, 78.6
and 0.79 for stream power and shear stress, respectively.
The analysis found that the existing on-site upper reach with higher water surface slope and
higher width/depth ratio, results in slightly higher velocities and discharges compared with the
reference and proposed stream channels. Slope calculations for the existing condition included
the section of reach with the headcut. Therefore, the slope of the existing channel may be
slightly overestimated. Nonetheless, total stream power, shear stress and max shear stress are
significantly higher than those calculated for the reference streams.
Analysis was performed for proposed conditions after stream restoration is complete.
Decreasing slope and altering the width/depth ratio is expected to have a slight yet appreciable
impact on velocity, stream discharge, and corresponding stream power and per unit shear
stress values. In general, the mean values for shear stress, stream power, per unit area
calculations, and maximum shear stress under proposed bankfull conditions compare favorably
with stable reference values. Further shear stress analysis was conducted for the reach directly
below the culvert outfall using expected culvert discharge velocities. The analysis found that the
maximum shear stress was much higher under existing conditions (4.3 Ib/ft2) than in the
remaining upper reach channel (1.6 lb/ft2). This was due to the increase in velocities and the
tight radius of curvature found at that location. The difference between the proposed conditions
using similar analysis found a negligible difference. Stream power per unit of bed area below
the culvert were at least twice that within the remaining upper reach channel under both existing
and proposed conditions.
Table 1. Stream Power (Q) and Shear Stress (1r) Values
r
r

Discharge
(ft2/s) Water
surface
Slope
(ft/ft) Total
Stream
Power
(92)

M

Hydraulic
Radius

Shear
Stress

elocity

V

imax
Existing Conditions
Upper Reach 178 0.021 233.3 8.0 1.71 1.53 4.8 7.4 1.6
Upper Reach
at Outfall
1.53
8-10
12.2-18.4
4.3
Rocky Branch (Reference Stream)
Lower Reach 35.2 0.0073 80.4 3.7 1.51 0.69 4.19 0.068 1.0
Upper Reach 25.5 0.0084 78.6 3.7 1.52 0.79 4.51 3.6 1.6
Proposed Conditions
Upper Reach 162 0.0075 75.8 3.0 1.51 0.66 4.1 2.7 0.9
Upper Reach
at Outfall
0.66
8-10
5.3-8.0
1.1
16

Based on the analysis of stream power and shear stress, the designed channel is expected to
effectively transport sediment similar to that of the quasi-stable reference streams. Similarly,
the tractive forces (maximum shear stress) expected on the outer bends of the constructed
channel are in agreement with those values indicated from these sites.
n

Velocity and shear stress are neither steady nor uniform in a natural channel. Short term pulses
in the flow can give rise to instantaneous velocities or stresses two or three times the average.
Therefore, erosion can occur at stresses much lower than predicted. Table 2 presents limiting
values for shear stress and velocities for selected stream bank materials. The stream
restoration design has implemented construction and design parameters to adequately protect
the channel bed and side slopes using both rigid and bioengineering methods.
Table 2. Permissible Shear and Velocity for Selected Bed and Bank Materials'
Stream Bank Material Permissible Shear Stress
(lb/sq ft) Permissible Velocity
(ft/sec)
Fine colloidal sand 0.02-0.03 1.5
Sandy loam (noncolloidal) 0.03-0.04 1.75
Firm Loam 0.075 2.5
1-in Gravel/Cobble 0.33 2.5-5
6-in Gravel/Cobble 2.0 4-7.5
12-in Gravel/Cobble 4.0 5.5-12
Live willow stakes 2.1-3.1 3-10
Coconut fiber with net 2.25 3-4
Vegetated coir mat 4-8 9.5
Riprap 6-in D50 2.5 5-10
Riprap 9-in D50 3.8 7-11
Riprap 12-in D50 5.1 10-13
Riprap 18-in D50 7.6 12-16
Riprap 24-in D50 10.1 14-18
Gabions 10 14-19
1 adapated from Fischenich, 2001.
3.7 STREAM CHARACTERIZATION
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to orient stream restoration based on
a classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). This classification stratifies
streams into comparable groups based on pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate
characteristics. Primary components of the classification include degree of entrenchment,
width/depth ratio, sinuosity, channel slope, and channel substrate composition. Stream types
associated with the on-site stream include C, B, F, and G. Each stream type is further
subdivided appending a number 1 through 6 (example E5) to denote a stream type which
supports a substrate dominated by 1) bedrock, 2) boulder, 3) cobble, 4) gravel, 5) sand, or 6)
silt/clay. At the Site, the channel bed is dominated by sand in the lower reach and small
boulders (rip-rap) in the upper reach.
3.7.1 Existing Conditions
Stream geometry measurements under existing conditions are depicted in Figure 5 and
summarized in Table 3 and 4. The table includes reference stream geometry measurements as
well as ratios of geometry relative to bankfull width, bankfull depth, and bankfull slope. The
1 17

IJ
s

upper portion of the stream is laterally confined by the road embankment to the west and the
rip-rap bank protection placed along the eastern bank. Hardened structures within and adjacent
to the channel appear to have stabilized the local channel reach. However, dredging in the
lower part of the channel, in conjunction with the placement of rip-rap, has induced a head-cut
at the base of the rip-rap apron, which seriously jeopardizes the stability of the stream.
Due to past dredging and stabilization efforts within the channel, the proposed stream segment
contains a transitional reach that supports characteristics of G (gully), F (widened gully), and B
(rapid dominated) stream types. The G stream type is characterized by high degree of incision
(down cut) with low width/depth ratio (<12). Due to entrenchment, G stream types tend to widen
by eroding channel banks during peak flows. Over time, the wider gully develops into an F
stream type that supports a relatively high width/depth ratio (>12) and the presence of
developing point and mid-channel bars. Given time, an F-type stream will erode the banks and
begin to form a new floodplain at a lower elevation. The increase in width/depth ratio in the
bottom of the channel would subsequently give rise to a meandering, riffle-pool, E or C-type
channel. During this stream evolution, excessive sedimentation from bank collapse and erosion
may pose water quality problems within the on-site reach and ultimately in all downstream
locations. Where the stream is controlled by rip-rap, the stream supports a B-type stream. The
B stream is generally characterized by moderate entrenchment, broadly sloping valley walls,
and a predominantly rapid dominated plan form with step-pools and irregularly spaced pools.
Currently, the upper reach of the stream has been classified as a 132c channel, which is
transitioning to a G2 stream type at the point of a migrating head-cut. The lower case c
designation indicates a B channel with a slope less than 0.02 rise/run. The lower reach has
been classified as an F5, which is transitioning to a C5 channel. The upper reach (132 channel)
currently supports a flood-prone width ranging from 40 feet to 60 feet, with an entrenchment
ratio ranging from 1.3 to 2.1. The lower reach (F5 channel) supports a flood-prone width of
approximately 30 to 40 feet, with an entrenchment ratio ranging from 1.2 to 2.0.

t

1 18
t
t
s
i
r
i
t
t
t
Horizontal Distance in Feet
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
592
590
v
588
586
.2 584
0
582
w 580
578
-- f• - - r , - - F -, rn T - -- r--$

TTl" rn-- rn _
i'- - rn--
rT,-
-
rT,
ril
f*, -
rT,
i
r„ .-
___ __ 77

r. T.
-r
,
r . '
?

---!-
X11--- 1--
----- '-F' 11-- -? ?!_r1
-- - --
-----
--- -
-----
- --
---!-
r- I LII ?-

__

592
590
588
586
584
582
580
578
Horizontal Distance in Feet
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
592
590
m
588
586
584
0
a 582
Li 580
578

1, 1 7' 1
I.' r I I'

„
--- ---
I =-- - r ---
_1J - L ! J __J? µJ
rr,r..l?.?a. L1J r'1' L 1J
?rf?? rJ.lr. _ J_ L_1J
fl.lrr.?• rL J__
.1? L.? i_LL_ _._?.?- LLJ L1J__
-

L
L - -
- -
21
J.

1.74 CROSS-SECTION B
Bankfull Width: 33.6' Riffle
BonkfullMoximum Depth: 3.5'
Bankfull Average Depth: 1.0'
Bonk full Cross- sectional Ar eo: 32.7 ft.sq.
Width of Flood Prone Area: < 75.0'
0.36 CROSS-SECTION A
Bonkfull Width: 29.2' Riffle
Bankfull Maximum Depth: 2.1'
Bankfull Averoge Depth: 1.3'
Bonk full Cross-sectionolArea: 37.4 ft.sq.
Width of Flood Prone Area: < 40.0'
Horizontal Distance in Feet
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
592
590
v
588
`- 586
•°- 584
0
m 582
w 580
578
160 180 200 220 240
ril!i rat, i- n„- rTl!i rTn-

_____
_____
___
__
____ _ _
L I J
_____
___
1 1
___ _
_1 _
L
1
J _ _
1
1
___
L
1
L 1
L
1 1 }J!_ L1J!- 1J
_
L
,
1 --
1
1 r-== __
L
1 1
1 --
L
1
L
1
,
1

r„ r„ . rT, . r„

r„_r -„-f r„-.- r7l-i- ri i-i iT„-

?71

__
-,- i,l- - il-- " ---- i7-.-.- ri„-
--
r7
-----
----
-----
frl-.-
rT,-.-
r,„-

L1JJ_

!1J !_

L 1 J ! 1 JJ_ LJ J_l L1J!_ L1 t_

_

L1! 1J!_

L

! _
1 ?_ _

____ L1

J J _ L!!!_ !

__
11J!_
L1J!_
!
____

_

__

_____
__ _
_
-- __ _
_
l
rT,-i _
(1-1 __ rni- rTll- rn-i ill-f r I i- ill -I- rT, i- rTl -.- rill- ,
I
I I
rT,- rnr rT, i- rTl-i rnr rT,-i- rT-iY rT, i- I
I
rT,l' rT, -r
i
r T I
L1! !!1
J !1J!_
L
J !1J !1J !11J_ L1 JJ_ L1JJ_ 111!_ L1JJ_
1
1 L1 J- -!!!_ !!J!_ !!J!_ L1 !!!!_ ! _ L1JJ_ L!!!_ _ L1J!_
L J_I_ I
,
L ,
_ LL1J__ L1J L1J L1J_ L.IJ_ 1 L -? L 7_! -

„ .
rT-.r r„-.

..
----- -----

...,
.--
---
r„-.
--.
r
T.
rT,l-
r
-
...
r----
?,.
-----
....

rn-r r .
---
- ..

r„-.-
---
r. - ..

rn-.-

rT -. -.-

_T,-r

_ ___-

rn -r
---
- -
---
- -
--
- - -
Bonk full Width: 29.1'
BonkfullMoximum Depth: 3.1'
BonkfullAveroge Depth: 1.3'
Bonk fullCross -sectionofArea: 37.9 ft.sq.
Width of Flood Prone Area: < 55.0'
300
d
200
?v
W0
U>
C
00,
;N
o°
U
0Q
J 100
NOTE:
All cross-sections facing 0
the downstream direction
-100 0 100 200 300
Linear (Down Valley) Distance in Feet
400 500 600 700
iiiEcoScience
Corporation
Raleigh, North Carolina
REVISIONS
Client
CITY OF
CONCORD
Project
WEDDINGTON
ROAD
EXTENSION
STREAM
RESTORATION
PLAN
CABARRUS COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Title:
EXISTING
STREAM
GEOMETRY
PLAN VIEW
AND
CROSS-SECTIONS
Dwn By: Date:
MAF APR 2003
Ckd By: Scale:
JG AS SHOWN
ESC Project No.:
02-128
FIGURE
5
3.90 CROSS-SECTION C
Riffle
VIO
4+
592
590
588
586
584
582
580
578
592
590
588
586
584
582
580 ........... BANKFULL
(Regional Rural Curve)
578
EXISTING GRADE
- - •' FLOOD PRONE AREA

„
I-
'
y„
i
r J

a _
I

I r-
-
r ,-
r
r , ,
-. r - r
, r-
r ,

. i
,
' - i
.
.
'r rn i„r r 1 I ?
r r

s

r
Table 3
Stream Geometry and Classification
Weddington Road Stream Restoration Site
Existing Conditions Reference Conditions Proposed Conditions
Upper Reach Lower Reach Upper Reach
Upper Reach Lower Reach Rocky Branch Rocky Branch On-Site

Drainage
Area
2.1
2.1 2.0
2.7
2.1
(sq. mi.r
Dimension
Attribute Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range
-
Abkf 37 -- 38 -- 33.2 32.7-34.2 42.1 42-42.3 36 32-40
Wbkf 29 -- 29 -- 18.3 16.7-19.9 24.3 23.3-25.3 22 20-24
Dbkf 1.3 -- 1.3 -- 1.8 1.7-2.0 1.8 1.7-1.8 1.6 1.4-1.6
Dmax 2.1 3.1 2.4 2.3-2.5 2.4 2.3-2.4 1.9 1.7-2.1
Wfpa 40 55 30 40 46 45-50
Wpool -- -- 50 -- -- -- 20.1 -- 21 20.22
Dpmax 3.1 3.5 3.0-4.0
11_ii
1 Pl1V111
Attribute
Mean Range
Mean Range
Mean Range
Mean Range
Mean
Range
W 40 35-45
belf
L i
l 120 90-200
M
R No distinct pattern variables. No distinct pattern variables. No distinct pattern variables. ab
es.
No distinct pattern var 100 80-120
c
Sin 1.1

1 I V 1114
Attribute
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Median
Range
Median
Range
Mean
Range
Svalley 0.01 0.0080 0.0077
Sws 0.021 0.0005 0.0085 0.0073 0.0070
ifBe
S 0.012 -- 0.0260 0.0240-0.0270 0.0120 --
r
ool
S 0.001 -- 0.0010 -- 0.0020 --
p
L
l No distinct profile variables. No distinct profile variables. 40 30 60
poo
LP -p 100 80-120
Class 2 Rip-rap Class 2 Rip-rap Class 2 Rip-rap Class 2 Rip-rap
Substrate Cobble/Boulder Coarse Sand Cobble/Boulder Cobble/Boulder Cobble/Boulder
Stream B3 -> G3 F5 -> C5 B3c B3c Bic
Type
Abkf Riffle cross-sectional area at bankfull (ft2)
Wbkf Bankfull width (ft)
Dbkf Riffle depth at bankfull (ft)
Dmax Maximum depth (ft)
Wtpa Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Wpool Mean width of pool at bankfull (ft)
Dpm.x Maximum pool depth (ft)
LBH Low bank height (distance from
thalweg to the top of low bank) (ft)
Wbelt Belt width (ft)
Lm Meander wavelength (ft)
Ro Radius of Curvature (ft)
Sin Sinuosity (thalweg dist/straight-line dist.)
Lpooi Pool length (ft)
Svauey Valley slope(rise/run)
SWS Water surface slope (rise/run)
Sriffle Riffle slope (rise/run)
spool Pool slope (rise/run
Lp Pool length (ft)
Lp-p Length from pool to pool (ft)
t
e
t
Table 4
Stream Geometry Ratios
Weddington Road Stream Restoration Site
Existing Conditions Reference Conditions Proposed Conditions
Upper Reach Lower Reach
Upper Reach Lower Reach Rocky Branch Rocky Branch Upper Reach

Drainage Area.
Isq, mi.) 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.1
Dimension Ratios
Attribute Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range
ENT <1.4 1.9 1,6 1.6 2.2 2.0-2.4
Wbkf/Dbkf 28.5 22.3 10.1 13.5 15 14-16
Wpool/Wbkf 1.7 0.8 1.0 --
DpmexlDbkt 1.7 I 2.2 1.9-2.5
D?++crn Dn+inc
Attribute Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range
WbeltlWbkf No distinct repetitive pattern of
f 1.9 1.7-2.1
pA?
Rc[Wbkf No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools within the No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern o
h
l
i
h 4.7 _
3,8-5.7

LMlWbkf riffles and pools within the channel.
channel, riffles and pools within the channel, anne
.
n t
e c
riffles and pools with
5.7
4.2-9.5
Prof He Ratios
Attribute Mean Range Mean Range Median Range Median Range Mean Range
S.U.Y/Sws 1.2 -- 1.1 -- 1,1 --
S'ffft.lsws No distinct repetitive pattern of 1,4 3.6 2.0
Spsel/Sws No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools within the 0.1 1.3 0,3
LpoollWbkf riffles and
pools within the channel. channel. No distinct repetitive pattern of No distinct repetitive pattern of 1.9 1.4-2.9
Lp.plWbkf riffles and pools within the channel. riffles and pools within the channel. 4,8 18-5,7
ENT Entrechment (Wipe/Wbkl)
Wbkf Bankfull width (ft)
Dbkf Riffle depth at bankfull (ft)
Dmex Maximum depth (ft)
Wfps Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
Wpaol Mean width of pool at bankfull (ft)
Dpma. Maximum pool depth
BHR Bank Height Ratio (lowest bank height/
maximum bankful depth)
Wbelt Belt width (ft)
Lm Meander wavelength (ft)
Re Radius of Curvature (ft)
Lp•p Length from pool to pool (ft)
Sveo.y Valley slope
SWS Water surface slope (rise/run)
Srlfffe Riffle slope (rise/run)
spool Pool slope (rise/run
Lp Pool length (ft)

3.7.2 Reference Conditions
A fundamental concept of restoration entails the development and application of regional
reference curves to stream reconstruction and enhancement. Regional reference curves can be
utilized to predict bankfull stream geometry in unfamiliar drainage ways, including cross-section
area, average width, and average depth for any given drainage size. Establishment of specific
design channel attributes requires rigorous measurements of a reference stream (relatively
stable) within the same or similar hydrophysiographic region. The curves characterize a broad
range of streams within the Piedmont physiographic province. Small watersheds or deviations
in valley slope, land use, or geologic substrates may not be accurately described by the curves.
Therefore, verification of individual watersheds may be necessary. A reference site has been
utilized in conjunction with regional curves for detailed planning and characterization of this
mitigation project.
The primary reference stream, Rocky Branch, is located near downtown Raleigh in a highly
urbanized watershed. Two reference reaches (upper and lower reach), located directly below
roadway culverts, were measured on Rocky Branch (Photos 5-8) to emulate conditions similar
to those found on Site. The watershed size at the upper and lower reach is approximately
2.0 and 2.7 square miles, respectively. The reference streams are generally characterized as
highly modified, B-type stream channels. Rocky Branch has undergone significant
' modifications including straightening, lateral confinement with the rip-rap bank protection and
other hardened structures within and adjacent to the channel which appear to have stabilized
the local channel reach. An urban bench has developed along the entire length of stream at a
cross-sectional area approximately two times the area predicted by the rural Piedmont curves.
Table 3 and 4 provide a summary of the reference reaches utilized to guide reconstruction
' parameters. Because the stream channels at these sites could not be adequately viewed from
available aerial photography, plan views were surveyed through GPS technology.
Subsequently, channel cross-sections were measured at systematic locations and stream
profiles were developed via laser level. Stream substrates were quantified through systematic
pebble counts along the reference reaches. In-field measurements of channel geometry were
also performed along stream wavelengths located outside of the plan view area. Cross-sections
and plan views for both reference reaches are shown on Figure 6A-B. Stream profiles are given
' in Appendix D.
Bankfull cross-sectional areas were calculated from rural regional curves, which indicate cross-
sectional area values of 33.2 and 42.1 square feet for the upper and lower reach respectively.
Based on the cross-sectional area, other dimension values were calculated including average
width values of 18.3 feet and 24.3 feet, average mean depth values of 1.8 feet and 1.8 feet,
' entrenchment ratio of 1.9 and 1.6, and width/depth ratios of 10.1 and 13.5, respectively.
Valley Slopes (rise/run) for the lower and upper reach have been calculated to be 0.01 and
0.008, respectively. The average water surface slope is 0.0085 and 0.0073, respectively.
Individual slopes for riffles and pools were calculated from both reaches to establish design
guidelines. For the upper reach, the mean rifle slope is 0.012 and mean pool slope is 0.001.
' For the lower reach, the mean rifle slope is 0.026 and mean pool slope is 0.001.
22

1

t

z
U
C
fMC
W
Y
U
O
t
U
cv
N
f2
f].
tD
O
O
t
n.
L
U
O
f0
W
Y
U
O
L
U
cv
d
Q
Q
Lr;
O
4-
0
L
a
U
C
O
ML
co
Y
U
O
t
U
f4
O
d
O
J
06
O
A-
O
t
CL
t
U
C
fE
L
co
Y
U
O
L
U
ce
fU
N
O
J
ti
O
O
t
CL
fy')
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HorizontolDistOnce in Feet
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
96
94
92
C
0
0 90
w 88
86

LIJ!_ L,. _ l1J_I_ LlJ J_ ?L1J! 1J!_ L1J!_ L1JJ_ LlJ!_ __ _ lJ!_ L1J!_ L1J I_
1717171-
-- ill-I-
-- r --
-- ill-1-
- 117171- rill-
??? 1.17171 ?i-
, ? rI = -
? rT! I-
- - rill-
-- 111-
-- 71 II--r T1
- - -- 1111-
--
____ _____ _____

?
, 1 F
i_
L1J 1JJ_ 1JJ_ L1JJ_ L. LIJ.r_ L1JJ_ 11JJ_

1171 li-
1711 i-
111 1-
1171 I
rill
17171 I
17171 I
ill I
fTl I
17171 i ;;I r;;'';;;
r
- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - -- -- --

-----
-----
-- -
- ----- --- -
- ----- - --- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- -- --

L1J ?i_ L1J t_ L1J!_ L3J!_ _L1J!_ L1J_I_ L1J i_ L1J i_ L1JJ_ r L1J!_ L1J!_ __ L1J!_ L1J!_
96
94
92
90
88
86
5.38.5 CROSS-SECTION 1
Bonkfull Width: 19.9' Riffle
BonkfullMoximum Depth: 2.3'
Bankfull Average Depth: 1.7'
Bonk full Cross -sectionalArea: 34.2 ft.sq.
Width of Flood Prone Area: 33±'
Horizontal Distance in Feet
0 10 20 30 40 50
96
Z 94
c 92
C
0 90
w 88
86
60 70

11J!_
1111 11J!_
I L1J!_
1111 L1J!_
,III 11J!_
1111 LLJJ_
1111 L1JJ_
1111 l1J!_
1111 L1J!_
1111 L1J_1_
1111 LIJJ_
1111 L4JJ_
1111 LIJJ_
1111 LIJ
IIII
tll-i r 1 1171 tit I- rill- ill rl1-? rTll- ?rT1l- 1171 li- 1171 li- 111 Vii- rT1 rrll-
___ ___
- _ __
LIJJ_ L1JJ_ LaJ -J?r -??'?IS e?5?1: L1J!_ L1J J_ L1J J_ L1J!_ L1J!_ L1J I_ L1JJ_
rll -I- 111-1- ill-I rll-r T1 ?I- r71 -i- rTl 1711 rl1 1111 I- r71 II- rTl II- r71-I rl1 I-
?ia 1
1_ I J_ 1_ i i i-
- 1 1 1 J_ i 1 1 1 1

L1J!_
11 11J I_ L1J I_
111 L1JJ_
II L1J!_ L1J I_
II 11J!_ L1J I_ L1J I_ L1J I_ L1J J_ L1J I_ L1J!_ L1JJ_
6.64 CROSS-SECTION 2
Bankfull Width: 18.5' Riffle
Bankfull Maximum Depth: 2.4'
Bonkfull Average Depth: 1.8'
Bank full Cross-sectional Area: 32.8 ft.sq.
Width of Flood Prone Area: 27±'
96
94
92
90
88
86
Horizontal Distance in Feet
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
96
94
d
E- 92
C
0 90
w 88
86
........... BANKFULL
(Regional Rural Curve)
EXISTING GRADE
- FLOOD PRONE AREA
- - - - URBAN BENCH
W)
W
300
v
`` . 200
•C ?
00
u1
C
a N
N tn
o°
U
?a
J 100
NOTE:
All cross-sections facing
the downstream direction
0

r
----
----------
--
OUEJ I

1

-'
1
-

------

----
x9
RC
B
111 11 ,
r

r

111

11 11

11 111

11 r r

r
rr

r

1

1

?,

,y1 1

1

11

r

I r ?

1

111
. I_,.,
Ir

1

_L_1 _.1 _.
.!-'--L-
-1-1-J`
--'--L- '
-1- -J--
--L-J-L-
-J? '--
-L-L-'-
- ----L-
-3-1-J-
- ' - -
- - ----
-
-- - -

r 1
111
.111

111 T_ i T_ i i
i j
,111

r 111 r
r 1
r

?

y

r
r _

1 1
1
r

--
r 1

111' ? ._ 1 L_
r

r
r

I-BRA

NChr

-

'

- _

_

I 1 I
r

I--
r

-
I

---

-'

-1 -

r-I

r
I 1

-r-

'

-I
T
-t-
-100 0 100 200 300
Linear (Down Valley) Distance in Feet
400 500
96
94
92
90
88
86
sa
-
?

-rn -r
JJ_
L

1-,-
_L?IJ!_I

rrT 1-11
L 11JJ-

nrr rn-r
-?~
.1.

-rT1?r
--
111. I?Ir

nrr rn-I-
L1J ?I-
111

rT1 ,_
-
-

111?_
?' lr
--

1111?
rn -r
LLJ!_

;'1'1?
r n -r
LLJJ-

;1
,rnl-
--

1111
rn-r
L

r - _____'I
_ __ -
_- - _ ___ _____
`
l
L.1!_
.11. ?L1 JJ_
1:11 ?J_I
Irr L1J!-
11.1 --
..JI. L1J!_
r. LLJJ_
..1.

? ?
__ LlJ!_ ,1J ?r_ L1JJ_ L1J!_ L1JJ_ rL IJ
i_ r 11J!_ LlJ!_ I_
L1J L1J!_ L1J!_ L1-
1040 CROSS-SECTION 3
Bankfull Width: 16.7' Riffle
Bankfull Maximum Depth: 2.5'
BankfullAveroge Depth: 2.0'
Bonk full Cross- sectional Area: 32.7 ft.sq.
Width of Flood Prone Area: 27±'
iii i
EcoScience
Corporation
Raleigh, North Carolina
REVISIONS
Client:
CITY OF
CONCORD
ProjecD
WEDDINGTON
ROAD
EXTENSION
STREAM
RESTORATION
PLAN
CABARRUS COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Title:
REFERENCE
STREAM
GEOMETRY
UPPER REACH
PLAN VIEW
AND
CROSS-SECTIONS
Dwn Byz Dale:
MAF APR 2003
Ckd By: Scale:
JG AS SHOWN
ESC Project No.:
02-128
FIGURE
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
101
99
c 97
95
93
w 91
89
Horizontal Distance in Feet
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
d
d
U_
c
0
.o
v
w
r - ? ? ?
L1J!_ LlJ!_ LLJ_i_ LIJ
i_ L1J!_ _ l1J_' , . L1 J__ _ __ L1J!_ _ L 1JJ_ L1J!_ LJ
i_
'rTlr- i l I- fll-i- fll ?I- fll li- r1T (Tl'I' r'1 T'r I 'r 'rTI r I I ?- I T I i- r71 i- 111 li-

- - "
--' . J
?1JJ_ L1J_? L1JJ_ LLJJ_ L1J_i_ L1J_i_ LI JJ_ L1J
_ L1J_I_ LLJJ_ L1J L1J!_ L1J L
i-

L 1J!_ L1J!_ L1J_i_ ilJ!_ LlJ LlJ_i_ 11J_i_ I!_ L1J!_ L1J!_ L1J!_ L1 JJ_ LIJ!_
ri?Y rTl i" fll i- rTl;- rl"1 Vii" ril-i rT'1-i- rTr Vii- rTT;- rrl i- rTl Vii- rTr ?i rTT i' rT1 i-

70
1.46 CROSS-SECTION 1
Bankfull Width• 23.3' Riffle
Bankfull Moximum Depth: 2.4'
Bankfull Average Depth: 1.8'
Bonk full Cross -sec tionolArea• 42.0 ft.sq.
Width of Flood Prone Area: 40'±
Horizon tol Distance in Feet
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
39 [-91 I-1_?

101
99
97
95
93
91
89
2.13 CROSS-SECTION 2
BonkfullWidth• 25.3' Rif fie
Bonkfull Maximum Depth: 2.3'
Bankfull Average Depth: 1.7'
Bank full Cross- sectional Area. 42.3 ft.sq.
Width of Flood Prone Area: 35'±
300
CD
W
w 200
va
U>
C
ay
;N
00
ii
as
100
NOTE:
All cross-sections facing
the downstreom direction
0
Horizontal 0istance in Feet
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
101
99
aU_ 97
c 95
93
w 91
89
?L'J_i_ ?11J!_Y -- -- L1J!_ r1J L1J I_ I L1.+ L1J!- L1J
ill ?r ?Tl-i- r„-'-rll !- irr tilt- fll rTl I- rrl rl'. rTl rrrl- rTl;- rTl ?i-

r
-----
L1J__ T J!_ l1J!_ --J_I_ L1J_i~ rl Ll T L1J!_ L1J!_ L1J!_ L1J!_

lil llli II IliiFT
i t
l i..
I

I_ LL __ L1J!_?. LL1JJ_ L1J!_ L1J _ l1J!_ iLIJ!_ LLJ-i- LlJ!_ __ L1J!_ L1J_i_
rTI-I- rTlr- te
-r
1 11 -li 1 T"?'r'1 rTl-?- fiT Ir fTr r1T rT' rTlr' 17 7 i- 11 J i- r7l-i-
-
r
t --
2.78 CROSS-SECTION 3
Bankfull Width-. 20.1' Pool
Bankfull Maximum Depth- 3.1'
Bankfull Average Depth: 2.1'
Bonkfull Cross-sectional Area: 42.5 ft.sq.
EcoScience
Corporation
Raleigh, North Carolina
REVISIONS
Client:
........... BANKFULL
(Regional Rural Curve)
EXISTING GRADE
-- - •' FLOOD PRONE AREA
- - - - URBAN BENCH

-------
---------
--
r N

r

r

I CY
x -

r
-r - , I

-

02 ;

- 8'?

C9' fZC$C

-

- F T

- -
r
- -
T
-

- I -

- -

-

I

4

-

-

I

I

I

_ ------

_ -- - - --
1 7 --------

-

- -- - ----

-

-
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Linear (Down Valley) Distance in Feet
CITY OF
CONCORD
Project/
WEDDINGTON
ROAD
EXTENSION
STREAM
RESTORATION
PLAN
CABARRUS COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Title;
REFERENCE
STREAM
GEOMETRY
LOWER REACH
PLAN VIEW
AND
CROSS-SECTIONS
Dwn By, Dale:
MAF APR 2003
Ckd By: Scale.,
JG AS SHOWN
ESC Project No.:
02-128
FIGURE
6B
1
' The use of an urban curve (Doll et al. 2000) was also investigated during reference studies.
The urban curve was developed using strictly urban streams to develop regional curves. The
urban curves predicts bankfull areas for the upper and lower reach to be approximately 97 and
116 square feet, respectively, a significant increase from rural curve predictions. An urban
bench at an elevation approximating these numbers was identified at both reference sites and is
indicated on Figure 6A-B. Several factors led to the use of the rural curve over the urban curve
including 1) the small but growing evidence that urban curves are an inaccurate read on stable
bankfull area (Dave Rosgen, personal communications) and 2) backwater effects from the
Rocky River which will prevent normal discharge frequencies from doing equivalent work in the
channel (Le. requiring a smaller bankfull channel) as compared to other similar-sized channels.
F

1
1
F

1 26
1
1 4.0 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
The primary goals of the stream restoration plan include 1) construction of a stable, urban
stream channel; 2) establishment of a natural vegetation buffer along the stream channel; and
3) restoring water quality and wildlife functions associated with the riparian corridor.
Components of this plan may be modified based on flood study refinements and construction or
access constraints. Primary activities designed to restore the stream include stream geometry
modifications, in-stream habitat structures, and plant community restoration. A monitoring plan
used to track restoration success is also outlined below.
4.1 STREAM RECONSTRUCTION
Conceptual stream reconstruction plans were developed according to constructs outlined in
Rosgen (1996), Dunne and Leopold (1978), Harrelson et al. (1994), the North Carolina Wildlife
' Resource Commission (NCWRC 1996), and North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR 1999). Stream pattern, dimension, and profile under stable
environmental conditions were extrapolated to the dredged and straightened system at the Site,
using regional hydraulic geometry curves, flood data analysis, and reference data from a stable
urban stream located within the Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina.
This stream restoration effort is designed to restore a stable stream that approximates
hydrodynamics and stream geometry relative to stable reference conditions. This effort consists
primarily of in-place, stream reconstruction methods and floodplain excavation. The location of
' each activity and detailed restoration plan is depicted in Figure 7.
The stability of a proposed B stream type within upper reaches of the Site will limit bank erosion
and sediment in the subsequent lower watershed. The rapid-dominated, scour-pool morphology
will decrease stream velocities, stream power, and shear stress, ultimately lessening potential
impacts to established bottomland forests and the adjacent sewer easement. The channel bed
will consist of a series of rapids and pools using, in part, the large rip-rap material already on the
Site. A floodplain or bankfull bench will be excavated along the entire stream to accommodate
and attenuate higher flows. To further minimize flow velocities and minimize erosion, riparian
and stream buffer vegetation will be established along stream banks, flood-prone areas, and
terrace areas, as allowed.
' Within the lower reach, rapid establishment of streambank vegetation has temporarily stabilized
the banks, reducing erosion rates and lateral migration. However, research and experience
would suggest the eventuality of lateral extension within this reach, as evidenced by localized
' bank collapse and the establishment of inner-berms (bankfull bench). Bank collapse and
erosion is expected to continue until the stream has developed a new floodplain. Due to past
dredging of the lower reach and the invert elevation of the culvert, water surface elevations are
closely tied with the Rocky River. Streams entering larger floodplains are generally unstable
and susceptible to frequent reworking of the channel. Therefore, work proposed in the lower
reach shall involve limited excavation of a floodplain and establishment of riparian and buffer
' vegetation. Subsequently, a meandering C channel would be expected to develop within the
reestablished floodplain.
1 27
1

t

1

60 0 60
SCALE IN FEET /
/; - - - --
III
MITIGATION
SITE BOUNDARY
PROPOSED
DRY-STONE WALL
(3' WIDE x 1'-2' HIGH)
EXISTING
CATCH BASIN
DOUBLE
8'x9' RCBC
__18"
EXISTING 'CATCH BASIN ;
IRAN 58S
S90
EL
` ?MH\
0
s? \ C,
I-
%
.
%
%
- JAS \
%
r ??\
%
- X-1
%
------------
GENERAL LEGEND
;o..l 585-
"??ii I §?C?

J •/ ./

SITE LAYOUT
y
77

90, r'
/
(2) PROPOSED
DRY-STONE WALLS
(3' WIDE x 2-3' HIGH)
5'TERRACE BETWEEN
30' WIDE SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT
PROJECT BOUNDARY
585-- MAJOR CONTOUR
MINOR CONTOUR
ru^ 1"' ' EXISTING TREE LINE
- EXISTING STREAM
> POLE WITH LIGHT
MH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
0
NEW CHANNEL
?- • SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
-8" SS-- SANITARY SEWER LINE
--- - - NEW CHANNEL CENTERLINE
- . - - - • CONSTRUCTED FLOODPLAIN
AREA OF STONE
REVETMENT (REQUIRED)
AREA OF STONE REVETMENT
(AS ON-SITE QUANTITIES OF
RIPRAP PERMIT)

CROSS-VANE WEIR
MODIFIED J-HOOK WEIR
SCOUR POOL
RAPIDS
EcoScience
Corporation
Raleigh, Notch Carolina
I REVISIONS I
Client:
CITY OF
CONCORD
Project
WEDDINGTON
ROAD
EXTENSION
STREAM
RESTORATION
PLAN
CABARRUS COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Title:
STREAM
RECONSTRUCTION
PLAN VIEW
Dwn By: Dote:
MAF APR 2003
Ckd By: Scole:
JG 1"-60'
ESC Project No:
02-128
FIGURE
7
?I \ ?4
III
In summary, a stable 133c stream channel shall exhibit an entrenchment ratio of 2.2 (range 2.0-
2.4), a bankfull width of approximately 22 feet, an average depth of 1.5 feet, and a width/depth
ratio of 16. The cross-sectional area is approximately 36 square feet. The proposed water
surface slope for the restored upper reach will approach 0.008 (rise/run). Other important
variables in the channel design include mean pool-to-pool spacing (Lp-p = 100 feet), mean
meander length (Lm = 120 feet), sinuosity (1.1 stream length/valley length), and mean radius of
curvature (Rc = 100 feet). Following the Rosgen (1996) classification system, a 133c stream
type is proposed for approximately 375 linear feet of stream, with an additional 225 feet of
stream enhancement and stabilization.
4.2 STREAM RESTORATION METHODS
Supervision by qualified personnel will be instrumental while performing modifications to the
flood prone area and during placement of in-stream structures. Modifications and bank
stabilization procedures will be supervised by personnel trained in stream restoration to ensure
that stream bank and bed features resemble a stable stream configuration based on reference
streams and that restoration of in-stream habitat is maximized during the effort.
4.2.1 Erosion Control and Staging
Channel construction shall occur in phases. The first phase will include the installation of
erosion control measures and the installation of access routes and staging areas. An erosion
control plan and construction/transportation plan shall be developed for the Site. Erosion
control shall be performed locally throughout the Site and will be incorporated into construction
sequencing. Planting of exotic perennial grasses shall not represent a component of the
erosion control plan. Exposed surficial soils in the region typically re-vegetate rapidly after
disturbance with the assistance of temporary cover. Use of on-site material including rip-rap
and excavated soil shall be incorporated into the plan to the extent feasible to minimize waste.
The transportation plan, including access routes and staging areas, shall be placed to minimize
disturbance to existing vegetation and soils to the maximum extent feasible. The plan shall
specify spoil stockpile locations and set specific clearing limits, if any.
4.2.2 Valley and Floodplain Excavation
The second phase of channel construction shall include channel bank excavation, floodplain
excavation, and bank sloping along the entire stream reach. Figures 8 and 9 depict the
conceptual grading plan and proposed cross-sections of the proposed stream channel. Figure
10 depicts the existing and proposed profile of the floodplain, channel bottom, and proposed
structures. The objective of excavation and bank sloping is to remove eroding material and
increase the flood-prone area from an average 30 feet to greater than 55 feet. No grade
change will be permitted from the center line of the sewer line to the side opposite the stream,
nor shall excavation be performed directly over the sewer line. After excavation, the side slopes
shall exhibit a gentle gradient prior to tie-in with the existing land surface. The existing land
surface shall be immediately stabilized using biodegradable erosion control matting, mulching,
or brush mattresses. Shrubs and vegetation that develop dense root mats shall be inserted
through the short-term erosion control material as described in Section 4.3 Plant Community
Restoration.
1
29
1
t

1

1

t
t

60 0 60
SCALE IN FEET
I /
o ?
c
\ ,1
EXISTING -
CATCH BASIN ,
TRA
?'?; 1\,i,;111 S8 \

i,
F?
5,35
e
?'l d °
00
?77
(:D? S?? "?? • '- -
MITIGATION gyp" ,- -
SITE BOUNDARY -:;-vr ,
585--
_ .?? "-% ` " --? '?? ' •
ELE -- 58A
o "" W c?? ?P 30' WIDE SANITARY
C. SEWER EASEMENT

PROPOSED
DRY-STONE WALL
(3' WIDE x 1'-2 HIGH) f

EXISTING
CATCH BASIN .'
+ .
,, ;',; cAa SITE LAYOUT
DOUBLE
'
' " '
`
x9
RCBC
8

uy (2) PROPOSED

DRY-STONE WALLS
£1.•613.51 (3' WIDE x 2-3' HIGH)
?-' 5' TERRACE BETWEEN
? ' xx 1
JI
•
PROJECT BOUNDARY
(1.90± ocres)
-?85 MAJOR CONTOUR
---- MINOR CONTOUR
EXISTING TREE LINE
- - EXISTING STREAM
0 POLE WITH LIGHT
oMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
-- - -- SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
_81'SS-- SANITARY SEWER LINE
-- --- NEW CHANNEL CENTERLINE
585- PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
18" ?, ,y \
581- PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
NEW CHANNEL
CONSTRUCTED
FLOODPLAIN
EcoScience
Corporation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Client:
REVISIONS
CITY OF
CONCORD
Project:
WEDDINGTON
ROAD
EXTENSION
STREAM
RESTORATION
PLAN
CABARRUS COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Title:
PROPOSED
GRADING
PLAN
Dwn Byt Dote:
MAF APR 2003
Ckd By: Scolez
JG 1"•60'
ESC Project No.:
02-128
FIGURE
?901
-------- o
GENERAL LEGEND
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
CROSS-SECTION 1 CROSS-SECTION 3 CROSS-SECTION 5
596 596 596 596 596 596
594 594 594 594 594 594 EcoScience
Corporation
592 592 592 592 592 592 Raleigh, Nom Carolina
590 590 590 590 „ 590 590 REVISIONS
.. y
588 588 588 588 c 588 588
c
C NO AN GF,'
-
,?T
c
586 586 2 586 586 •-0 586 586
w 584 584 w 584 584 w 584 584
A'! III ._I_ _? I----- ------ ------
582 582 582 582 582 582
580 580 580 580 580 580 Client
578 578 578 578 578 578 CITY OF
CONCORD
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Horizontal Distance in Feet Horizontal Distance in Feet Horizontal Distance in Feet
Project:
WEDDINGTON
ROAD
CROSS-SECTION 2 CROSS-SECTION 4 EXTENSION
STREAM
596 596 596 96 RESTORATION
PLAN
594 594 594 594 CABARRUS COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
592 592 592 592 Title:
590 590 590 590 EXISTING
AND
588 588 LL- 588 588 PROPOSED
5 NOTE: STREAM
A
III - I, All cross-sections facing CROSS-SECTIONS
0 586 586 586 586 the downstream direction
> 0
Q1
w 584 584 w 584 584
Dwn By: Date;
MAF APR 2003
582 -'-i 582 582 4-44-- 582 Ckd By Scale-
------------ EXISTING GRADE JG AS SHOWN
580 580 580 I 580 PROPOSED GRADE 02-128
578 578 578 578 FIGURE
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 SCALE: (H) 1°•50'
Horizontal Distance in Feet Horizontal Distance in Feet (V) V-5' 9

L

I- t3?©
Ot7 ?
?RKi?-H,
I III
I I I
??
?,

I 11

I-l-r-
?
-l-T-f-
-r ,.. Ills
i-l-(-

III
- I
---
-- - --- -- - - - - - -

L -r-T-r -l-r-I- - i-r
I
_ l-l-r-

I I I I

III
-rr-r- 111
-i-r-r- 111
- rr -r III
-r-r-r III
-r-rr 111
-r-rt- III
rr-r- III
rrr-

?_,_li
,II,I
rl 1 III III

~I-f-
- ??i--:-
1-1-r-

-r rr rr
I-1 r I'r r I r -I i t

L LJ_ _L__J_

III II, I II

-r-r r- if?'?1- -
-t'l-r 1 - T ' r -

III I
III I I I l r l l ? ____--

J_J_L
I I I
1 1 1
, / I 1 1
a
,i

_l_L_I_ _1_LJ_ _L J_ _L J_1_ J_1_L _1 L
III

II I III

I III

I I I III

I I I 111
-r-r ?- III
-r r-r
I I III
-rr-r-
I I I 111
'I-rr
1 1 1 I.I
-r-r-r
1 1 1 III
-rrr-
I I I
I

I I I

_ L i l]

11J I t l
r-f-1-
I - 1 1 1
"r "(l-
1._ I l l
-I'"rl -
-1..L I I I
-r "i 'I-
yLL I I
'f'1-r-
_ I I I
?-1-I'-
-1? I I .I
"'l'I•r
EJ-1 1 1
-1'r-i -
1
I

I

.r'1
I
i_

1 d

1
I
I
I
.
1 1

y

u_1-

,

-J..i
,'r• , 1.
11 1 ?

?

EL?1?

-58Q 1 I
I I I
1 I
I

I _
1 _

I
? ESC Project No:
1I
II

I I I
_ I

I

?
I I
I
? I I

I
I I I I
--r-r- -1-T-r- -l-r-r -(-rl' _ i_l - -r i-'f- -r l_T
III I II III III I,I I'
III

I III

I III

I I I;I

I .I

? II .I
I

_ _l_T-r_ _r_r ?_?_r_

t

fl

Figure 10. Existing and Proposed On-Site Stream Profile
linear distance (feet)
1

4.2.3 Channel Construction and In-Stream Structures
The third phase channel construction will include the removal and placement of material within
the existing stream channel and the excavation of the new channel. Base flow will be captured
at the top of the Site and pumped around the work zone. The new channel corridor shall be
staked according to the geometry, cross-section, and profile ranges outlined in Table 3 and
conceptually depicted in Figure 7.
Existing rip-rap embankments shall be removed and stockpiled, as needed, for later use. In-
stream rip-rap shall be removed to the proposed channel bed elevations. Local bed and bank
elevations shall be undercut in order to place revetments and channel material, as needed.
Stockpiled rip-rap shall be placed as channel material in rapids, along inside bends to bankfull
elevation, along the outside bend of the pool, at the toe of banks, and used for the construction
of grade control structures. Stream banks and local belt width area of the constructed channel
will be immediately planted with shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Particular attention will be
directed towards providing vegetative cover and root growth along outer bends of each meander
and in floodplain locations.
Bioengineering Techniques
The newly constructed stream banks and floodplain area will be immediately planted with shrub
and herbaceous vegetation. Shrubs, such as tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and black willow, shall
be removed from the existing channel bands and stockpiled to be placed along the newly
constructed channel. Particular attention will be directed toward providing vegetative cover and
root growth along outer bends, and revetment location along the toe of the channel banks.
Stone revetments with live willow stakes will be constructed as conceptually depicted in Figure
11. The proposed location of stone revetments is shown in Figure 7. Tightly spaced, large,
irregular-shaped stone will be used to construct the revetments. Spaces between the stone
shall be filled with topsoil and planted with live stakes during the winter and early spring. The
live stakes shall be large (3-5 feet in length) enough to be driven between the rocks and into
stable soil. The roots and shoots will provide reinforcement to the stone layer, to enhance the
efficacy of the treatment against erosion and provide shading and habitat.
Live willow stake revetments, with the use of coir fiber matting, shall be employed along the
lower reach of the stream where erosive forces are negligible. Live willow stake revetments will
be constructed as conceptually depicted in Figure 12. Biodegradable, coir fiber matting shall be
embedded into the break in slope to promote more rapid development of overhanging banks.
Willow stakes will be inserted through the matting, at various angles, into the underlying soil.
Cross Vanes and Modified J-Hooks
Cross Vanes and modified J-hooks may be installed at locations conceptually depicted on
Figure 7. The purpose of these structures is to divert high-velocity flows during bankfull events
toward the center of the channel, increase average pool depth for enhanced aquatic habitat,
and modify energy distributions through increases in channel roughness and local energy
slopes during bankfull flows.
The structures will be constructed from large, flat, faceted, natural boulders. Boulders
measuring 3 to 4 feet in diameter are expected to be used in this effort. Approximately two
1 33
t
t
t
LIVE
WILLOW
STAKES
COIR TOE OF
FIBER SLOPE
MATTING
FLOODPLAIN
BANKFULL - v_ - - 11
r
BASE - FLOW- 7
FILL VOIDS
W/ SOIL
II-? I--- BOTTOM
I
I OF CHANNEL
RIPRAP
STONE REVETMENT REINFORCED
WITH LIVE WILLOW STAKES
Client: Project: D- Bp Ckd By:
> MAF JWG FIGURE
Dole:
WEDDINGTON ROAD EXTENSION APR 2003
EcoScience CITY OF STREAM RESTORATION PLAN Scale;
Corporation CONCORD No SCALE
ESC Project No.:
Ralcio,North Carolina Cabarrus County, North Carolina 02-128

r

NOTES:
1. WILLOW STAKE PLANTING WILL BE
DIRECTED ALONG BANKS OF STREAM
CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN BENCH.
2. THE WILLOW STAKES SHALL NOT BE PLACED
IN ROWS OR AT REGULAR INTERVALS,
BUT RANDOMLY IN SUITABLE PLACES AT
A RATE OF 2-5 CUTTINGS/SQ. YD.
3. LIVE STAKES SHALL PROTRUDE ONLY TO
A MAXIMUM OF ONE-QUARTER OF ITS LENGTH
ABOVE GROUND.
4. PLANT STAKES AT VARIOUS ANGLES TO
THE SLOPE SURFACE.
COIR
FIBER
MATTING
3' STAKE
l0°nMIIV;°''=: LENGTH,
0.5-0.75"0
LIVE WILLOW STAKE REVETMENT
WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
Clients Project: n.n By= cka BY:
MAF JWG FIGURE
Oote:
WEDDINGTON ROAD EXTENSION APR 2003
EcoScience CITY OF STREAM RESTORATION PLAN 5.ae:
CONCORD ESC Project No.: No SCALE
Corporation 12
Raleigh, North Carolina Cabarrus County, North Carolina 02-128
1
' cross vanes and two modified J-hook structures shall be constructed as conceptually depicted
in Figures 13 and 14. The vane arms will extend from the floodplain into the channel at a 3 to
7 percent slope extending in the upstream direction. The vanes will extend away from the
channel bank at an approximately 25 to 30 degree angle. Modifications to the locations and
elevation of each structure may be necessary during construction plan development and
implementation.
4.3 PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION
Restoration of streamside, stream terrace, and upland plant communities will filter pollutants,
shade and cool surface waters, provide stream bank stability, and provide habitat for wildlife.
' Ecotonal changes between community types developed through a landscape approach to
community restoration contribute to area diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as
enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, aquatic species,
and other wildlife. The vegetative buffer will extend approximately 50 feet on both sides of the
stream, depending on easement restrictions.
' 4.3.1 Reference Plant Community
Surrounding forest species patterns, field soil mapping, review of available literature, stream
and floodplain design, and predictions based on hydrology parameters will be used to develop
' the final plant community associations that will be promoted during plant community restoration
activities. The location and total number of stems for planting, including stream-bank species,
will be determined during detailed design and construction phases, based on local conditions.
Primary plant community types proposed for restoration are discerned, in part, from steady state
structure described in Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and
Weakley 1990). The plant communities to be restored or enhanced include 1) streamside shrub
assemblage, 2) Piedmont bottomland forest, 3) mesic mixed hardwood forest and 4) forest edge
community. Figure 15 identifies the location, based on landscape position, of the target plant
communities.
4.3.2 Planting Plan
A planting plan is proposed for the Site to re-establish vegetation community patterns within the
stream corridor and associated side slopes and terraces. The plan consists of 1) acquisition of
available species, 2) Site preparation, and 3) planting of selected species.
The species selected for planting shall be dependent upon the availability of local seedling
sources at the time of planting and the results of ecological analyses. Planting densities and
total stems needed by species shall be designed according to the COE bottomland hardwood
forest mitigation guidelines and bioengineering techniques as described by Schiechtl and Stern
(1997). Communities and associated plant species targeted for restoration include:

Stream-Side Shrub Assemblage
1) Tag Alder (Alnus serrulata)
2) Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
3) Silky Dogwood (Corpus amomum)
4) Pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia)
5) Black Willow (Salix nigra)
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHANNEL
BANK
1/3
1/3
1/3
CHANNEL
/ BANK
SECTION A-A
FOOTER
STONE
iii
EcoScience
Corporation
Raleigh, North Carolina
REVISIONS
Client:
CITY OF
CONCORD
Project
WEDDINGTON
ROAD
EXTENSION
STREAM
RESTORATION
PLAN
CABARRUS COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
14'
HEADER w
BANKFULL STONE
FOOTER 101 1
STONE SLOPE

SECTION B-B
ROCK FILL (•5 STONE)
WHERE NEEDED
RIP RAP
PLAN VIEW
FILTER
FABRIC
NOTE:
1. FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED ON
UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
2. HEADER AND FOOTER STONES ARE LARGE, ANGULAR
BOULDERS APPROXIMATELY 36" TO 48" IN SIZE.
TYPICAL CROSS-VANE WEIR
Title
TYPICAL
CROSS-VANE
WEIR
Own By Date:
MAF APR 2003
Ckd Bye Scale:
JG NO SCALE
ESC Project No.:
02-128
FIGURE
13
i
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
A
1
i
CHANNEL
BANK
12
I

o -30o
1
I
I
I
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 I 1
1 \ 1 1
? I 1
I ? I
SCOUR
POOL
PLAN VIEW
NOTE:
1. FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED ON
UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
2. HEADER AND FOOTER STONES ARE LARGE, ANGULAR
BOULDERS APPROXIMATELY 36" TO 48" IN SIZE.
m
?BANKNEL
FILTER
FABRIC
t
A
11
1
11
1
1
EXISTING
CHANNEL
14'
SECTION A-A
EXISTING
CHANNEL,
r
HEADER
FOOTER
STONE
MODIFIED SILL
FOR GRADE
CONTROL
HEADER
m STONE
to BANKFULL
107,
© SLOPE FOOTER m
STONE FLOW
_O o p2S 0
'- 0 O O N;"- RIP RAP
ROCK FILL FILTER
(•5 STONE) J FABRIC
WHERE NEEDED
SECTION B-B
TYPICAL MODIFIED J-HOOK WEIR
iii
EcoScience
Corporation
Raleigh, North Carolina
I REVISIONS II
Client-
CITY OF
CONCORD
Project:
WEDDINGTON
ROAD
EXTENSION
STREAM
RESTORATION
PLAN
CABARRUS COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Title
TYPICAL
MODIFIED
J-HOOK WEIR
Dwn By: Dote;
MAF APR 2003
Ckd By: Scale
JG NO SCALE
ESC Project No:
02-128
FIGURE
14
MODIFIED LL
FOR GRADE
CONTROL
I
I
1
i
1

i

G

t

1

610 0 60
H\`?
SCALE IN FEET
\ \ 0
%
II
I'
EXISTING m m
CATCH BASIN
EXISTING -------
'I,' I as ?
BOTTOMLAND
FOREST a y a
lii;r4, may
- 17 _' ..J l4 I ? ? mma
TRAN
SBS? /' mJ aa1-mamaaaaam6 .6
i ` • lL a a m a J, a J: ,'1-6 a-.L d z 1u Z' _lr'
" MH
MITIGATION
SITE BOUNDARY % °•
PROPOSED
DRY-STONE WAIL
(3' WIDE x 1'-2' HIGH)
EXISTING
CATCH BASIN
DOUBLE
8'x9' RCBC
ct..•ou.?c
X18" $5?
i„I IIII :I
I I, rll .I
Sul
„ ... f I
l?f ;I
II?? I
gum

MH .
J
,
(2) PROPOSED
DRY-STONE WALLS
(3' WIDE x 2'-3' HIGH)
5'TERRACE BETWEEN
acres
M
IXED
MESIC
ARDWO
H
ODS
® 0.39±
PIEDMONT
F
r rr r r',? BOTTOMLAND FOREST
0.41+-
97-7-6 y 77--11. y PERMANENT SEEDING 0.14±
FOREST EDGE COMMUNITY 0.08±
STREAM-SIDE ASSEMBLAGE 0.14±
Total planted acres 1.16±
EXISTING BOTTOMLAND
FOREST / UNDISTURBED 0.43±
NEW CHANNEL 0.31±
Total 1.90±
30' WIDE
SEWER EASEMENT
\
?s H \
a\ t\
GENERAL LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
(1.90± acres)
--585---- MAJOR CONTOUR
----------------- MINOR CONTOUR
EXISTING TREE LINE
EXISTING STREAM
l? POLE WITH LIGHT
oMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
- -- - -- SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
-8" SS--- SANITARY SEWER LINE
NEW CHANNEL
CENTERLINE
NEW CHANNEL

- - CONSTRUCTED
FLOODPLAIN
EcoScience
Corporation
Raleigh, North Carolina
I REVISIONS II
Client:
CITY OF
CONCORD
Project
WEDDINGTON
ROAD
EXTENSION
STREAM
RESTORATION
PLAN
CABARRUS COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Title:
PLANTING
PLAN
Dwn By: Dote.
MAF APR 2003
Ckd By: Scale:
JIG 1"-60'
ESC Project No:
02-128
FIGURE
75
EL
------
?';
W I;;I 'VII'I' ii
/ ..'
Irv
SITE LAYOUT
PLANTING LEGEND

?J

Piedmont Bottomland Forest
1) Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
2) Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii)
3) American Elm (Ulmus americana)
4) Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
5) Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
6) Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata)
7) Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis)
8) Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
9) Flowering Dogwood (Corpus florida)
10) Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Mesic Mixed Hardwoods
1) American Beech (Fagus grandifolia)
2) Red Oak (Quercus rubra)
3) Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum)
4) Flowering Dogwood (Corpus florida)
5) Red Maple (Acer rubrum)
6) Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
7) Red Bud (Cercis canadensis)
Forest Edge Community
1) Flowering Dogwood (Corpus florida)
2) Red Bud (Cercis canadensis)
3) Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
4) Tag Alder (Alnus serrulata)
5) Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
6) Pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia)
Surface ripping and scarification include establishing a rough soil surface by creating horizontal
grooves, furrows, and depressions, preferably running parallel to the slope contour over all
disturbed areas where feasible. These measures are intended to aid in the establishment of
vegetative cover from seed, to increase survivability of rooted plants, to reduce runoff velocity,
and provide for sediment trapping. A rough, loose soil surface gives a mulching effect that
provides more favorable moisture conditions than a hard, smooth surface, thereby aiding seed
germination and seedling development. A ripping and scarification treatment will occur over all
cuts, fills, and graded areas.
Tree species will be planted as bare-root seedlings on 10-foot centers (435 trees/acre) within
the elevated terrace and upland slopes. Shrub plantings or stakes will be inserted on average
1- to 2-foot spacing within the channel bank and active floodplain area. Table 5 depicts the total
number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation community. High mortality of
willow staking shall be expected in dryer, stone revetment areas. Tree planting will be
performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant
period and set root during the spring season. Shrub plantings/staking within bank stabilization
40

areas will be performed immediately after construction. A total of 780 diagnostic tree and shrub
seedlings shall be planted on Site during restoration implementation.
Table 5. Planting Plan, Weddington Road Stream Restoration Site.

0
t
1
t

Vegetation Association
(Planting area) Streamside
Assemblage Piedmont
Bottomiand
Forest Meslc Mixed
Hardwoods Forest Edge
Community TOTAL STEMS
PLANTED
Stem Target
Area (acres [ac]) 2400/ac
0.14 ac 435/ac
0.41 ac 435/ac
0.39 ac 435/ac
0.08 ac
1.02 ac
SPECIES # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total) # planted
(% total)
Black Willow 200(60) 200
Tag Alder 35(10) 8(20) 43
Elderberry 35(10) 8(20) 43
Pepperbush 35(10) 8(20) 43
Silky Dogwood 35(10) 35
Cherrybark Oak 20(10) 20
Swamp Chestnut Oak 20(10) 20
American Elm 20(10) 20
Green Ash 20(10) 20
Shagbark Hickory 20(10) 20
Bitternut Hickory 20(10) 20
Ironwood 20(10) 6(15) 26
Sycamore 20(10) 20
Flowering Dogwood 20(10) 20(10) 6(15) 46
Tulip Poplar 20(10) 30(15) 50
American Beech 40(20) 40
Red Bud 30(15) 4 (10) 34
Red Oak 40(20) 40
Sugar Maple 20(10) 20
Red Maple 20(10) 20
TOTAL 340 200 200 40 780
i s Some non-commercial elements may not oe iocany avauaoie at the time of piantmg. i ne stem count for unavauaoie species
should be distributed among other target elements based on the percent (%) distribution. One year of advance notice to forest
nurseries will promote availability of some non-commercial elements. However, reproductive failure in the nursery may occur.
2: Scientific names for each species, required for nursery inventory, are listed in Section 4.3.

1

1 41
t
' 5.0 FINAL DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY
Restrictive covenants will be prepared to protect the Site as a conservation area in perpetuity.
The restrictive covenants will include limitations on vegetation removal within the 50-foot
riparian buffer immediately adjacent to the stream. Buffer restrictions are not applicable to utility
easements, including the sewer line present on the Site. Nonetheless, the City is willing to
place additional restrictive covenants regarding activity within the sewer easement provided
such restrictions do not prevent maintenance or replacement of the sewer line. The City of
Concord shall have the right to keep clear the 30-foot sewer easement currently in-place.
Removal of vegetation from stream banks, except to prevent root networks from blocking the
sewer on the Site, will be prohibited. The restrictive covenants will ensure that the property
remains as conservation land in perpetuity.

1
t

42
1
1 6.0 REFERENCES
Bookhout, T. A., Editor. 1994. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats.
Fifth ed. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD. 740 pp.
Chang, H. H. 1988. Fluvial Processes in River Engineering. John Wiley& Sons.
Doll, B. A., D.E. Wise-Fredrick, C.M. Buckner, S. D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harman, R.E. Smith.
2000. Hydrauilic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams throughout the Piedmont of
North Carolina. North Carolina State University. Draft 8-21-2000. 8 pp.
Dunne, D. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company, NY.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification (MIST) EPA
Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative,
NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Fischenich, C. 2001. Stability Thresholds for Stream Restoration Materials. USAE Research
and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. ERDC TN-
EMRRP-SR-29, 10 pp.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finalyson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: An Introduction for
Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, and R.
Everhart. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. AWRA Summer Symposium.
Bozeman, MT.
r Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. USDA Forest Service.
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Manning, R.D. 1891. On the Flow of Water in Open Channels and Pipes. Transactions of the
Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland. 20, 161-20.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996. Hydric Soils: Cabarrus County. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Technical Guide Section II-A-2.
North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 1999. The Draft
Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, Version 1.0. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
' North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NCDNR).
1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. NC Geological Survey.

1 43
1
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission NCWRC . 1996. Draft Guidelines for Stream
Relocation and Restoration in North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Nunnally, N.R. and R.E. Keller. 1979. Use of Fluvial Processes to Minimize Adverse Effects of
Stream Channelization. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North
Carolina. Report No. 144.
Parsons-Brinkerhoff. 2003. Hydraulic Analysis, City of Concord, Rocky River Tributary Stream
r Restoration.
Pope, P.F., G.D. Tasker, and J.C. Robbins. 2001. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of
Floods in Rural Basins of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources
Investigations Report. 01-4207. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa
Springs, Colorado.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Schiechtl, H.M. and R. Stern. 1997. Water Bioengineering Techniques for Watercourse Bank
and Shoreline Protection (English Translation). Blackwell Science. 186 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1988. Soil survey of Cabarrus County, North Carolina,
USDA Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of the Army (USDOA). 1993 (unpublished). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District. Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
1

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974. State of North Carolina.
1 44

I
1

t
ri
Ll

APPENDIX A
GAUGE DATA

1

PEAK STREAM FLOW
North Prong Clark Creek near Huntersville, NC
USGS Station # 02124060
Drainage Area 3.61 square m iles
Return
Water Discharge Exceedence Exceedence Interval
Rank Year (cfs) Probability Probability % (years)
1 1959 2450 0.048 4.8 21
2 1954 1780 0.095 9.5 10.5
3 1964 1670 0.143 14.3 7
4
5 1966 1420
1962 1110 0.190
0.238 19.0
23.8 5.25
4.2
6 1973 970 0.286 28.6 3.5
7 1963 785 0.333 33.3 3
1 8 1958 660 0.381 38.1 2.63
9 1955 640 0.429 42.9 2.33
10 1965 500 0.476 47.6 2.1
11 1967 480 0.524 52.4 1.91
12 1960 430 0.571 57.1 1.75
13 1961
-eTTV 0.619 61.9 1.62
14 r
1956 390 0.667 66.7 1.50
15 1957 318 0.714 71.4 1.40
16 1971 305 0.762 76.2 1.31
17 1968 295 0.810 81.0 1.24
18 1972 290 0.857 85.7 1.17
19 1969 228 0.905 90.5 1.11
C s? r
20 1970 203 0.952 95.2 1.05

1

1

v5

1

t

t
t

I

PEAK STREAM FLOW
Lithia Inn Branch near Lincolnton NC
USGS Station # 02143310
Drainage Area 1.01 square mile
Return
Water Discharge Exceedence Exceedence Interval
Rank Year (cfs) Probability Probability % (years)
1 1960 722 0.071 7.1 14.00
2 1965 580 0.143 14.3 7.00
3 1956 565 0.214 21.4 4.67
4 1962 525 0.286 28.6 3.50
5 1958 396 0.357 35.7 2.80
6 1961 315 0.429 42.9 2.33
7 1954 145 0.500 50.0 2.00
8 1964 138 0.571 57.1 1.75
9 1966 (::p 0.643 64.3 1.56
10 1955 115 0.714 71.4 1.40
11 1959 F
:
93 0.786 78.6 1.27,.

12
1967 __
8
0.857
85.7
1.17
13 1957 70 0.929 92.9 U8
rte. ,..

r
PEAK STREAM FLOW
Long Creek near Bessemer, NC
USGS Station # 02144000
Drainage Area 31.80 square miles
t

1

Return
Water Discharge Exceedence Exceedence Interval
Rank Year (cfs) Probability Probability % (years)
1 1972 6500 0.023 2.3 44.00
2 1958 5290 0.045 4.5 22.00
3 1978 4930 0.068 6.8 14.67
4 1977 3890 0.091 9.1 11.00
5 1985 2920 0.114 11.4 8.80
6 1965 2680 0.136 13.6 7.33
7 1963 2620 0.159 15.9 6.29
8 1984 2460 0.182 18.2 5.50
9 1979 2410 0.205 20.5 4.89
10 1987 2230 0.227 22.7 4.40
11 1961 2120 0.250 25.0 4.00
12 1973 2110 0.273 27.3 3.67
13 1990 1870 0.295 29.5 3.38
14 1971 1830 0.318 31.8 3.14
15 1960 1660 0.341 34.1 2.93
16 1964 1650 0.364 36.4 2.75
17 1991 1500 0.386 38.6 2.59
18 1962 1430 0.409 40.9 2.44
19 1975 1390 0.432 43.2 2.32
20 1976 1330 0.455 45.5 2.20
21 1995 1300 0.477 47.7 2.10
22 1966 1240 0.500 50.0 2.00
23 1982 1230 0.523 52.3 1.91
24 1959 1180 0.545 54.5 1.83
25 1974 1160 0.568 56.8 1.76
26 1968 w o ° 14 0.591 59.1 1.69
27 1955 1040 0.614 61.4 1.63
28 1993 1040 0.636 63.6 1.57 n
29 1956 1020 0.659 65.9 1.52
30 1967 1010 0.682 68.2 1.47
31 1996 1010 0.705 70.5 1.42
32 1994 993 0.727 72.7 1.38
33 1980 990 0.750 75.0 1.33
34 1983 982 0.773 77.3 1.29
35 1954 980 0.795 79.5 1.26
36 1981 932 0.818 81.8 1.22
37 1989 850 0.841 84.1 1.19
38 1969 837 0.864 86.4 1.16
39 1986 824 0.886 88.6 1.13
40 1970 Ar 0.909 90.9 110,
41 1957 "722 0.932 93.2 1.07
42 1992 533 0.955 95.5 1.05
43 1988 384 0.977 97.7 1.02

T..
Ile
C1.04.4- z'ta-f L ."'a
1

t

r"
L I

PEAK STREAM FLOW
Long Creek near Paw Creek, NC
USGS Station # 02142900
Drainage Area 16.40 square miles
Return
Water Discharge Exceedence Exceedence Interval
Rank Year (cfs) Probability Probability % (years)
1 1982 4300 0.028 2.8 36.00
2 1975 3720 0.056 5.6 18.00
3 1977 3480 0.083 8.3 12.00
4 1986 2790 0.111 11.1 9.00
5 1973 2250 0.139' 13.9 7.20
6 1984 1890 0.167 16.7 6.00
7 1987 1760 0.194 19.4 5.14
8 1983 1650 0.222 22.2 4.50
9 1978 1550 0.250 25.0 4.00
10 1993 1550 0.278 27.8 3.60
11 1991 1480 0.306 30.6 3.27
12 2001 1400 0.333 33.3 3.00
13 1985 1390 0.361 36.1 2.77
14 2000 1370 0.389 38.9 2.57
15 1979 1360 0.417 41.7 2.40
16 1992 1360 0.444 44.4 2.25
17 1967 1350 0.472 47.2 2.12
18 1989 1320 0.500 50.0 2.00
19 1994 1280 0.528 52.8 1.89
20 1966 1260 0.556 55.6 1.80
21 1998 1220 0.583 58.3 1.71
22 1974 i„ 0.611 61.1 1.64
23 1976 1180 0.639 63.9 1.57
24 1990 1160 0.667 66.7 1.50
25 1995 1140 0.694 69.4 1.44
26 1996 1020 0.722 72.2 1.38
27 1971 972 0.750 75.0 1.33
28 1988 954 0.778 77.8 1.29
29 1969 874 0.806 80.6 1.24
30 1968 830 0.833 83.3 1.20
31 1980 814 0.861 86.1 1.16
32 1999 797 0.889 88.9 1.13
33 1972 -? T 0.917 91.7 1.09
34 1970 543 0.944 94.4 1.06

f 'ri
r
35 1981 530 0.972 97.2 1.03

t
1
w
av
PEAK STREAM FLOW \00
' Mallard Creek near Cha rlotte, NC
USGS Station # 02124130
Drainage Area 20.70 square miles
Return
Water Discharge Exceedence Exceedence Interval
Rank Year (cfs) Probability Probability % (years)
1 1962 4500 0.053 5.3 19.00
2 1955 3060 0.105 10.5 9.50
3 1971 2900 0.158 15.8 6.33
4
5 1959 2410
1954 2100 0.211
0.263 21.1
26.3 4.75
3.80
6 1965 1970 0.316 31.6 3.17
7 1966 1900 0.368 36.8 2.71
8 1967 1680 0.421 42.1 2.38
9 1958 1650 0.474 47.4 2.11
10 1956 1600 0.526 52.6 1.90
11 1968 1520 0.579 57:9 1.73
12 1964 470 0.632 63.2 1.58
13 1960 1360 0.684 68.4 1.46
14
15 1969 1300
1963 1180 0.737
0.789 73.7
78.9 1.36
1.27
16 1957 1170 0.842 84.2 1.19
17 1961 890 0.895 89.5 1.12
18 1970 870 0.947 94.7 1.06 ,r

°?• C ?"'°'.•., ? `(".-lid ? ?+?. ??&?d@ 94?. ? ?`?`
7.

r
_ Pte.
?/'r r?,?t Sq ?w,,
.r?
?. 4 a rch ?. €n^ki.q
?f.? cal
Lt L4 A co 1
A,o S K
D - ?? VR 1
t "gym
oxvi
I (11 e-,r- 5

1
1

1

II
1
1
APPENDIX 6
HEC-RAS RESULTS
r

I
I?
L

1
1

c
U
N
CU
(V
L
c
IL
U
W
s

M LO O N M (0 N ti
N
r N N 0 Co 0)
U O O O O O O r r r r T r r
0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O O 6 6

O
U-

'0
O
O
O
00
CC)
00
00
U)
0
0?0
M _
O
M
N
LO

?
aO to
Q T 0 0 0 M r r N 0) C M M

0
r
r
r d
r
r
N CO r

R3
r ti ti N LO N d' CO LO ? t- N
Q,. C70 O) O Lg Un U) L ? T O CD r CD -,* 00
LC) w) w r? t- t? N O
(0 i- ? CM N O O r
Cn
0 O O O 0) O O co
T L() co M 0) M O M
LO LO LO CD 0 (D r N r M LCD r N M
LL
C
_
L
U to

D

co

o Itt

M

1?

m

M

0)

C)

-

l-

i

O

N

d
O o r O O O r r N r r ?- r N

a 00 r 00 t- d' co r LS) r Ln t- 00 Ln N
0 r (D co O N ti CA M T 0 O N I-
O
C)
0 0 0 O
0 O
0 O
0 -t
O 00
O T N M
0 d' ti O r
O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
O 0
O O
O O
O
O
O O O O O O O O O O O C) 0
LLI O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

U t- 00 ti ti 00 ti N' LO N LO d LO LO M
L11 0O 00 00 CR 00 M Cl L() M N cr N r M

" r T r T r T M 'It 0 M 'd' Lo M t} L6
() CY)
LO 0)
LO LO CA
L D) 0 00 c0 00 00 co 00 M CD
* M
LLi n LO LO U) Ln LC) LC) Lf) tC) LC) U
) LC)
ti ti t- m CA 0
rt+
' c0 00 00 r 00 ti
?- T ?- r O O T

LO to LO U*) Ul) LO

ti r- ti f` lC) M Ln
M N r r (T (D
W 00 00 00 09 00 00 M N -I N d N O N
r
D r
m r r r T
M
00 M
M
00
U')
m
co
co
C m 0 m m O
O
' c 0
0 co co
LO L() 0 Ln In Lo U
) U) 0 X) to LC) Ln U)
W
L
0
00
0 h
0 f`
c0 t`
CR It
LO It
U.) It
0
?
LO
L.
co
co
co

U?
c r

? T

00 T

°p
0
0
0
00
0
0
ti
rl-
l.:
ti
ti
??
r?
I?
??
ti
U')
ti
LO
r`
m
L
n L
n LO to LO W) Ln Ln

is
LO CD o LO (D o Lr) 0 0 Ln o o Ln o o
F I,- N
M O
LA II- N O ti N CD II- N O rl- N CD
T I I
r M Lo r M LO r co LO r CO LO

a T N LC) T N LO r N LO r N LO I N LC)

(L C) O O 00 00 00 CD CD (D d' d' 't N N N
Q) r
r r
r T O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O
, T T r T r T T r T T T r r
N
L.L
? C
U) .U Q m U W
U as

? c c
' c c c c c c c c c c c c c
cu co 'ca ca ' cis' cu cu 'm' m ca ' cu ' m m' m' co

1

i
L

1
1
APPENDIX C
1
1
f]
SHEAR STRESS AND STREAM POWER WORKSHEETS

A
1

F

s
1
1
11

I
She stress
The shear stress or tractive force results from the tangential pull of flowing water on the stream bed and banks, and is
expressed In pounds per square foot or nlm'. The energy expended on the wetted perimeter of the stream increases
proportionally with the energy slope and water depth.
stream
power per
unit bed
Existing Conditions B channel at outfdl pounds/sq0 area 2.65t(R.Wbkf)
Specific average
weight of bankNfi Shear Max shear
84E Dub Mitt ZLP Hvd. Rad. 2 = yam[ velocity Stress w Re stress
37 1.3 29 31.6 1.17 0.021 82.4 B 1.5343 12.274833 25 4.379
12 1.5343 18.411948 25 4.379
stream
power per
unit bed
Existing Conditions B channel poundslsq 6 area 2.65t(RcNVbkf)
Specific avenge
weight of bankfull Sher Max sher
Area Death Width Wp Hvd, Rad, Slope WAtSL viol Stress w Re stress
37 1.3 29 31.6 1.17 0.021 62.4 4.8 1.5343 7.3647797 200 1.548
Change In slope
Proposed Conditions
Area 201h Width WP
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 282
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 282
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.8 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 i.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 26 282
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 28.2
40 1.6 25 282
Change in depthM4dth
Proposed Conditions Whltelace B
Specific avenge
weight of bankfu8
Hvd, Rad. S9na Wall! velOc(y
1.42 0.0015 82.4 8
1.42 0.002 62.4 8
1.42 0.0025 62.4 8
1.42 0.003 62.4 8
1.42 0.0035 62.4 8
1.42 0.004 62.4 8
1.42 0.0045 62.4 8
1.42 0.005 82.4 8
1.42 0.0055 62.4 8
1.42 0.006 62.4 8
1.42 0.0065 62.4 8
1.42 0.007 62.4 6
1,42 8.0075 524 8
1.42 0.008 62.4 8
1.42 0,0085 62.4 8
1.42 0.009 62.4 8
1.42 0.0095 62.4 8
1.42 0.01 62.4 8
1.42 0.0105 62.4 6
1.42 0.011 62.4 8
1.42 0.0115 62.4 8
Shear
Stress w
0.1328 1.0621277
0.1770 1.4161702
0.2213 1.7702128
0.2655 2.1242553
0.3098 2.4782979
0.3540 2.8323404
0.3983 3.186383
0.4426 3.5404255
0.4868 3.8944681
0.5311 4.2485106
0.5753 4.6025532
0.6196 4.9565957
0.6636 &81053&7
0.7081 5.6646809
0.7523 6.0187234
0.7966 6.372766
0.8409 6.7268065
0.8851 7.0808511
0.9294 7.4348936
0.9736 7.7889362
1.0179 8.1429787
Specific avenge
weight of baNdull Shear
9rea 2a& W119-L WP yvd. Rad. Slope Wkff vsLgty Stress w
40 2.3 15.9 20.41008 1.96 0.0075 62.4 5.06 0.9172 4.6441072
40 2.1 17.0 21.2132 1.89 0.0075 62.4 4.93 0.8825 4.3542213
40 2.0 18.0 22 1.82 0.0075 62.4 4.82 0.8509 4.0972935
40 1.9 19.0 22.7684 1.76 0.0075 62.4 4.71 0.8222 3.8689906
40 1.8 19.9 23.51788 110 0.0075 62.4 4.60 0.7960 3.6652859
40 1.7 20.8 24.24871 1.85 0.0075 82.4 4.51 0.7720 3.4826745
40 1.7 21.6 24.96151 1.60 0,0075 62.4 4.42 0.7500 3.3181855
40 1.6 22.4 25.65708 1.56 0.0075 62.4 4.34 0.7296 3.1693259
40 1.5 23.2 26.33629 1.52 0.0075 62.4 4.27 0.7108 3.034009
40 1.S 24.0 27 1.46 0.0075 02.4 4.20 0.8533 20104558
40 1.5 24.7 27.64906 1.45 0.0075 62.4 4.13 0.6771 2.7972849
40 1.4 25.5 28.28427 1.41 0.0075 62.4 4.07 0.6619 2.693164
40 1.4 26.2 28.90638 1.38 0.0075 62.4 4.01 0.6476 2.5870684
40 1.3 26.8 29.5161 1.36 0.0075 62.4 3.95 0.6342 2.5080982
40 1.3 27.5 30.11407 1.33 0.0075 62.4 3.90 0.6216 2.4254816
40 1.3 28.1 30.7009 1.30 0.0075 62.4 3.85 0.6098 2.3465539
40 1.3 28.8 31.27716 1.28 0.0075 82.4 3.80 0.5985 2.2767392
40 1.2 29.4 31,84337 1.26 0,0075 62.4 3.76 0.5879 2.2095369
40 1.2 30.0 32.4 1.23 0.0075 62.4 3.72 0.5778 2.1465093
40 1.2 30.6 32.94751 1.21 0.0075 62.4 3.67 0.5682 2.0872727
40 1.2 31.2 33.48532 1.19 0.0075 62.4 3.83 0.5500 2.0314889
stream
power per
unit bed
Proposed Conditions B channel at culvert outfall poundslou 6 area 2.65t(RcNVbkf)
Specific average
weight of bankful Max shear
Lea 2%tt ?8= W_p Hvd, Rad, S2Ippq Wate velocity Shear ,5toss w Re stress
40 1.6 25 28.2 1.42 0.0075 62.4 6 0,6838 5.310638 60 1.136
12 0.6638 7.965957 60
stream
powerper
unit bed
Proposed Conditions B channel poundslcue area 2.65t(Rc7Jtlbk0
Specific avenge
weight of bankful Max shear
Area pggtt_i i 1 WP Hvd. Rad. S§igpe WVgtAr velocity Shear Stress w Re stress
40 1.6 25 28.2 1.42 0,0075 62.4 4.05 0.6638 2.688511 100 0.880
w/d ratio Width Depth
7 15.9 2.3
8 17.0 2.1
9 18.0 2.0
10 19.0 1.9
11 19.9 1.8
12 20.8 11
13 21.6 1.7
14 22.4 1.6
15 23.2 1.5
18 24.0 1.5
17 24.7 1.5
18 25.5 1.4
19 26.2 1.4
20 26.8 1.3
21 27.5 1.3
22 28.1 1.3
23 28.8 1.3
24 29.4 1.2
25 30.0 1.2
26 30,6 1.2
27 31.2 2
stream
powerper
unit bed
Rocky Branch (Upper) Ibslsq. R area 2.65t(RcAfVbkf)
Specific average
weight of banklufi Shear Max shear
Area P=th WlS?h ?_ALP Hvd. Rad. Slgl pe Water velocity stress w Re stress
33.2 1.8 18.3 21.90 1.52 0.0084 62.4 4.51 0.7946 3.583723 30 1.645
Rocky Branch (Lower)
Specific avenge
weight of bankful Shear
Area Dew Width WP Hvd. Rad, Slope VW_" velocity Stress w
42.1 1.8 24.3 27.90 1.51 0.0071 62.4 4.19 0.6874 2.880046
80 1.004

i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stream Power
The rate of doing work, or a measure of the energy available for moving rock, sediment particles, or woody or
other debris in the stream channel, as determined by discharge, water surface slope, and the specific weight of
water.
w--specific (per unit) stream power (Joules/second/sq. ft)
Existing Conditions B channel
total stream
Density of Water Discharge Slope Channel Width power w=WM
62.4 178 0.021 29 233.25 8.043144828
Existing Conditions B channel
total stream
Density of Water Discharge Slope Channel Width power w=WNJ
62.4 178 0.021 29 233.25 8.043144828
Proposed Conditions B channel
total stream
Density of Water Discharge Slope Channel Width power w--WW
62.4 162 0.0035 25 35.38 1.4152
62.4 162 0.004 25 40.44 1.6174
62.4 162 0.0045 25 45.49 1.8196
62.4 162 0.005 25 50.54 2.0218
62.4 162 0.0055 25 55.60 2.2239
62.4 162 0.006 25 60.65 2.4261
62.4 162 0.0065 25 65.71 2.6283
62.4 162 0.007 25 70.76 2.8305
63.4 162 0.0076 25 15.82 3.0326
62A 162 0.008 25 80.87 3.2348
62.4 162 0.0085 25 85.92 3.4370
62.4 162 0.009 25 90.98 3.6392
62.4 162 0.0095 25 96.03 3.8413
62.4 162 0.01 25 1Q1.09 4.0435
62.4 162 0.0105 25 106.14 4.2457
62.4 162 0,011 25 111.20 4.4479
62.4 162 0.0115 25 116.25 4.6500
Proposed Conditions B channel
total stream
Density of Water Discharge Slope Channel Width power w=WM
62.4 162 0.0075 25 75.82 3.03264
Proposed Stream B channel
total stream
Density of Water Discharge Slope Channel Width power w=WNV
62.4 162 0.0075 25 75.82 3.03264
Proposed Conditions B Channel
total stream
Density of Water ischar a Slope Channel Width power w=WNJ
62.4 162 0.0075 17 75.82 4.459765
62.4 162 0,0075 18 75.82 4.212
62.4 162 0.0075 19 75.82 3.990316
62.4 162 0.0075 20 75.82 3.7908
62.4 162 0.0075 21 75.82 3.610286
62.4 162 0.0075 22 75.82 3.446182
62.4 162 0,0075 23 75.82 3.296348
62.4 162 0.0075 24 75.82 3.159
62.4 162 0.4075 25 75,82 3.03264
62.4 162 0.0075 26 75.82 2.916
62.4 162 0.0075 27 75.82 2.808
62.4 162 0.0075 28 75.82 2.707714
62.4 162 0,0075 29 75.82 2.614345
62.4 162 0.0075 30 75.82 2.5272
62.4 162 0.0075 31 75,82 2.445677
62.4 162 0,0075 32 75.82 2.36925
62.4 162 0.0075 33 75.82 2.297465
w--specific (per unit) stream power (Joules/second/sq. ft)
Rocky Branch Reference upper reach
total
stream
Density of Water Discharge Slone Channel Width power w=WNV
62.4 150 0.0084 21 78.62 3.744
Rocky Branch Reference lower reach
total
stream
Density of Water Dischar a Slope Channel Width power
62.4 176.5 0.0073 22 80.40 3.654513
1

1
t

t

t

1
1
APPENDIX D
REFERENCE STREAM DATA
t
1

t

I

e

Rocky Branch Profile (Lower Reach)
a)
4.2
0
0
W
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
0 100 200 300
Linear distance (feet)
400
500
600

1