20000212 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20000207

."AA
NCDENR
Mr. Philip May
JAMES B. HUNT JR. G.N. Richardson & Associates
GOVERNOR 425 N. Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
QUALITY
DIVISION OF (WATER
August 1, 2000
WETLAND, G ?j.
NJATEIt QU'f I ITY
Subject: Payment to Wetlands Restoration Fund
BILL HOLMAN Kersey Valley Landfill -Phase 3
SECRETARY Guilford County
KERR T: STEVENS Dear Mr. May,
DIRECTOR - -
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) received your
July 31, 2000 letter requesting concurrence that the NCWRP accept payment for the
compensatory mitigation requirements for the completion of Phase 3 of the Kersey
Valley Landfill, east of High Point. Based on information provided by you,
approximately 0.2 acres of wetlands in cataloging unit 03030003 of the Cape Fear river
basin will be impacted.
The long-term goal of the NCWRP is to be able to accept payments to satisfy
compensatory mitigation requirements throughout North Carolina. However, at this
time the NCWRP is unable to provide this service throughout the state. The
Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which allows
payments to the Wetlands Restoration Fund, requires that the compensatory mitigation
performed by the NCWRP be within the same cataloging unit as the impact. At this
time the NCWRP does not have any wetland impacts or potential wetland restoration
projects within the cataloging unit mentioned above. Therefore the NCWRP is unable
to accept payment for this project.
We appreciate your interest in the Wetlands Restoration Program and regret that
the NCWRP cannot accommodate your request at this time. If you have any questions
concerning this matter please contact me at 919-733-5314.
Sincerely,
M,•v
Mac Haupt
Implementation Coordinator
NC-Wetlands Restoration Program
Cc: Rob Ridings, DWQ-401/Wetlands Unit
Jennifer Frye, DWQ-WSRO
John Thomas, Raleigh-RFO USACOE
r
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
1619 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1 6 1 9
website: h2o.enr. sta te. nc. U s PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
City of High Point
Solid Waste Services
Post Office Box 230
High Point, NC 27261
Dear Sirs:
1 ? •
A 00% Sol
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
March 16, 2000
Re: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed Kersey Valley Land Fill expansion
WQC Project #000212 COE # 199920165
Guilford County
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No.WQC3272 issued to the City of High Point
dated March 16, 2000.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Attachments
Fce y,
Stevens
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Doug Huggett, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
Philip May: Richardson & Associates
Division of Water Quality - Non-Discharge Branch
1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27669-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401
Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500. It is issued to City of
High Point resulting in 0.2 acres of wetland impact and 200 linear feet of stream impact in
Guilford County pursuant to an application filed on the 11th day of November, 1999 to expand
the Kersey Valley landfill.
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the
waters of Richland Creek in conjunction with the proposed development will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State
of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections
301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the
application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your
application, as described in the Public Notice. If you change your project, you must notify us
and send us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must
be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying
with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre
or total perennial stream impact exceeds 150 feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow
the conditions listed below. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-discharge and Water Supply watershed regulations.
Condition(s) of Certification:
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of two manuals, either the "North Carolina Sediment
and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" or the "North Carolina Surface
Mining Manual" (available from the Division of Land Resources in the DEHNR
Regional or Central Offices). The control practices shall be utilized to prevent
exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh
water streams and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and
reservoirs, and all saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
2. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be
removed and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has
released the project;
3. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with
waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
4. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or other waters, compensatory
mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities;
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification
and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void
unless the above conditions are made conditions of the Federal 404 and/or coastal Area
Management Act Permit. This Certification shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA
permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must
be in the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C.
276 1 1-7447. If modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following
receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and
binding.
This the 16 day of March 2000
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
c e ns
WQC#3272

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
?1 l? W Q v? 5
0 ?-3 b
a?j-,???a??w!
Re: Certification Pursu to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed " i
WQC P'ect # Qb0a1? COE # 19 q dD 5-
County
' 4.
Attac ed hereto is a copy of Certification N issued to the dated
V GO c lv , 2000.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
ILTI?WAA
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Oag__"? 2000

Dear Sincerely,

Attachments
Kerr T. Stevens
cc: Wilmington District orps of Engineers
Corp of Engineers (el Field Office
DWQ egional Office
File Copy
Doug Huggett. Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
? co; dv '
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27669-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
G I?.,Y
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Sectio 401
Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina ivision
of Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500. It is issued to ????
resulting in 0.2 acres of wetland impact and 2-00 line' r feet of stream impact in
County p rsu t to an applicatio? filed on the l l?day of
?r . Uall ?a?Q?t< lg9?
The 7,, Ii ation rovides adequate assurance that the discharge of till material into the
waters of c Creek in conjunction with the proposed development will not result
in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with
the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your
application, as described in the Public Notice. If you change your project, you must notify us
and send us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must
be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying
with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre
or total perennial stream impact exceeds 150 feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow
the conditions listed below. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-discharge and Water Supply watershed regulations.
Condition(s) of Certification:
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of two manuals, either the "North Carolina Sediment
and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" or the "North Carolina Surface
Mining Manual" (available from the Division of Land Resources in the DEHNR
Regional or Central Offices). The control practices shall be utilized to prevent
exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh
water streams and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and
reservoirs, and all saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
2. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be
removed and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has
released the project;
3. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with
waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
4. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or other waters, compensatory
mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities;
6.1 C ens ry iti .
6 ' Deed n ' 'ications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all remaining
juri j cti nal wetla d waters reas ithin 50 f of Il streams a
ds to otify estate n or to assure mpl' -cc for f ure w nd and/or
water im These me isms shall be pte-in place witjLtrL, days of the date
of this letter or the issuance of the 404 Permit (whichever is later).
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of' this Certification
and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void
unless the above conditions are made conditions of the Federal 404 and/or coastal Area
Management Act Permit. This Certification shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA
permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must
be in the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C.
276 1 1-7447. If modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following
receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and
binding.
This thAday of W"2000
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Kerr T. Stevens
w
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact:
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor:
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Kersey Valley Landfill
Project Number 00 0212
Recvd From APP
Received Date 2/7/00 Recvd By Region 2/21/2000
County Guilford
County2
Region Winston-Salem
Project Type landfill expansion
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
F _IP F_ PT -@N rF_ 17-7-4 r C F__30,608. 0.20 200.00
-F-O Y O H I -F- F-1r- xI - r I - F-
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Wetland create ? 0.80
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y O N Did you request more info? 0 Y O N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? Q Y O N
Is Mitigation required? O Y O N
Recommendation: O issue O Issue/fond O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 355715 Longitude (ddmmss) 795612
Comments:
MITIGATION IS REQUIRED PER THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - NOT DWO.
The WSRO recommends that this WO C=ertification he issued with the following conditions-
1. They need to submit the exact acreage of wetland impact and exact linear footage of channel
iplnac+ The channel along the Northern edge of Proposed Phase 3 was denoted as Jurisdictional ,
gnific int, but not important by the Corp( nce,?y are using acreaneP impacts). A site visit on
3/2/00 revealed that this is a non-mitigatahl . channel and DWO would need linear footage for this
impact
2 Plans and specifications for their Stormwater Management Ponds need to meet DWO approval-
CONTINUED ----
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
• • and Geological Services
March 7, 2000
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR - DWQ
4401 Reedy Creek Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: Individual Permit Application
Kersey Valley Landrill
High Point, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Dorney,
z Z0?1
,.. MAR
WETUM )S GttQUi'
.. ., V;r?TFR IIA?Q L?ECTION_
'J
The purpose of this letter is to confirm channel impacts and transmit the enclosed
Sediment and Erosion Control calculations for the above referenced site. The individual
permit application was submitted to the Corps of Engineers (COE) on October 21, 1999
and the public notice was issued on November 15, 1999 (Action ID # 199920165).
I met Jennifer Frye at the site on Thursday March 2, 2000. It was qocr",ed that the
impacts to the channel in the southeast portion of the site would b 200 f t of channel
which did not require mitigation as confirmed by Ms. Frye. She a =entioned that the
enclosed sediment and erosion control calculations may be required for your review. I
spoke with Mr. Todd St. John on March 7 and he suggested that I transmit one copy of
the enclosed document to include in the file for the Kersey Valley Landfill (DWQ
#000212).
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact myself or Pieter
Scheer at your earliest convenience at [phone].
Sincerely,
G. N. Richardson & Associates, Inc.
Philip May
Staff Scientist
425 N. BOYLAN AVENUE • RALEIGH, NC 27603 • TEL. [phone] • FAX [phone] • WWW.GNRA.COM
FILE COPY
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
• • and Geological Services
January 24, 2000
Mr. Matthew Gantt, P.E.
NC DENR - Land Quality Section
585 Waughtown Street
Winston Salem, NC 27107
1 1
y;
MAR 7 2000
a
L WETLAIdPS Gtr:;
„VATER?t UALITY SECI Cl!
IRe: Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan
Kersey Valley NISW Landfill - Phase 3
Dear Mr. Gantt:
G.N. Richardson & Associates would like to submit the attached erosion and sedimentation
control plan on behalf of the City of High Point. The Kersey Valley Landfill Facility is located off
of Kivett Drive in High Point, North Carolina. The total disturbed acreage for the construction
and operation of the Phase 3 area is 20.0 acres. The City is preparing the Financial Ownership
documentation and will be submitting the appropriate review fee of $410. The contact person for
the City is as follows:
Mr. Duane Jarman, Solid Waste Manager
City of High Point Department of Public Services
211 South Hamilton Street
High Point, NC 27260
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone].
Please contact us at your convenience with any questions or comments which you may have.
Sincerely,
G.N. Richardson & Associates, Inc.

Pieter K. Scheer, P.E.
Project Engineer
Attachment
cc: Mr. Duane Jarman, City of High Point
425 N. BOYLAN AVENUE • RALEIGH, NC 27603 • TEL. [phone] • FAX [phone] • WWW.GNRA.COM
Erosion And Sedimentation Control Plan
Kersey Valley MSW Landfill - Phase 3
High Point, North Carolina
Prepared for:
The City of High Point
Department of Public Services
November 1999
PERMIT ISSUE DOCUMENTS
G.N. Richardson & Associates, Inc.
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

Erosion And Sedimentation Control Plan
Kersey Valley MSW Landfill - Phase 3
High Point, North Carolina
Prepared for:
City of High Point
Department of Public Services
To the Attention of:
Mr. Duane Jarman
Solid Waste Manager
GNRA Project No. HPOINT-12
Al??1211K-
Pieter K. Scheer, P.E.
Project Engineer
November 1999
MAR ;non
,?;:?rrrn«f,
S @? ? ?'fr
SEAL
g 0 21636
f1"'o f
PERMIT ISSUE DOCUMENTS
G.N. Richardson & Associates, Inc.
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
CITY OF HIGH POINT
KERSEY VALLEY MSW LANDFILL - PHASE 3
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MAR
s
WET?.?'
Page
1.0 NARRATIVE .......................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description ................................................. 1
1.2 Contact Information ................................................ 1
1.2.1 Engineer ...................................................1
1.2.2 Owner .....................................................1
1.3 Existing Site Conditions ............................................ 1
1.4 Adjacent Areas ....................................................2
1.5 Site Soils Information .............................................. 2
2.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES .............................. 2
3.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES - INITIAL ...... 3
3.1 Sediment Basins ................................................... 3
3.2 Draina?,,e Channels ................................................. 3
3.3 Culverts .........................................................4
3.4 Drop Inlets .......................................................4
3.5 Silt Fence ........................................................4
3.6 Vegetative Stabilization ............................................. 4
4.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES - FINAL ........ 4
4.1 Cap Diversion Berms ............................................... 5
4.2 Side Slope Swales ................................................. 5
4.3 Down Chutes .....................................................5
5.0 SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION ................................... 5
6.0 MAINTENANCE AND SEDIMENT DISPOSAL ............................ 5
APPENDICES
Appendix A Erosion and Sedimentation Control Calculations
Appendix B Erosion and Sedimentation Control Technical Specifications
Appendix C Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans and Details
Kersey Valley.%1SW Landfill - Phase 3 Erosion And Sedimentation Control Plan
November 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TOC-1
CITY OF HIGH POINT
KERSEY VALLEY MSW LANDFILL - PHASE 3
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN
1.0
NARRATIVE
1.1 Project Description
The City of High Point plans to construct a lateral expansion (Phase 3) of their existing
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill and a convenience center at their existing landfill
facility located off of Kivitt Drive. The construction and operation of the landfill
expansion and convenience center will require the disturbance of approximately 20.0
additional acres which have not previously been permitted at the site. This plan discusses
both the initial and long term (final) erosion and sedimentation control measures used on
this project.
1.2 Contact Information
1.2.1 Engineer: For questions regarding this erosion and sedimentation control
plan, please contact the following:
G.N. Richardson & Associates, Inc.
Attn.: Pieter K. Scheer, P.E.
425 N. Boylan Ave.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone].
1.2.2 Owner: The owner of the site and the person to contact should sediment
control issues arise during the land-disturbing activity is as follows:
City of High Point Department of Public Services
Attn.: Duane Jarman, Solid Waste Manager
211 South Hamilton Street
High Point, NC 27260
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone].
1.3 Existing Site Conditions
The site occupies a central ridge line, oriented to the northeast. The ridge terminates in a
broad knoll at the northern site boundary, with a crest at about El. 834. The central ridge
slopes gently to the south and separates shallow drainage swales which drain the Phase 3
site to the southwest and southeast (more strongly toward the south).
Kersey Valley MSW Landfill - Phase 3 Erosion And Sedimentation Control Plan
November 1999 Page 1
Both swales lead to a southeasterly perennial stream (unnamed tributary) along the
southern Phase 3 site boundary. The swale to the west side of the central ridge contains a
small pond (estimated f2.5 acres), with a mean water level elevation of El. 815. Both
swales have been channelized along the east and west perimeters, respectively, as a result
of past agricultural activity (western swale) and landfill construction (eastern swale).
Typical drainage gradients are 3.6 percent along the western swale (below the dam) and 5
percent along the eastern swale.
On a wider scale, surface drainage is divided along a northwest-southeast trending ridge,
defined by Kivett Drive. Site mapping shows that all drainage south of Kivett Drive goes
to the unnamed tributary. The tributary originates west of Jackson Lake Road, near the
intersection of Business Loop I-85/US 29 and Kivett Drive. The unnamed tributary
enters the site at Jackson Lake Road at El. 784 and exits at the southeast corner (just
below the west edge of Phase 2) at E1 766. From these measurement points, the straight
run of the stream is 1400 feet, with a channel gradient of approximately 1.3 percent. A
subparallel ridge located 500 feet south of the site creates another drainage divide
between the unnamed tributary basin and the Richland Creek basin, located about 0.5
miles further south. Richland Creek flows to the southeast, subparallel to the unnamed
tributary. The tributary converges with Richland Creek about 1.4 miles east of the site.
Richland Creek merges with Deep River about 0.6 miles further east.
1.4 Adjacent Areas
The proposed site borders landfill property to the south and east. To the east, and
upstream of the proposed landfill, lies a mostly wooded tract with residential and
commercial development. Jackson Lake Road forms the western boundary of the site.
1.5 Site Soils Information
The soils within the upper 10 feet of the surface are generally classified as clayey and
sandy silt (ML) and silty sand (SM) with occasional silty clay (CH). The deeper soils are
more granular and exhibit a relic rock-like texture.
2.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES
The erosion and sediment control design for the landfill was conducted based on guidelines and
procedures as set forth in the following references:
1. North Carolina Erosion & Sediment Control Planning & Design Manual,
(E&SCP&DM), North Carolina Division of Land Resources, 1988; and
2. Malcom, H. Rooney, Elements of Urban Stormwater Design, (EOUSD), NC State
Univ., Raleigh, NC, 1989.
All stormwater flow volumes were calculated using the Rational Method based on the maximum
rate of runoff from a 25-year storm event which exceeds the 10-year event required by current
Kersey Valley MSW Landfill - Phase 3 Erosion And Sedimentation Control Plan
November 1999 Page 2
North Carolina Sediment Control regulations. Note that the maximum rate of runoff from a 25-
year storm exceeds the rate of runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm as required by current North
Carolina Solid Waste regulations. Runoff coefficients for various ground cover conditions are
referenced to Exhibit 1 of EOUSD. Rainfall intensities used in the Rational Method were
derived from an analysis of design storms for the site. Times of concentration were calculated
with the Kirpich Equation. Drainage areas were determined using a planimeter and/or AutoCAD
on topographic sheets of the project area.
3.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES - INITIAL
The following erosion and sedimentation control measures are to be constructed as part of the
initial construction of the landfill. Appendices A, B, and C to this plan include calculations,
technical specifications, and plans and details for each of these measures, respectively.
In most cases, the following erosion and sedimentation control measures were designed using the
final drainage areas which were found to represent a worst case for design. Each calculation
indicates what condition was used in the analysis.
3.1 Sediment Basins
There are three permanent sediment basins which will serve the site. Existing Sediment
Basin No. 1 is located south of Phase 2. Proposed Sediment Basin Nos. 2 and 3 are to be
located south and west of Phase 3, respectively.
Sediment basin design is subject to several requirements. The sediment basins must
provide a basin volume of 1800 ft3/acre of disturbed area. Other E&SCP&DM
requirements for permanent basins include riser/barrel principal spillways and emergency
weir-type spillways. The principal spillways must have a capacity of 0.2 ft3 /second/acre
of drainage area. This flow must be met with one foot of driving head. The crest of the
emergency spillways is set one foot above the invert of the riser and must pass the peak
run-off from the 25-year storm event with one foot of freeboard to crest of berm. The
principal and emergency spillways were designed using a spreadsheet based on methods
provided in EOUSD. These methods provide a more detailed design than provided in
E&SCP&DM while meeting the above requirements. The riser/barrel assemblies must be
provided with an anchor displacing a buoyant weight of at least 1.1 times the weight of
water displaced by the riser. The risers must also be provided with a method of
dewatering the basin. This design was carried out in accordance with criteria from
E&SCP&DM.
3.2 Drainage Channels
Drainage channel calculations were conducted using a reformulation of Manning's
Equation to calculate normal depth of flow, as set forth in EOUSD, for given conditions
to establish ditch capacity and velocity of flow. For conservatism, the channel
calculations assume peak flow over maximum slope of channel reach in determining
velocity. Channels were first checked assuming just constructed, bare earth, conditions.
Kersey Valley MSW Landfill - Phase 3 Erosion And Sedimentation Control Plan
November 1999 Page 3
The maximum allowable velocity for bare earth was assumed to be 2.5 feet per second
(Table 8.05d E&SCP&DM). If velocity exceeded this value, a temporary liner was
chosen if appropriate. Normal depth and velocity was then calculated assuming grass
lining as a minimum constructed condition. The allowable velocity for grass lining was
assumed to be 4.5 feet per second (Table 8.05a, E&SCP&DM). If the velocity exceeded
this, a permanent liner was designed. Both temporary and permanent channel linings
were designed using the Tractive Force Procedure as outlined in E&SCP&DM.
3.3 Culverts
There are several culverts which will be used at the site to convey flow beneath roadways
and embankments. Most culverts will be directed to one of the site sediment basins.
Culverts were designed based on an analysis of inlet and outlet control under the
influence of the design storm to determine the governing headwater condition. Culvert
outlets were designed for outlet stabilization based on criteria set forth in E&SCP&DM,
Section 6.41. Culverts draining disturbed areas, which are not routed to a sediment basin,
were designed with a stone filter berm placed around the inlet to trap sediment. Culvert
No. 3, which is by far the longest culvert, has been designed with a precast concrete
manhole and access at a drop inlet to provide for cleanout capability.
3.4 Drop Inlets
Weir-type and grated drop inlets will be used to route flows into one of the sediment
basins. These drop inlets were designed based on an analysis of the flow capacity of the
open sides (weirs) or open area (orifices - grated) of the drop inlet compared to the
maximum flow from the design storm. Prior to vegetative stabilization of the perimeter
channel, each drop inlet will be protected from sedimentation by a placing a wire mesh
and coarse aggregate filter around all sides of the drop inlet.
3.5 Silt Fence
Silt fencing design was based on criteria set forth in E&SCP&DM, Section 6.62
including the limitation of 100 feet of fencing for each'/4 acre of drainage area.
3.6 Vegetative Stabilization
Vegetative stabilization will be in accordance with the seeding schedule in the project
specifications (provided as an attachment to this plan). The seeding schedule was based
on Table 6.11 k of E&SCP&DM which is applicable to this site.
4.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES - FINAL
The following erosion and sedimentation control measures are to be constructed as part of final
cover construction. Appendices A, B, and C to this plan include calculations, technical
specifications, and plans and details for each of these measures, respectively.
Kersey Valley MSW Landfill - Phase 3 Erosion And Sedimentation Control Plan
November 1999 Page 4
4.1 Can Diversion Berms
Cap Diversion Berms are to be placed at the slope break of the final cover where the
3.5H:1 V side slopes break to a 5 percent grade. Flow from the cap diversion berms is
directed to the down chutes. The capacity and erosion potential of these berms was
checked using the reformulation of Manning's Equation from EOUSD as stated above for
design flows.
4.2 Side Slope S-vvales
Side Slope Swales are to be placed along final cover side slopes at 20 to 30 foot vertical
increments. Flow from the side slope swales is directed to the down chutes or perimeter
channels. The capacity and erosion potential of these swales was checked using the
reformulation of Manning's Equation from EOUSD as stated above for design flows.
4.3 Down Chutes
Down Chutes are to be constructed of gabion baskets and/or mattresses and are to be
placed down final cover side slopes in order to safely route concentrated flows off of the
final cover. Flow from the down chutes is directed to perimeter channels. The capacity
and erosion potential of these down chutes was checked using the reformulation of
Manning's Equation from EOUSD as stated above for design flows.
5.0 SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
All erosion control measures will be placed before any land disturbance or waste placement may
begin in that portion of the site which drains to the erosion control measures. All areas reaching
final elevations will be vegetated.
6.0 MAINTENANCE AND SEDIMENT DISPOSAL
All erosion and sedimentation control devices will be inspected at regular intervals and
immediately following any significant rainfall event. Repairs will then be made as needed and
accumulated sediment removed if necessary. In the case of the sediment basins, sediments will
be removed when one half of the basin volume is filled with sediment.
All sediments which are removed from erosion and sedimentation control measures will be
disposed of in an approved manner at a location to be designated by the Engineer in such a
manner that further erosion and sedimentation will not occur.
Mersey Valley MSW Landfill - Phase 3 Erosion And Sedimentation Control Plan
November 1999 Page 5
W00'VF1NJ'MMM e6ec-oze-Me-XVd LL90-oze-m-3NOHd a•"
0091-C 'O'N 'HOIH'IVa anN3AV NV"1AO8 'N 9ZV d•? a ?°4?? jig ?oo'{ 1d1l1N1-Nd]d IMiNOO z w
411"
y? ? 3 S d H d
,e3s s; ? t tl35 0 11IdaW MSw ,137bA Jl]Sd31l AlmaiS ONV NOISOd3
' °i OSS3fla ?! bti? cbss3fa?
'ONI S3IVIOOSSV I NOS08VH013 N O ? ?o N?•
-ae?rl rnl r.,a I
0
r7
m C14
¢+! o
~ cD o v j
?W W W t= C7 ZI o? 1 ,.o?.o lo?o?olo of tSK? o
,sl (/? J cn z zo J, za!? ICI I,??N ?? z _ N
57<
F-- CD
K.
I U X Z! <' I"I K Irj".jn
r w J zj z 11 s
i U w ¢ !
",.2 IZ 4
I Z (n j !
oosi?du - Of R Cl- a v '! I b ?lbl
'IF
a F- U Q OJ?j3! iI ?3
N (n ?i Z W Z N ?I-? aZ
C) :z
GJ Y z ¢ j i? ?I ?iaoll,
J, ?? ?` CT] J w F 1-- ?I_I I I I If a r ..
~ °s
W 1 ~ ¢' !
?M. ?. O j ! -I - t;
y : In pi > r ..
u_j
U' I ?'n ¢! !II Y e
``' Of
g 81g',A ?'?I?j?l, mgl8l=
U
l w
L1.1 \ W mo
IM Q=
,- y W
cz?
CN :Z
fI d? ss _
and{Oars - T o I jll ' I i,,? i+,q IL 1 3 .U Z w V) _j
t V
1 nas N U ? ??1\ y III I I;?h UJ ¢ Z J¢ p w
O IjI I \ICIIII!,I 0-c~i? w¢ Zw An 0-J
Of U- I=
U
1 ?Iw I, II 1? cow ow o w ^?
?? / ¢ v) M W z o ww
II I o ? F-
a Lo
w J
LLJ
0 11.-'
__j uj
F
Ln V)
I I I 1 ?1
LLJ
F- M
-- _ U Cl]
oo;ta r, -r- p 1 O
,
W
C.J W
O - I to ? r _
U Y
j j / ppt? ?'?j ?lll
>-
w ?? 1 agog
Q o
Z
?? lai o ,ei
l? z ??' ?? a,i? z z ¢ U
w
Z I ?? III / ?/ / :./ Z ¢
C3 I
?' III' I II l?? M1p. I Q U m J
e
01i => L'i ?f
O
--j f= LIj C.D aoerOeN - U - 1 wo uj w
;
I
=
_ Y ?w
z
, I? _ Qi Q v
k
_ Z

M I
L Ji Q
!
p
En
M
af ED
? V I J LO a=2 C/)
1
` -o Z
?
_
; rl W LL^ C1
S C) M1
Z
- - - - O d- <
I ci::
Z C-
X caa
UJ
Z' Z

J Uw -.
w
F-
Cr =

U
W z oU

2 w

CJ O,u

I

\
. ¢
CD F-
V J
Z I
C-4
Z
W

.
_ < w
..

WCD 9
. 00
_..
.
Z w Q z W U
? Z -
ZN ?C7 ?y d?
O X JQ ?W

ova U F-r,sA
O:f z?
C7 ZC7
F-
o? ¢ V) f CD C
?cl- dQ ? N

W
c p
o
?
yJ
?
J X
X
- - r O CO V) CD L
J
Ckf
D (n Z
¢ W U U W ^
=
U w
- - CY'W
Nd ,, Ii :{yrylt GGbI'til ?J(] 'alYO r'MI'4111Gf -A4y ?b...,: "I".1 I, '.
WOOWNUMMM 888E-BZ9-819-Ml LL90-8Z8-8t8-3NOHd ?a s N • a N"
EOOLZ 'O'N 'HOla-WEI af1N3AV NV"1J109 'N sZV +??N??3wa,1 d + X00\ 3SdHd
- 999120 `, 4 ? ? S6B0
,d3s r, tl35 1 TIJaNVI MSW /?311VA J\3SdD
'ONI `83IVIO088V I NOS08VH018 'N O o?ss.

Q P=

? _

WW
Z cy-
N C.7
Z

1 c? ? I..:•.9

? X Q
W J
1
I

E E?
d.
(D
1 V ? 1 ?a,
W O
cv ?? W t?\
0
m
0
o
W Jd/;; m
m
I
I
O
? WY
¢1t O 0 ¢
Cl- W
u ?
o
III IOVUNitl _ .. tilr N . _ .. - _ _
FF/+?_ 1' ?- - m 4
U W VVV
U
B C:)
W
o ;? ?
:Zzs
z
0
J_
¢
Q W W
Um V)
IIOOYAN
Il?/
i
i
?VNIJ - Ndld 10d1N00
1N3WIa3S aNd NOISOd3

i
O
M
N
Z
Z
Q
CD
W
O I
N .?
rid 694 3:111 GSGI ip,IU d17,16MV
( s.....x i'] r?l (i fl(7 ?(1
MAR 2?O0
Appendix A
Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Calculations
CITY OF HIGH POINT MAR A)(111
KERSEY VALLEY MSW LANDFILL - PHASE 3
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN "r-f1 '`1j' '`
APPENDIX A: EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL CALCULATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Erosion and Sedimentation Control - Overview
2.0 Analysis of Design Storms
3.0 Drainage Areas
4.0 Normal Depth Analysis
• Channel 1 A (Existing) (Final)
• Channel I B (Existing) (Final)
• Channel 1 C (Existing) (Final)
• Channel 2 (Existing) (Final)
• Channel 3 (Existing) (Final)
• Channel 4 (Existing) (Final)
• Channel 5 (Final)
• Channel 6 (Final)
• Channel 7 (Initial)
• Channel 8 (Final)
• Cap Diversion Berms (Final)
• Side Slope Swales (Final)
5.0 Gabion Channel (Down Chute) Analysis
• Down Chute No. 1
• Down Chute No. 2
• Down Chute No. 3
• Down Chute No. 4
• Down Chute No. 5
• Down Chute No. 6
• Down Chute No. 7
• Down Chute No. 8
6.0 Culvert Analysis
• Culvert No. 1 (Existing) (Final)
• Culvert No. 2 (Existing) (Final)
• Culvert No. 3 (Final)
• Culvert No. 4 (Initial)
• Culvert No. 5 (Final)
• Culvert No. 6 (Initial)
• Culvert No. 7 (Final)
• Culvert No. 8 (Initial)
• Culvert No. 9 (Existing) (Initial)
• Culvert No. 10 (Existing) (Initial)
• Culvert No. 11 (Final)
Kersey Valley MSW Landfill - Phase 3 Erosion And Sedimentation Control Plan
November 1999 APPENDIX A: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TOC-1
Table of Contents (Continued)
• Temporary Stormwater Pipe 1 (Initial)
• Temporary Stormwater Pipe 2 (Initial)
• Temporary Stormwater Pipe 3 (Initial)
• Temporary Stormwater Pipe 4 (Initial)
• Temporary Stormwater Pipe 5 (Initial)
7.0 Drop Inlet Analysis
• Drop Inlet No. 1 (Final)
• Drop Inlet No. 2 (Final)
• Drop Inlet No. 3 (Final)
• Drop Inlet No. 4 (Final)
8.0 Selection of Concrete Pipe Strength
• Culvert No. 3
• Culvert No. 4
• Culvert No. 5
• Culvert No. 6
• Culvert No. 7
• Culvert No. 8
• Culvert No. 9
• Culvert No. 10
• Culvert No. 11
9.0 Existing Sedimentation Basin Analysis
• Basin No. 1 (Final)
10.0 Sedimentation Basin Analysis
• Basin No. 2 (Final)
• Basin No. 3 (Final)
11.0 Outlet Protection Analysis
• Culvert No. 3
• Culvert No. 4
• Culvert No. 5
• Culvert No. 9
• Temporary Stormwater Pipe 1
• Temporary Stormwater Pipe 2
• Temporary Stormwater Pipe 3
• Temporary Stormwater Pipe 4
• Temporary Stormwater Pipe 5
• Basin No. 2
• Basin No. 3
MAk
WERPA Mls
ER UALITY SECIii:;i
..
Kersey Valley MSW Landfill - Phase 3 Erosion And Sedimentation Control Plan
'November 1999 APPENDIX A: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TOC-2
SHEET 1 OF 2
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 311199
SUBJECT Erosion & Sedimentation Control - Overview COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY G1??
Objective To design erosion and sedimentation control structures to remove and contain storm water
flow from the design stone at the proposed facility.
Calculations will be based on:
- Rational Method
- Rainfall Frequencies for the Site
Analysis The main design criteria will be to ensure that all storm water conveyance and retention
structures will be able to accommodate the peak rate of run off from the design storm
without erosion.
The erosion control measures will be designed to control sedimentation from time of
construction until the site is stabilized.
References North Carolina Erosion & Sediment Control Planning & Design Manual, North Carolina
Division of Land Resources, 1988.
Malcom, H. Rooney, Elements of Urban Stormwater Design, NC State Univ., Raleigh,
NC, 1989.
Calculations
- Rational Method (Flow Rate, Q):
Q = CIA (cfs)
(Malcom Eq. I -1)
where: C = Rational Runoff Coefficient
I = Applicable Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) of storm event (Based on Time
of Concentration)
A = Drainage Area (Acres)
E&SC.WPD
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 2 OF 2
PROJECT City Of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 311/99
SUBJECT Erosion & Sedimentation Control - Overview COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY ???
- Time of Concentration (t ) (Kirpich Equation):
L3 0.385
(minutes) (Malcom Eq. I-2)
t H
128
where: L = Hydraulic Length of
Watershed to Point of Interest
(ft)
H
Fall Along L (ft)
Note: I is found by calculating t, and using a rainfall intensity - duration - frequency graph
or table suitable to the site. t, (minimum) = 5 minutes.

G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 1 OF 2
PROJECT City of High Point JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 2/11/99
SUBJECT Analysis of Design Storms COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY
Objective To compile the expected design storm depths and intensities over various return periods.
These design storm values will be used in various calculations.
References Rainfall data was obtained from the following references:
Frederick, R.H., V.A. Myers, and E.P. Anciello, "Five to 60-Minute Precipitation
Frequency for the Eastern and Central United States," NOAH Technical Memo. NWS
HYDRO-35, National Weather Service, NOAH, U.S. Dept. Of Commerce, Silver Spring,
MD, 1977.
U.S. Weather Bureau, "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations from
30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years," U.S. Weather Bureau
Technical Paper 40, 1961.
PRECIP.WPD
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCLATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 2/2
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 2/11/99
City of High Point BY: PKS
Analysis of Design Storms CHKD BY: - IN-Z
INPUT DATA:
.;i
LOCATION: High Point, NC
DURATION 2-YR P 100-YR P SOURCE
(In) (In) MW r,illl?
5 min 0.47 0.81 NOAA HYDRO-35
15 min 0.90 1.70 NOAA HYDRO-35
WETLA14DS 0 01 IF
60 min 1.60 3.35 NOAA HYDRO-35 µnµ 4^;',hTER UALI? TY SEC1 0
2 hr to 24 hr Rain fall Events USER INPUT USWB TP-40
DEPTH-DURATION-FREQUENCY TABLE
LOCATION: High Point, NC
RETURN PERIOD
DURATION 2-YR 5-YR 10-YR 25-YR 50-YR 100-YR
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (In)
5 min 0.47 0.54 0.60 0.68 0.74 0.81
10 min 0.72 0.86 0.96 1.11 1.22 1.34
15 min 0.90 1.08 1.21 1.40 1.55 1.70
30 min 1.24 1.54 1.74 2.04 2.28 2.51
60 min 1.60 2.01 2.30 2.71 3.03 3.35
2 hr 1.95 2.50 2.95 3.30 3.80 4.20 USER INPUT
3 hr 2.20 2.80 3.20 3.70 4.20 4.50 USER INPUT
6 hr 2.70 3.30 3.80 4.30 4.90 5.50 USER INPUT
12 hr 3.10 3.90 4.50 5.20 5.80 6.50 USER INPUT
24 hr 3.50 4.50 5.20 5.90 6.70 7.40 USER INPUT
INTENSITY-DURATION-FREQUENCY TABLE
LOCATION: High Point, NC
RETURN PERIOD
DURATION 2-YR 5-YR 10-YR 25-YR 50-YR 100-YR
(in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr)
5 min 5.64 6.50 7.16 8.16 8.94 9.72
10 min 4.34 5.15 5.75 6.63 7.32 8.01
15 min 3.60 4.32 4.84 5.60 6.20 6.80
30 min 2.49 3.07 3.49 4.08 4.55 5.02
60 min 1.60 2.01 2.30 2.71 3.03 3.35
2 hr 0.98 1.25 1.48 1.65 1.90 2.10
3 hr 0.73 0.93 1.07 1.23 1.40 1.50
6 hr 0.45 0.55 0.63 0.72 0.82 0.92
12 hr 0.26 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.54
24 hr 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.31
PRECIP
SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 319/99
SUBJECT Drainage Areas COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY (-0
Obiective To breakout drainage areas for both initial and long-term (final) erosion control plans.
Drainage areas will be used to determine worst case design conditions for each erosion
control measure. Drainage areas for the initial erosion control plan are labeled as "A, B,
C, etc." Drainage areas for the long-term (final) erosion control plan are labeled as "1, 2,
3, etc." Areas were measured by planimeter or AutoCAD on the attached plan drawings.
Below is a summary of drainage areas used in erosion control calculations. Plan sheets
with delineations of "initial" and "final" drainage areas are attached.
Analvsis
- Initial Erosion Control Plan:
Area Area (Acres) Area Area (Acres)
A 2.09 G 0.43
B 1.81 H 0.40
C 2.03 I 1.80
D 2.20 J 7.27
E 2.13 K 0.56
F 2.19 L 2.47
- LonL-Term (Final) Erosion Control Plan:
Area Area (Acres) Area Area (Acres)
1 3.64 12 2.58
2 1.47 13 1.88
3 2.41 14 3.62
4 5.82 15 1.81
5 5.84 16 1.71
6 4.47 17 0.95
7 2.60 18A 1.23
8 2.31 18B 3.12
9 1.60 19 1.15
10 1.52 20 0.40
11 4.32 21 1.86
DRAINAGE AREAS.WPD
G.N. RICI-IARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 1 OF I"
PROJECT Cit,, of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 412/99
SUBJECT Normal Depth Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY 40-1-
Objective To design ditches and channels to remove storm water flow from the design storm at the
proposed facility.
Analysis The main design criteria will be to ensure that all ditches and channels will be able to
accommodate the peak rate of run off from the design storni without erosion.
References North Carolina Erosion & Sediment Control Planninw & Design Manual, North Carolina
Division of Land Resources, 1988.
Malcom, H. Rooney, Elements of Urban Stormwater Design, NC State Univ., Raleigh,
NC, 1989.
Calculations
- Determine Peak Flow Rate to Ditch/Channel:
Use Rational Method (Qp = CIA)
- Manning's Equation:
Q = 1.49 AR2/sSi/2
= AV
n
MAP
It Cif "? ITY 4-C 1011
(Malcom Eq. I-8)
where: Q = Discharge/Flow Rate (cfs)
n = Manning's Roughness Coefficient
A = Cross Sectional Area of Flow (ft)
R = Hydraulic Radius (ft) = A/Wetted Perimeter
S = Slope of Channel (ft/ft)
V = Average Channel Velocity (ft/sec)
NDEPTH.WPD
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 2 OF 14-
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/2/99
SUBJECT Normal Depth Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY 4V -
- Tractive Force Procedure:
T = yds
where: T = Shear Stress on Channel Lining (lb/ftz)
y = Unit Weight of Water (62.4 lb/ft)
d = Depth of Flow (ft)
S = Channel slope (ft/ft)
- Froude Number:
V
Fr=
gA
T
where: Fr = Froude Number (dimensionless)
v = Flow Velocity (ft/sec)
U) = Acceleration of Gravity (32.2 ft/sect)
A = Cross-sectional Area of Flow (ft'-)
T = Top Width of Flow (ft)
If Fr is greater than 1.0, flow is supercritical; if it is under 1.0, flow is subcritical. Fr is 1.0 for
critical flow conditions.
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 3 /1,('
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Normal Depth Analysis - Channel 1A (Existing) (Final) CHKD BY:
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 8.2 (User Input) Areas 2, 3, & 11
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 1460 (User Input) Head of Area 2 to End of Channel 1A
Fall Along Length (ft) = 71 (User Input) EL. 876 - EL. 805
Time of Conc. (min.) = 6.8
Intensity (in/hr) = 7.61 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 21.8
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input)
Lining hick Ve ??
Maximum Slope (ft/ft) = 0.02
Minimum Slope (ft/ft) = 0.01
n = 0.04 (EOUSD - Exhibit 8 + 0.10 for vegetation)
B (ft) = 4
M= 2
MAXIMUM SLOPE
Normal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (ft/s) = 4.03 '?. S
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 4.14596163
Liner Shear Stress:
y (ft) = 0.93 (Iterate)
T (Ib/ft^2) = 1.16
accuracy = 0.1
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) = 4.16427939
Fr = 0.84
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.93
MINIMUM SLOPE
Normal Deoth Calcul
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) _
y (ft) _
accuracy =
f(M,y,B) _
Normal Depth (ft) _
5.86327517
1.12 (Iterate)
0.1
5.90056051
1.12
Velocity:
V (ft/s) = 3.14 < 4
Liner Shear Stress:
T (lb/ft-2) =F-O-.7-01
Froude Number:
= 0.61
Fir
o, K.
o, K,
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 4/14-
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Normal Depth Analysis - Channel 113 (Existing) (Final) CHKD BY: Iu z
M = 3 1NET{
i{tli_ii.lfi SL t,
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input)
Lining,'fhick VegVege?tation
Maximum Slope (ft/ft) = O.U2
Minimum Slope (fUft) = 0.01
n = 0.04 (EOUSD - Exhibit 8 + 0.10 for vegetation)
B (ft) = 5
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 16.6 (User Input) Areas 2, 3, 4, 11, & 12
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 1985 (User Input) Head of Area 2 to End of Channel 1B
Fall Along Length (ft) = 78 (User Input) EL. 876 - EL. 798
Time of Conc. (min.) = 9.4
Intensity (in/hr) = 6.81 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 39.6
MAXIMUM SLOPE
Normal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (fUs) = 4.38 S
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 7.51072688
Liner Shear Stress:
y (ft) = 1.09 (Iterate)
T (lb/ft^2) = 1.36
accuracy = 0.1
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) = 7.49331051
Fr = 0.87
Normal Depth (ft) = 1.09
MINIMUM SLOPE
Normal Deoth Calculatio
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) _
y (ft) _
accuracy =
f(M,y,B) _
Normal Depth (ft) _
10.6217718
1.3 (Iterate)
0.1
10.5850404
1.3
Velocity:
V (fUs) = 3.41 L
Liner Shear Stress:
T (lb/ft ^2) =F-0-8-1
Froude Number:
Fr = 0.63
C), K.
©, k
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: '5114-
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Normal Depth Analysis - Channel 1C (Existing) (Final) CHKD BY: ?OYL-
Peak Flow Rate:

Drainage Area (Ac.) = 18.48 (User Input) Areas 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, & 13
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 2450 (User Input) Head of Area 2 to End of Channel 1C
Fall Along Length (ft) = 124 (User Input) EL. 876 - EL. 752
Time of Conc. (min.) = 10.0
Intensity (in/hr) = 6.63 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 42.9
Ditch/Channel Parameters: ( User Input)

Lining 9" Rip Rap
Maximum Slope (ft/ft) _
Minimum Slope (ft/ft) = 0.03
n = 0.032 (EOUSD - Exhibit 8)
B (ft) = 5
M= 3
MAXIMUM SLOPE
nal Depth Calculations: Velocity: n
V (ft/s) = 9.30
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 2.9123747 q
Liner Shear Stress: lam.
y (ft) = 0.66 (Iterate)
T (Ib/ft^2) = a.1 z
accuracy = 0.1
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) = 2.91040318
Fr = 2.29
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.66
D, r,
E2 r-6v SD
Op' 9 op 6,7-01 \f
ExNI!3IT Io)
MINIMUM SLOPE
Normal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (ft1s) = 6.08 <
nQ/(1.495^0.5) = 5.3172444
Liner Shear Stress:
y (ft) = 0.91 (Iterate)
T (Ib/ft^2) = 1.70
accuracy = 0.1
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) = 5.30011357
Fr= 1.31
Normal Depth (ft) = D.91
d, <
G.N. Richardson & Associates
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES
City of High Point LF - Phase 3
Normal Depth Analysis - Channel 2 (Existing) (Final)
SHEET: & / l/
JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
BY: PKS
CHKD BY: ? La/
Peak Flow Rate:

Drainage Area (Ac.) = 9.46 (User Input) Areas 5 & 14
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 1550 (User Input) Head of Area 5 to End of Channel 2
Fall Along Length (ft) = 120 (User Input) EL. 880 - EL. 760
Time of Conc. (min.) = 6.0
Intensity (in/hr) = 7.85 (User input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 26.0
Ditch/Channel Parameters: ( User Input)
Linings hick Vegetation - Upper Shallow Portions & Natural Rock - Lower Steeper Portions
Maximum Slope (ft/ft) _ [?5
Minimum Slope (ft/ft) = 0.017
n = 0.03 (EOUSD - Exhibit 8)
B (ft) = 5
M= 3
MAXIMUM SLOPE
nal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (ft/s)
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 2.34033928 r
Liner Shear Stress:
y (ft) = 0.59 (Iterate)
T (lb/ft^2) = 1.84
accuracy = 0.1
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) = 2.37142208
Fr= 1.70
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.59
MINIMUM SLOPE
Normal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (ft/s) = 4.52 5 4, 1
nQ/(1.49s^0.5)= 4.Ot364875
Liner Shear Stress:
y (ft) = 0.79 (Iterate)
T (Ib/ft^2) = 0.84
accuracy = 0.1
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) = 4.06064641
Fr = 1.03
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.79
?e(?' 73 oTT"5m
0,K ) /?
W pptr ?ewt-)6Pkc
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: -7114-
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Normal Depth Analysis - Channel 3 (Existing) (Initial) CHKD BY: '1 r--?-
Peak Flow Rate:

Drainage Area (Ac) = 2.47 (User Input) Area L
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 730 (User Input) Head of Area L to End of Channel 3
Fall Along Length (ft) = 63 (User Input) EL. 876 - EL. 813
Time of Conc. (min., = 3.2
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficiert = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 7.1
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input)
Lini : Thick Vegetation
Maximum Slope (ft/f ) =
Minimum Slope (ft/ft i = 0.01
n = 0.04 (EOUSD - Exhibit 8 + 0.10 for vegetation)
B (ft) = 4
M= 2
MAXIMUM SLOPE
Normal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (fUs) = 2.86
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 1.33910269
Liner Shear Stress:
y (ft) = 0.5 (Iterate)
T (Ib/ft^2) = 0.62
accuracy = 0.1
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) :-.
1.35922907
Fr = 0.78
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.5
MINIMUM SLOPE
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) =
y (ft) _
accuracy _
f(M y,B) -:
Normal Depth (ft)
1.89377718
0.61 (Iterate)
0.1
1.93379162
0.61
Velocity:
V (fUs) = 2.26
Liner Shear Stress:
T (lb/W2) = 0.38
Froude Number:
Fr = 0.57
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: SJ/ 14
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Normal Depth Analysis - Channel 4 (Existing) (Final) CHKD BY: t#-j /L-
Peak Flow Rate:

Drainage Area (Ac.) = 1.23 (User Input) Area 1BA
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 350 (User Input) Head of Area 18A to End of Channel 4
Fall Along Length (ft) = 16 (User Input) EL. 836 - EL. 820
Time of Conc. (min.) = 2.3
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.2 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Wooded) e•------?---
Q (cfs) = 2.0
Ditch/Channel Parameters: ( User Input)

Linin Thi k Vegetati
Maximum Slope (f /ft) _ .06
Minimum Slope (ft/ft) = 0.013
n = 0.04 (EOUSD - Exhibit 8 + 0.10 for vegetation)
B (f') = 3 (f 111,11 Ill

MAXIMUM SLOPE
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.22000035
y (ft) = 0.21 (Iterate)
accuracy = 0.1
f(M,y,B) = 0.23092654
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.21
Velocity:
V (ft/s) = 2.93 E 4
Liner Shear Stress:
T (lb/W2) = 0.79
Froude Number:
Fr= 1.20
0.1,?,
MINIMUM SLOPE
Normal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (ft/s) = 1.74 L .
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.47263656
Liner Shear Stress:
y (ft) = 0.32 (Iterate)
T (lb/ft^2) = 0.26
accuracy = 0.1
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) = 0.47798264
Fr = 0.59
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.32
o, e,
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 4 /i4"
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Normal Depth Analysis - Channel 5 (Final) CHKD BY: ' ioq--
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) =
Hydraulic Length (ft) =
Fall Along Length (ft) =
Time of Conc. (min.) _
Intensity (in/hr) _
Runoff Coefficient =
Q (cfs) _
6.62 (User Input) Areas 7, 8, & 16 (Worst Case)
1400 (User Input) Head of Area 8 to End of Area 16 @ D.I.
78 (User Input) EL. 877 - EL. 799
6.3
7.76 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
18.0
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input
Lining:
Maximum Slope (ft/ft) = 0.06
Minimum Slope (ft/ft) = 0.013
n = 0.03 (EOUSD - Exhibit 8)
B (ft) = 4
M= 2
MAXIMUM SLOPE
Normal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (f /s)
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 1.47790703
Liner Shear Stress:
y (ft) = 0.53 (Iterate)
T (Ib/f02) = 1.98
accuracy = 0.1
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) = 1.50640015
Fr = 1.82
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.53
MINIMUM SLOPE
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) =
y (ft) =
accuracy =
f(M,y,B) _
Normal Depth (ft) _
- us:< T2M
Velocity:
V (ft/s) = a.oz < 4. S O.K,
3.17505363 £ D4T7 Liner Shear Stress:
0.81 (Iterate) T (
Ib/ft^2) = 0.66
0.1
Froude Number:
3.22829476
Fr = 0.89
0.81
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 1011,4-
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Normal Depth Analysis - Channel 6 (Final) CHKD BY:
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 0.95 (User Input) Area 17
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 450 (User Input) Head of Area 17 to End of Channel
Fall Along Length (ft) = 16 (User Input) EL. 830 - EL. 814
Time of Conc. (min.) = 3.1
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Con ditions)
Q (cfs) = 2.7
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input)
Lining:
Maximum Slope (ft/ft) = 0.04
Minimum Slope (ft/ft) = 0.01
n = 0.03 (EOUSD -Exhibit 8)
B (ft) = 4
M= 2
MAXIMUM SLOPE
Normal Depth Calculations: Velocity:

V (fUs) = 3.16 y
0,
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.27314094 --
Liner Shear Stress: (j - -??
y (ft) = 0.2 (Iterate)
T (Ib/ft^2) = 0.50 AT ,5&/027_

accuracy =
0.1
\
Fr
Number:
d /
f(M,y,B) = 0.28033003 ou
e
Fr = 1.30
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.2
MINIMUM SLOPE
Normal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (ft/s)
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.54628188
Liner Shear Stress:
y (ft) = 0.3 (Iterate)
T (Ib/ft^2) = 0.19
accuracy = 0.1
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) = 0.55977714
Fr = 0.69
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.3
o, Y.
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET I I / 1-f
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Normal Depth Analysis - Channel 7 (Initial) CHKD BY:
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 1.8 (User Input) Area I
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 550 (User Input) Head of Area I to End of Channel
Fall Along Length (ft) = 20 (User Input) EL. 838 - EL. 818
Time of Conc. (min.) = 3.6
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.15 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Wooded Conditions)
Q(CIS)= 2.2 P-5 Grni+nd L1r{c?

Ditch/Channel Parameters: (
User Input) ....?'
--.d....--?^-
-----•

Lining:
Maximum Slope (fVft) = 0.05
Minimum Slope (ft/ft) = 0.02
n = 0.03 (EOUSD - Exhibit 8)
B (ft) = 0
M= 2

MAXIMUM SLOPE
Normal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (ft/s) = 4.15 G L? S ?? >\
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) =
Liner Shear Stress:
r
F?'??L?•l ?h
f 51
It
t
0 ?
J
y (
t) = (
era
e)
.
T (lb/W2) = 1.59 A'r f K? j
accuracy = 0.1 - -- N?
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) = 0.19419002
Fr = 1.45
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.51
MINIMUM SLOPE
Normal Depth Calculatio
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) _
y(ft)=
accuracy =
f(M,y,B) _
Normal Depth (ft) _
0.31367067
0.61 (Iterate)
0.1
0.31303005
0.61
Velocity:
V (ft/s)
Liner Shear Stress:
T (lb/ft-2) =F-0-7-6-1
Froude Number:
Fr = 0.94
O, k
NDEPTH
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: IZ/ I?
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/7/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Normal Depth Analysis - Channel 8 (Final) CHKD BY: ? N (7--
Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) =
Hydraulic Length (ft) =
Fall Along Length (ft) =
Time of Conc. (min.) _
Intensity (in/hr) _
Runoff Coefficient =
Q (cfs) _
Ditch/Channel Parameters
12.56 (User Input) Areas 1, 9, 10, 17, & 18 + 0.5 Ac.
1900 (User Input) Head of Area 1 to End of Channel
87 (User Input) EL. 877 - EL. 790
8.6
7.06 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
31.0
(User Input)
Lining:
Maximum Slope (fUft) = 0.08
Minimum Slope (fUft) = 0.05
n = 0.03 (EOUSD - Exhibit 8)
B (ft) = 4
M= 2
MAXIMUM SLOPE
Normal Deoth Calculations:
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 2.20928822
y (ft) = 0.66 (Iterate)
accuracy = 0.1
f(M,y,B) = 2.22690792
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.66
Velocity:
'/
V (ft/s) = 8.91 ul s,E? /
R I P FAP
?'
g TNfCK
Liner Shear Stress:
-? • °v O,1r
T (lb/f02) = 3.29
(? //?1
" WU5)7
Froude Number: FO(- 9 01ST"
Fr atf If-- IT- /0)
MINIMUM SLOPE
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) =
y(ft)=
accuracy =
f(M,y,B) _
Normal Depth (ft) _
Velocity:
V (ft/5)
2.79455312
Liner Shear Stress:
0.75 (Iterate)
T (Iblft^2) = 2.34
0.1
Froude Number:
2.80556331
Fr = 1.73
0.75
6), <
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: I I 1111
-
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Normal Depth Analysis - Cap Diversion Berms (Final) CHKD BY: ?0/j/
Peak Flow Rate:

Drainage Area (Ac.) = 1.82 (User Input) Approx. Half Area 1 (Worst Case)
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 450 (User Input) Head of Area 1 to Top of Down Chute No. 1
Fall Along Length (ft) = 7 (User Input) EL. 877 - EL. 870
Time of Conc. (min.) = 4.3
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 5.2
Ditch/Channel Parameters: ( User Input)

Lining:
Maximum Slope (ft/ft) = 0.02
Minimum Slope (ft/ft) = 0.005
n = 0.03 (EOUSD - Exhibit 8)
B (ft) = 0
M = 11
MAXIMUM SLOPE
nal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (fUs)
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.74003043 -

ft
44
It
t
0 Liner Shear Stress:
lj
y (
) = (
era
e)
. T (Ib/ft^2) =
accuracy = 0.1
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) = 0.77396523
Fr = 0.96
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.44
MINIMUM SLOPE
nal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (fUs) = 1.50 d-
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 1.48006086
Liner Shear Stress:
y (ft) = 0.56 (Iterate)
T (Ib/ft^2) = 0.17
accuracy = 0.1
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) = 1.47236592
0.50
Fr=
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.56
D, k,
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: It / 14
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Normal Depth Analysis - Side Slope Swales (Final) CHKD BY: 4 0 .-
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) _
Hydraulic Length (ft) _
Fall Along Length (ft) _
Time of Conc. (min.) _
Intensity (in/hr) _
Runoff Coefficient =
0 (cfs) _
1.61 (User Input) 700' x 100' (South End of Area 4) (Worst Case)
800 (User Input) Head of Drainage to End of Swale
43 (User Input) EL. 860 - EL. 817
4.1
8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
4.6
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input
Lining:
Maximum Slope (ft/ft) = 0.04
Minimum Slope (ft./ft) = 0.02
n = 0.03 (EOUSD - Exhibit 8)
B (ft) = 0
M= 2.5
MAXIMUM SLOPE
Normal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (ftls) = 4.47 L ?, k
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.46290201

Liner Shear Stress: _
r
y (ft) = 0.65 (Iterate)
1.62
T (Iblft^2) = ` u 5
? Te ;-4 I°rdP-
accuracy = 0.1
-T'£f? M

f(M,y,B) =
0 47519237 Froude Number:
57ATL11-17-V
Fr= 1.38 or swAtcs
Normal Depth (ft)
MINIMUM SLOPE
Normal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (fUs) = 3.41 9;
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.65464231
Liner Shear Stress:
y (ft) = 0.73 (Iterate)
T (Ib/ft^2) = 0.91
accuracy = 0.1
Froude Number:
f(M,y,B) = 0.64758207
Fr= 1.00
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.73
0, 4-,
SHEET 1 OF i
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/2/99
SUBJECT Gabion Channel Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY :?jvn-
Objective To determine the required rock diameter and mattress thickness for a gabion lined
channel such that stability of the gabion mattress is maintained.
Reference Debo, T.N., and Reese, A.J., Municipal Storm Water Management, Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, FL, 1995, pp. 438-442.
Calculations
- Determine Peak Flow Rate & Flow Parameters:
Follow procedures in the normal depth analysis calculations to determine peak flow rate,
depth and velocity of flow, and Froude number.
- Mannimz's Roughness Coefficient:
i
6
_ d9o
nb 31.69 YET! P,??„s ciu! 1
"R U?'IITY SE010N
where:
nb = Manning's Roughness Coefficient for Gabion Channel
d9o = Size fraction for which 90% is finer (ft)
Note: If d90 is not known nb = 0.030 is typical.
- Critical Shear Stress:
T = yDS
im = 0.75 Z
i, = 0.1 (ys-y)dm
sM
is = ti? 1-
SM
GABION.WPD
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 2 OF iD
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/2/99
SUBJECT Gabion Channel Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY GI 0Qi
- Critical Shear Stress (Continued):
where:
ti = Bed Shear Stress (lbs/ft)
tim = Maximum Bank Shear Stress (lbs/ft)
i, = Critical Shear Stress (lbs/ftz)
-C' = Bank Critical Shear Stress (lbs/ft)
Y = Unit Weight of Water (62.4 lbs/ft3)
D = Flow Depth (ft) - From Manning's Equation
YS = Unit Weight of Stone (lbs/ft3)
Dm = Median Rock Diameter (ft)
S = Channel Slope (ft/ft)
8 = Bank Slope (degrees)
= Angle of Repose of Rock (degrees) (40° is typical)
For Bed Placement
If i >'r, -- Some Displacement/Deformation
If ti < 1.20 ic - Deformation Only - Mattress Remains Stable
For Bank Placement
If im > -cc - Some Displacement/Deformation
If tm < 1.20 iC - Deformation Only - Mattress Remains Stable
- Mattress Thickness:
Tm=6.67ic -16.67
where:
Tm = Mattress Thickness (in)
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 3/10
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Gabion Channel Analysis - Down Chute No. 1 CHKD BY: ?w2
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 3.64 (User Input) Area 1
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 650 (User Input) Head of Area 1 to Base of Down Chute No. 1
Fall Along Length (ft) = 63 (User Input) EL. 877 - EL. 814
Time of Conc. = 2.8
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 10A
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input
Lining: Gabion
Slope (ft/ft) = 0.3
n = 0.03
B (ft) = 8
Bank Slope, M (xH:1V) = 2 =
Gabion Mattress Parameters: (User Input)
Unit Wt. of Stone (lbs/ft^3) = 140
Phi of Stone (deg.) = 40
Median Rock Diam, dm (ft) = 0.5
26.57 degrees
Normal
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.38215007
y (ft) _
accuracy =
0.17 (Iterate)
0.1
f(M,y,B) = 0.42106278
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.17
Velocity:
V (ft/s) = 8.08
Bed Shear Stress:
T (Ib/ft^2) = 3.18
Bank Shear Stress:
Tm (lb/ft^2) = 2.39
Froude Number:
F = 3.52
Critical Shear Stress:
Tc (lb/ft^2) = 3.88 Mattress is Stable
Bank Critical Shear Stress:
Ts (lb/ft^2) = 2.79 Mattress is Stable
Mattress Thickness:
Minimum Mattress Thickness (in) = 0
GABION.
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: + / ID
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Gabion Channel Analysis - Down Chute No. 2 CHKD BY: 4110 (L-
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 1.47 (User Input) Area 2
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 510 (User Input) Head of Area 2 to Base of Down Chute No. 2
Fall Along Length (ft) = 52 (User Input) EL. 876 - EL. 824
Time of Conc. = 2.3
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 4.2
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input
Lining: Gabion
Slope (ft/ft) = 0.3
n = 0.03
B (ft) = 3
Bank Slope, M (xH:1V) = 2 =
Gabion Mattress Parameters: (User Input)
Unit Wt. of Stone (Ibs/11^3) = 140
Phi of Stone (deg.) = 40
Median Rock Diam, dm (ft) = 0.5
26.57 degrees
Normal Depth Calculations:
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.15432984
y (ft) = 0.17 (Iterate)
accuracy = 0.1
f(M,y,B) = 0.16100777
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.17
Velocity:
V (ft/s) = 7.71
Bed Shear Stress:
T (lb/ft^2) = 3.18
Bank Shear Stress:
Tm (lb/ft^2) = 2.39
Froude Number:
F = 3.46
Critical Shear Stress:
Tc (lb/ft^2) = 3.88 Mattress is Stable
Bank Critical Shear Stress:
Ts (lb/ft^2) = 2.79 Mattress is Stable
Mattress Thickness:
Minimum Mattress Thickness (in) = 0
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 5/10
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Gabion Channel Analysis - Down Chute No. 3 CHKD BY: G04'
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 2.41 (User Input) Area 3
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 710 (User Input) Head of Area 3 to Base of Down Chute No. 3
Fail Along Length (ft) = 68 (User Input) EL. 882 - EL. 814
Time of Conc. = 3.0
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 6.9
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input
Lining: Gabion
Slope (ft/ft) = 0.3
n = 0.03
B (ft) = 4
Bank Slope, M (xH:1V) = 2 =
Gabion Mattress Parameters: (User Input)
Unit Wt. of Stone (lbs/ft^3) = 140
Phi of Stone (deg.) = 40
Median Rock Diam, dm (ft) = 0.5
26.57 degrees
Normal Depth Calculations:
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.25301694
y(ft)_
accuracy =
0.19 (Iterate)
0.1
f(M,y,B) = 0.25698193
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.19
Velocity:
V (ft/s) = 8.40
Bed Shear Stress:
T (lb/ft^2) = 3.56
Bank Shear Stress:
Tm (lb/ft^2) = 2.67
Froude Number:
F = 3.54
Critical Shear Stress:
Tc (lb/ft^2) = 3.88 Mattress is Stable
Bank Critical Shear Stress:
Ts (lb/ft^2) = 2.79 Mattress is Stable
Mattress Thickness:
Minimum Mattress Thickness (in) = r 9
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 610
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Gabion Channel Analysis - Down Chute No. 4 CHKD BY: ?wR-
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 5.82 (User Input) Area 4
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 1050 (User Input) Head of Area 4 to Base of Down Chute No. 4
Fall Along Length (ft) = 80 (User Input) EL. 882 - EL. 802
Time of Conc. = 4.5
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 16.6
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input
Lining: Gabion
Slope (ft/ft) = 0.3
n = 0.03
B (ft) = 10
Bank Slope, M (xH:1 V) = 2 =
Gabion Mattress Parameters: (User Input)
Unit Wt. of Stone (lbs/ft^3) = 140
Phi of Stone (deg.) = 40
Median Rock Diam, dm (ft) = 0.5
26.57 degrees
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.61102017
y (ft) = 0.19 (Iterate)
accuracy = 0.1
f(M,y,B) = 0.63285801
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.19
Velocity:
V (ft/s) = 8.73
Bed Shear Stress:
T (lb/ft^2) = 3.56
Bank Shear Stress:
Tm (Ib/ft^2) = 2.67
Froude Number:
F = 3.59
Critical Shear Stress:
Tc (lb/ft^2) = 3.88 Mattress is Stable
Bank Critical Shear Stress:
Ts (lb/ft^2) = 2.79 Mattress is Stable
Mattress Thickness:
Minimum Mattress Thickness (in) = 0
G.N. Richardson & Associates
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES
City of High Point LF - Phase 3
Gabion Channel Analysis - Down Chute No. 5
Peak Flow Rate:
SHEET: 7/10
JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 412/99
BY: PKS
CHKD BY: ??uZ
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 5.84 (User Input) Area 5
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 860 (User Input) Head of Area 5 to Base of Down Chute No. 5
Fall Along Length (ft) = 98 (User Input) EL. 880 - EL. 782
Time of Conc. = 3.3
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 16.7
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input
Lining: Gabicn
Slope (ft/ft) = 0.3
n = 0.03
B (ft) = 10
Bank Slope, M (xH:1V) = 2 =
Gabion Mattress Parameters: (User Input)
Unit Wt. of Stone (lbs/ft^3) = 140
Phi of Stone (deg.) = 40
Median Rock Diam, dm (ft) = 0.5
26.57 degrees
Normal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (fUs) = 8.73
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.6131199
Bed Shear Stress:
y (ft) = 0.19 (Iterate)
T (Ib/ft^2) = 3.56
accuracy = 0.1
Bank Shear Stress:
f(M,y,B) = 0.63285801
Tm (Ib/ft^2) = 2.67
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.19
Froude Number:
F = 3.59
Critical Shear Stress:
Tc (lb/ft^2) = 3.88 Mattress is Stable
Bank Critical Shear Stress:
Ts (lb/ft^2) = 2.79 Mattress is Stable
Mattress Thickness:
Minimum Mattress Thickness (in) _
GABION.
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: S / ID
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Gabion Channel Analysis - Down Chute No. 6 CHKD BY: G1UY2,
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 4.47 (User Input) Area 6
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 730 (User Input) Head of Area 6 to Base of Down Chute No. 6
Fall Along Length (ft) = 88 (User Input) EL. 877 - EL. 789
Time of Conc. = 2.8
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 12.8
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input) Gabion Mattress Parameters: (User Input)

Lining: Gabion Unit Wt. of Stone (lbs/ft^3) = 140
Slope (ft/ft) = 0.3 Phi of Stone (deg.) = 40
n = 0.03 Median Rock Diam, dm (ft) = 0.5
B (ft) = 8
Bank Slope, M (xH:1V) = 2 = 26.57 degrees
nal Depth Calculations: Velocity:
V (ft/s) = 8.38
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.46928869
Bed Shear Stress:
y (ft) = 0.18 (Iterate)
T (Ib/ft^2) = 3.37
accuracy = 0.1
Bank Shear Stress:
f(M,y,B) = 0.46342441
Tm (lb/ft^2) = 2.53
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.18
Froude Number:
F = 3.55
Critical Shear Stress:
Tc (lb/ft^2) = 3.88 Mattress is Stable
Bank Critical Shear Stress:
Ts (lb/ft^2) = 2.79 Mattress is Stable
Mattress Thickness:
Minimum Mattress Thickness (in) = 0
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 9/10
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Gabion Channel Analysis - Down Chute No. 7 CHKD BY: Imo'
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) =
Hydraulic Length (ft) =
Fall Along Length (ft) =
Time of Conc. _
Intensity (in/hr) _
Runoff Coefficient =
Q (cfs) _
2.6 (User Input) Area 7
675 (User Input) Head of Area 7 to Base of Down Chute No. 7
76 (User Input) EL. 877 - EL. 801
2.7
8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
7.4
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input
Lining: Gabion
Slope (ft/ft) = 0.3
n = 0.03
B (ft) = 6
Bank Slope, M (xH:1V) = 2 =
Gabion Mattress Parameters: (User Input)
Unit Wt. of Stone (lbs/ft^3) = 140
Phi of Stone (deg.) = 40
Median Rock Diam, dm (ft) = 0.5
26.57 degrees
Normal Death Calculations:
nQ/(1.495^0.5) = 0.27296434
y (ft) = 0.16 (Iterate)
accuracy = 0.1
f(M,y,B) = 0.28620314
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.16
Velocity:
V (fUs) = 7.70
Bed Shear Stress:
T (Ib/ft^2) =F-3-0-01
Bank Shear Stress:
Tm (lb/ft^2) = 2.25
Froude Number:
F = 3.48
Critical Shear Stress:
Tc (lb/ft^2) = 3.88 Mattress is Stable
Bank Critical Shear Stress:
Ts (lb/ft^2) = 2.79 Mattress is Stable
Mattress Thickness:
Minimum Mattress Thickness (in) = 0
GABION.
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: !U / 10
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/2/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Gabion Channel Analysis - Down Chute No. 8 CHKD BY: G, ?j (I--
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 2.31 (User Input) Area 8
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 665 (User Input) Head of Area 8 to Base of Down Chute No. 8
Fall Along Length (ft) = 51 (User Input) EL. 877 - EL. 826
Time of Conc. = 3.1
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 6.6
Ditch/Channel Parameters: (User Input
Lining: Gabion
Slope (ft/ft) = 0.3
n = 0.03
B (ft) = 6
Bank Slope, M (xH:1V) = 2 =
Gabion Mattress Parameters: (User Input)
Unit Wt. of Stone (Ibs/ft^3) = 140
Phi of Stone (deg.) = 40
Median Rock Diam, dm (ft) = 0.5
26.57 degrees
Normal Depth Calculations:
nQ/(1.49s^0.5) = 0.24251831
y (ft) = 0.15 (Iterate)
accuracy = 0.1
f(M,y,B) = 0.25680305
Normal Depth (ft) = 0.15
Velocity:
V (ft/s) = 7.39
Bed Shear Stress:
T (lb/ft^2) = 2.81
Bank Shear Stress:
Tm (lb/ft^2) = 2.11
Froude Number:
F = 3.44
Critical Shear Stress:
Tc (lb/ft^2) = 3.88 Mattress is Stable
Bank Critical Shear Stress:
Ts (Ib/ft^2) = 2.79 Mattress is Stable
Mattress Thickness:
Minimum Mattress Thickness (in)
GABION.
SHEET 1 OF Z5
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/5/99
SUBJECT Culvert Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY
Objective To analyze culverts for inlet and outlet control. Verify that the allowable headwater depth
is not exceeded.
Reference Debo, T.N., and Reese, A.J., Municipal Stonn Water Management, Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, FL, 1995, pp.438-442.
Analysis
- Determine Peak Flow Rate to Drop Inlet:
Use Rational Method (QP = CIA)
- Determine Input Parameters:
HWALL01 = Allowable Headwater Depth (ft)
- N = Number of Pipes Used
- QPIPE = QP /hl WS)
- D = Culvert Diameter (in)
- Type of Culvert (i.e., Concrete, CMP, etc.)
- L = Culvert Length (ft)
- s = Culvert Slope (ft/ft)
- n = Manning's Number
- ke = Entrance Loss Coefficient
- de = Critical Depth (Use Critical Depth Figures) (ft)
mA f rjuo

- Find actual HW for the culvert for both inlet & outlet control: (The condition with the
greatest HW governs.)
- For Inlet Control:
• Enter Inlet Control Nomograph with D & QPIPE and find HW/D for the
proper entrance type.
• Compute HW. If HW exceeds HWALLoW, try larger culvert.
CULVERT.WPD
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCL-kTES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 2 OF Z D
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/5/99
SUBJECT Culvert Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY GkN2--
- For Outlet Control:
Enter Outlet Control Nomograph with L, K, & D.
To compute HW, connect the length scale for the type of entrance condition
and culvert diameter scale with a straight line, pivot on the turning line, and
draw a straight line from the design discharge through the turning point to
the head loss scale H. Compute HW from the following equation:
HW=H+ho - LS
d +D
where: ho = 2 or tailwater depth, whichever is greater.
• If HW exceeds HWALLO , try larger culvert.
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
G.N. Richardson & Associates
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3
Culvert Analysis - Culvert No. 1 (Existing) (Final)
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 8.2 (User Input) Areas 2, 3, & 11
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 1460 (User Input) Head of Area 2 to Culvert No. 1
Fall Along Length (ft) = 71 (User Input) EL. 876 - EL. 805
SHEET: 3 /Z5
JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/5/99
BY: PKS
CHKD BY: ?OY-Z-
Time of Conc. (min.) = 6,8
Intensity (in/hr) = 7.61 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 21 8
Culvert Parameters: (User Input)
Allowable HW Depth (ft) = 2.5
Number of Pipes, N = 2 Qpipe (cfs) _
Culvert Diameter, D (in) = 18
Type of Culvert = N-12
Culvert Length, L (ft) = 210
Culvert Slope, S (ft/ft) = 0 014
Manning's Number, n = 0 012
Entrance Loss Coef., ke = 0.5
Critical Depth (ft) = 1.3
Case 1: Inlet Control
HW/D = 1 5 (User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 2 3
Case 2: Outlet Control
ho (ft) = 1.4
H (ft) = 2 8 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 1.2
109
INLET CONTROL GOVERNSI
RT W83(1
G.N. Richardson & Associates
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3
Culvert Analysis - Culvert No. 2 (Existing) (Final)
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 9.46 (User Input) Areas 5 & 14
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 1550 (User Input) Head of Area 5 to Culvert No. 2
Fall Along Length (ft) = 120 (User Input) EL. 880 - EL. 760
SHEET: 4/Z5
JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/5/99
BY: PKS
CHKD BY: ? wL
Time of Conc. (min.) = 6.0
Intensity (in/hr) = 7.85 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 26.0
Culvert Parameters: (User Input)
Allowable HW Depth (ft) = 4
Number of Pipes, N = 2 Qpipe (cfs) _
Culvert Diameter, D (in) = 42
Type of Culvert = CMP
Culvert Length, L (ft) = 100
Culvert Slope, S (ft/ft) = 0 04
Manning's Number, n = 0 024
Entrance Loss Coef., ke = 0.5
Critical Depth (ft) = 1.0
Case 1: Inlet Control
HW/D = 0.5 (User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
HW (h) = 1 8
Case 2: Outlet Control
ho (ft) = 2.3
H (ft) = 0 4 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 1 4
13.0
INLET CONTROL GOVERNSI
VERT
G.N. Richardson & Associates
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3
Culvert Analysis - Culvert No. 3 (Final)
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 12.06 (User Input) Areas 1, 9, 10, 17, & 18
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 730 (User Input) Head of Area 1 to Culvert No. 3
Fall Along Length (ft) = 66 (User Input) EL. 877 - EL. 811
SHEET: S / z5
JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/5/99
BY PKS
CHKDBY: ?UK1-
Time of Conc. (min.) = 3.2
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 34.4
Culvert Parameters: (User Input
Allowable HW Depth (ft) =
Number of Pipes, N =
Culvert Diameter, D (in) =
Type of Culvert =
Culvert Length, L (ft) _
Culvert Slope. S (ft/ft) =
Manning's Number, n =
Entrance Loss Coef., ke =
Critical Depth (ft) =
Case 1: Inlet Control
HW/D = 1 32
HW (ft) = 3.3
Case 2: Outlet Control
5
1 Qpipe (cfs) = 344
30
RCP
990
0.005
0 012
0.5
2.0
;User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
ho (ft) = 2.3
H (ft) = 6 5 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 3 8 OUTLET CONTROL GOVERNSI
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: (, / ZS
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/5/99
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Culvert Analysis - Culvert No. 4 (Initial) CHKD BY: -1 k
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 12.88 (User Input) Areas A, B, C, D, E, F, & G
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 1200 (User Input) Head of Area A to Culvert No. 4
Fall Along Length (ft) = 46 (User Input) EL. 826 - EL. 780
Time of Conc. (min.) = 6.4
Intensity (in/hr) = 7.73 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD • Exhibit 1 • Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 34.8
Culvert Parameters: (Use r Input)
Allowable HW Depth (ft) = 6
Number of Pipes, N = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 34.8
Culvert Diameter, D (in) = 24
Type of Culvert = HDPE/RCP
Culvert Length, L (ft) = 100
Culvert Slope, S (ft/ft) = 0.05
Manning's Number, n = 0.012
Entrance Loss Coef., ke = 0.5
Critical Depth (ft) = 2.0
Case 1: Inlet Control
HW/D = 2.55 (User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 5.1 INLET CONTROL GOVERNSI
Case 2: Outlet Control
ho (ft) = 2.0
H (ft) = 4.5 (User Input • From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 1.5
CUL
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 7 I z,5
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/5/99
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Culvert Analysis - Culvert No. 5 (Final) CHKD BY: :
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 6.62 (User Input) Areas 7, 8, $ 16
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 1400 (User Input) Head of Area 8 to Drop Inlet No. 2
Fall Along Length (ft) = 78 (User Input) EL. 877 - EL. 799
Time of Conc. (min.) = 6.3
Intensity (in/hr) = 7.76 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 18.0
Culvert Parameters: (User Input)
Allowable HW Depth (ft) = 5
Number of Pipes, N = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 18.0
Culvert Diameter, D (in) = 24
Type of Culvert = RCP
Culvert Length, L (ft) = 125
Culvert Slope, S (fUft) = 0.04
Manning's Number, n = 0.012
Entrance Loss Coef., ke = 0.5
Critical Depth (ft) = 1.6
Case 1: Inlet Control
HW/D = 1.28 (User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 2 6 INLET CONTROL GOVERNSI
Case 2: Outlet Control
ho (ft) = 1.8
H (ft) = 1 5 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW(ft)= 1.8
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: g 12-5
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/5/99
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Culvert Analysis - Culvert No. 6 (Initial) f CHKD BY: ?0-YI/
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 2.47 (User Input) Area L
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 730 (User Input) Head of Area L to Culvert No. 6
Fall Along Length (ft) = 63 (User Input) EL. 876 - EL. 813
Time of Conc. (min.) = 3.2
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 7.1
Culvert Parameters: (User Input)
Allowable HW Depth (ft) = 3
Number of Pipes, N = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 7.1
Culvert Diameter, D (in) = 18
Type of Culvert = RCP
Culvert Length, L (ft) = 40
Culvert Slope, S (ft/ft) = 0 025
Manning's Number, n = 0 012
Entrance Loss Coef., ke = 0.5
Critical Depth (ft) = 1.0
Case 1: Inlet Control

HW/D = 1.03 (User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 1.5 INLET CONTROL GOVERNSI
Case 2: Outlet Control
ho (ft) = 1.3
H (ft) = 0.6 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW(ft)= 08
VERT.
?? N(?vtP Prr GR
I )c,7-C TNAT- CULVERT rJo. 6 01 L L Z E
i CoWOLLT IOO pP FIK)AL C?vE/2,
r\IGlldIU,>U1I Cx i-M`„VGlctltr5
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3
Culvert Analysis - Culvert No. 7 (Final)
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 4.35 (User Input) Area 18
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 650 (User Input) Head of Area 18 to Culvert No. 7
Fall Along Length (ft) = 27.5 (User Input) EL. 840 - EL. 812.5
Time of Conc. (min.) =
Intensity (in/hr) =
Runoff Coefficient =
Q (cfs) _
Culvert Parameters: (User I
Allowable HW Depth (ft) =
Number of Pipes, N =
Culvert Diameter, D (in) =
Type of Culvert =
Culvert Length, L (ft) _
Culvert Slope, S (ft/ft) =
Manning's Number, n =
Entrance Loss Coef., ke =
Critical Depth (ft) =
Case 1: Inlet Control

JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 7/29/99
BY: PKS
CHKD BY: ?KYIJ-
3.9
8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
0.35 (User Input) (Composite Average
12.4 for Areas 18A (0.28) & 18B (0.38))

0;7? C??o
A
)ut 2.37pr Woode? O.Ze+
3
1 Qpipe (cfs) =
124 (/L ?OC+?CGI (O.zD)
18
RCP /
(? ;S
Gr>!?
??
l
n
?Z
35
0 014
0012
01
3 y-'
l (;??uts f=f?r1 -0qSP .
rKJ,1?1 f
.
HW/D = 1.72 (User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 2 6
Case 2: Outlet Control
ho (ft) = 1 4
H (ft) = 1 8 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 2.7 OUTLET CONTROL GOVERNSI
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: II /2
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #. HPOINT-12
DATE: 6129/99
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3 BY PKS
Culvert Analysis - Culvert No. 9 (Existing) (Initial) CHKD BY: 5 Lf-?
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac) = 7.27 (User Input) Area J
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 750 (User Input) Head of Area J to Culvert No. 9
Fall Along Length (ft) = 27 (User Input) EL. 844 - EL. 817
Time of Conc. (min.) = 4.6
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.1 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Wooded, Deep Ground Litter)
Q (cfs) = 5.9
Culvert Parameters: (User Input)
Allowable HW Depth (ft) = 1.5
Number of Pipes, N = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 59
Culvert Diameter, D (in) = 18
Type of Culvert = RCP
Culvert Length, L (ft) = 40
Culvert Slope, S (ft/ft) = 0.025
Manning's Number, n = 0 012
Entrance Loss Coef., ke = 05
Critical Depth (ft) = 1.0
Case 1: Inlet Control
HW/D = 0.92 (User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 1 4 INLET CONTROL GOVERNSI
Case 2: Outlet Control
ho (ft) = 1 3
H (ft) = 0 4 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = OJ
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 12/Z-5
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 6/29199
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Culvert Analysis - Culvert No. 10 (Existing) (Initial) CHKD BY: ?y Jni
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 0.56 (User Input) Max. Drainage Area Along Jackson Lake Rd.
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 650 (User Input) Head of Drainage Area K to Culvert No. 6
Fall Along Length (ft) = 15 (User Input) EL. 844 - EL. 829
Time of Conc. (min.) = 4.9
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.22 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 • Lawn, Dense Soil, 2-7% Slopes)
Q (cfs) = 1.0
Culvert Parameters: (User Input)
Allowable HW Depth (ft) = 2
Number of Pipes, N = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 1 0
Culvert Diameter, D (in) = 12
Type of Culvert = RCP
Culvert Length, L (ft) = 25
Culvert Slope, S (fl/ft) = 0.04
Manning's Number, n = 0 012
Entrance Loss Coef., ke = 0 5
Critical Depth (ft) = 0.4
Case 1: Inlet Control
HW/D = 0.58 (User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 0 6 INLET CONTROL GOVERNS!
Case 2: Outlet Control
ho (ft) = 0.7
H (ft) = 0 5 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 0.2
CULVERT W137(10
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET '3 /Z j
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 7/29/99
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Culvert Analysis - Culvert No. 11 (Final) CHKD BY: 10-2
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 1 23 (User Input) Area 18A
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 350 (User Input) Head of Area 18A to Culvert No. 11
Fall Along Length (ft) = 16 (User Input) EL. 836 - EL. 820
Time of Conc. (min.) = 2.3
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.28 (User Input) (Composite Avg. 112 (0.2) 8 1/2 (0.35))
Leot ? Ff?aHo
Culvert Parameters: (User Input) j - 1 e-,Ai? T I
Allowable HW Depth (ft) = 2
Number of Pipes, N = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 2.8
Culvert Diameter, D (in) = 12
Type of Culvert = RCP
Culvert Length, L (ft) = 210
Culvert Slope, S (Wft) = 0.035
Manning's Number, n = 0.012
Entrance Loss Coef., ke = 0.5
Critical Depth (ft) = 0 8
Case 1: Inlet Control
HW/D = 1.07 (User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 1 1 INLET CONTROL GOVERNS!
Case 2: Outlet Control
ho (ft) = 09
H (ft) = 1 9 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW(ft)= 46
CUWE
G.N. Richardson & Associates
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3
Culvert Analysis - Temp. Storm Pipe 1 (Initial)
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 2.09 (User Input) Area A
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 390 (User Input) Head of Drainage Area A to TP-1
Fall Along Length (ft) = 16 (User Input) EL. 826 - EL. 810
SHEET: 14 /z5
JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/5/99
BY: PKS
CHKDBY: ?IJJ,
Time of Conc. (min.) = 2.6
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 6.0
Culvert Parameters: (User Input)
Allowable HW Depth (ft) = 5
Number of Pipes, N = 1 Qpipe (cfs) _
Culvert Diameter, D (in) = 18
Type of Culvert = N-12
Culvert Length, L (ft) = 30
Culvert Slope, S (fVft) = 0.05
Manning's Number, n = 0 012
Entrance Loss Coef- ke = 0.5
Critical Depth (ft) = 1.0
Case 1: Inlet Control
HW/D = 0 92 (User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 1 4
Case 2: Outlet Control
ho (ft) = 1.3
H (ft) = 0 4 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW(ft)= 01
6.0
INLET CONTROL GOVERNSI
CULVERT.
G.N. Richardson & Associates
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3
Culvert Analysis - Temp. Storm Pipe 2 (Initial)
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 3.9 (User Input) Areas A & B
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 700 (User Input) Head of Drainage Area A to TP-2
Fall Along Length (ft) = 37 (User Input) EL. 826 - EL. 789
SHEET: 15 / Zrj
JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/5/99
BY: PKS
CHKD BY:
Time of Conc. (min.) = 3.8
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0 35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 11.1
Culvert Parameters: (User Input
Allowable HW Depth (ft) =
Number of Pipes, N =
Culvert Diameter, D (in) =
Type of Culvert =
Culvert Length, L (ft) _
Culvert Slope, S (ft/11) =
Manning's Number, n =
Entrance Loss Coef., ke =
Critical Depth (ft) =
Case 1: Inlet Control
HW/D = 1 5
HW (ft) = 2 3
Case 2: Outlet Control
5
1 Qpipe (cfs) = 11.1
18
N-12
30
0.01
0 012
0.5
1.3
;User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
ho (ft) = 1.4
H (ft) = 1 4 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 2 5 OUTLET CONTROL GOVERNS!
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET 16 /Z5
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/5/99
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Culvert Analysis - Temp. Storm Pipe 3 (Initial) CHKD BY: ? U (L-
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 2.03 (User Input) Area C
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 340 (User Input) Head of Drainage Area C to TP-3
Fall Along Length (ft) = 16 (User Input) EL. 824 - EL. 808
Time of Conc. (min.) = 2.3
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 5.8
Culvert Parameters: (User I nput)
Allowable HW Depth (ft) = 5
Number of Pipes, N = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 58
Culvert Diameter, D (in) = 18
Type of Culvert = N•12
Culvert Length, L (ft) = 40
Culvert Slope, S (ft/ff) = 0.025
Manning's Number, n = 0.012
Entrance Loss Coef., ke = 0 5
Critical Depth (ft) = 0.9
Case 1: Inlet Control
HW/D = 0.92 (User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 1 4 INLET CONTROL GOVERNSI
Case 2: Outlet Control
ho (ft) = 1.2
H (ft) = 0 4 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 0 6
CULVERT
G.N. Richardson & Associates
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3
Culvert Analysis - Temp. Storm Pipe 4 (Initial)
Peak Flow Rate:
SHEET. 17 /z5
JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/5/99
BY: PKS
CHKD BY: Gt oa-
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 8.13 (User Input) Areas A, B, C, & D
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 950 (User Input) Head of Drainage Area A to End of Area D
Fall Along Length (ft) = 39 (User Input) EL. 826 - EL. 787
Time of Conc. (min.) = 5.2
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.1 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 23.0
Culvert Parameters: (User Input)
Allowable HW Depth (ft) = 5
Number of Pipes, N = 1 Qpipe (cfs) _
Culvert Diameter, D (in) = 24
Type of Culvert = N-12
Culvert Length, L (ft) = 30
Culvert Slope, S (ft/ft) = 0.017
Manning's Number, n = 0.012
Entrance Loss Coef., ke = 0 5
Critical Depth (ft) = 1.7
Case 1: Inlet Control
HW/D = 1 52 (User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 3 0
Case 2: Outlet Control
no (ft) = 1.9
H (ft) = 1 7 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 3.0
23.0
INLET CONTROL GOVERNS!
CULVERT
G.N. Richardson & Associates
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES
City of High Point - Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3
Culvert Analysis - Temp. Storm Pipe 5 (Initial)
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 2.13 (User Input) Area E
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 600 (User Input) Head of Drainage Area E to TIP-5
Fall Along Length (ft) = 26 (User Input) EL. 816 - EL. 790
SHEET: 1?1z5
JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/5/99
BY: PKS
CHKD BY: UYL-
Time of Conc. (min.) = 3.6
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 6.1
Culvert Parameters: (User Input)
Allowable HW Depth (ft) = 5
Number of Pipes, N = 1 Qpipe (cfs) _
Culvert Diameter, D (in) = 18
Type of Culvert = N-12
Culvert Length, L (ft) = 30
Culvert Slope, S (f /ft) = 0.05
Manning's Number, n = 0 012
Entrance Loss Coef., ke = 0.5
Critical Depth (ft) = 1.0
Case 1: Inlet Control
HW/D = 0 92 (User Input - From Inlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 1.4
Case 2: Outlet Control
ho (ft) = 1.3
H (ft) = 0 4 (User Input - From Outlet Control Nomograph)
HW (ft) = 0.1
6.1
INLET CONTROL GOVERNS!
CUL
.I
Description
Roof, inclined
Street, driveway, sidewalk
Parking lot
Roof, flat
Commercial, generalized
Apartments, schools, churches
Residences, 10 dwellings/acre
Residences, 6 dwellings/acre
Residences, 4 dwellings/acre
Residences, 2 dwellings/acre
Unimproved cleared area
Lawn, dense soil, steep >7%
PlavQround
Park, cemetery
Lawn, dense soil, avg 2-7%
Wooded, sparse ground litter
Lawn, dense soil, flat 2%
Lawn, sandy, avg 2-7%
Lawn, sandy, flat <2%
Wooded, deep ground litter
Exhibit 1
Table of Rational runoff coefficients
C Source
1.00 Malcom
0.95 Chow, 1964
0.90 Malcom
0.90 Malcom
0.85 Malcom
0.60 WSSC, c.1968
0.60 Malcom
0.55 Malcom
0.50 Malcom
0.40 Malcom
0.35 Malcom
0.35 Chow, 1964
0.35 Chow, 1964
0.25 Chow, 1964
0.22 Chow, 1964
0.20 Malcom
0.17 Chow, 1964
0.15 Chow, 1964
0.10 Chow, 1964
0.10 Malcom
EI?.MC ? O- Vr?titi S?vrr?lJ [r ?c5)Sn_
?RoM ?
VI-2
1??5 ? 1h

i
I
Table 3-6.1L ?O /
ENTRANCE LOSS COEFFICIENTS Z J?
Outlet Control, Full or Partly Full Entrance Loss
He = ke
g
Type of Structure and Design of Entrance Coefficient Standard
ke Plan
Pipe, Concrete
Projecting from fill (no headwalls)
Socket end (groove end) .................................................. 0.2
Square cut end. ......................... ............................ 0.5
Beveled end section (mitered to conform to fill slope) ............................ 0.7 B-7a
Mitered concrete headwall to conform to fill slope .............................. 0.7 B-9
Flared metal end sections (or concrete) ........................................ 0.5 B-7 Design B
Vertical headwall with wingwalls B-6 Series
Rounded edge or socket end ...............................................
Square edge 0.2 (Modified for
.............................................................
Rounded(radius - 1/12 D) 0.5 Round Pipe)
................................................. 0.2*
Pipe or Pipe Arch, Corrueated Metal
Projecting from fill (no headwalls) ............................................. 0.9
Beveled end section (mitered to conform to fill slope
,
no headwall) ............................................................
0.7
B-7a
Mitered concrete headwall to conform to fill slope .............................. 0.7 B-9

.
Flared metal end sections . ............................................... 0.5 B-7 Design .A
Vertical headwall with wingw
alls .............................................. 0.5 B-6 Series
(:Modified for
Round Pipe)
Box, Reinforced Concrete
Mitered concrete headwall to conform to fill slope
Square-edged on 3 edges ....... .........................................
Rounded on 3 edges to radius of 1/12 barrel 0.5
dimension, or beveled edges on 3 sides .............................. 0.2*
Wingwalls at 30 degrees to 75 degrees to barrel
Square-edged at crown ........ ...................................
Crown edge rounded to radius of 1112 barrel 0.4
dimension, or beveled top edge ........................................ 0.2*
Wingwall at 10 degrees to 25 degrees to barrel
Square-edged at crown ....... .........................................
Wingwalls parallel (extension of sides) 0.5 B-6 Series
Square-edged at crown ...................................................
Side- or slo
e-ta
red i
l
t 0.7
p
pe
n
e
.................................................. 0.2*
* Note: Reference Section 3-7.6 for the design of special improved inlets with very low entrance coefficients.
0
3
2
I
0
0
6r
zl /`zs

I I I

35 I d
C ANNO T EX CEED TO P OF PIPE T
p
I i?'2. I I I

5
IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 100
DISCHARGE-Q-CFS
8
F-
w
w
LL
, 0 4
v
F-
°- 3
w
0
J
Q
U 2
7
H
w
6 w
LL-
,U
v
5
a
w
0
J
Q
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 /UU nvv ?vv ,JO
DISCHARGE - Q - CFS
U
U
14
12
IO
8
6
0 1000 9 DIA il'I d? I 11
2000
DISCHARGE- Q - CFS
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS
JAN. 1964
4
I I I I I I I I I li
I I I i t I I I II
I I I I I I I I I I II
I' I I I i i
I II
CANNOT EXCEED TOP OF PIPE
3'
I
an00

CRITICAL DEPTH
CIRCULAR PIPE
FIGURE 3-6.I MM
3-4.1 Concrete Pipe (Uilet Control Nomograph)
180 10,000
168 8,000
O
?p 12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR
HEADWATER SCALES 2a3 CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS
REVISED MAY 1964 WITH INLET CONTROL
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN. 1963
3 - 9 May 1989
3-5.1 Concrete Pipe (Outlet Control Nomograph)
2000
N
MW
-? ho
Slope
1000 zz

H z SUBMERGED OUTLET CULVERT FLOWING FULL
J

? 800 r 12° For oullet crown not wbmerped, cormDute NW by
methods described A tM design procedure
- 600 - loe f
;r
500 - 96 f

400 B4 /f'
300
7 ?j
i
2
66
4p?E/tip C /
F
F 200 60 ?'c
Ex? x

L)
i
Z rn
w D.48
48-- L •110
C.
/ p
O z F,
1 F
-100 f
LIJ
= 36
N r
6 0 W
L 3 3 / app 500
5o
f-
w

30
/

00 f
40 5
/ ? f •

?3/- -? • O
O

#4 30 24
/

f 0
1e

10
j;
6
12

(?, 0) /
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN. 1963
3-17
.4
.5
6
.s
1.0
?' 2
LL
2
V 3
v
a
w 4
x
5
6
8
r10
2-
O
20
HEAD FOR
CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS
FLOWING FULL
n = 0.012
May 1989
? J
3-4.2 Corrugated Metal Pipe (Inlet Control Nomograph)
0
180 - 10,000
? I
168 8,000
F EXAMPLE

156 F 61000 D• 36 inches (3.0 lost) 6
LL 51000 0.66 cts (3)
144 I 4,000 Mw * Hw S. 6.
132 3,000 D (lest) 5. 6.
(I) 1.0 5.4
120 W 2,000 (2) 2.1 6.3
4. S
a (3) 2.2 6.6
108 a 3. 4.
J eD in foot

96 d
S
1 1,000
3.
0 800 3.
84 m 600 2
r-- 500

400 -
2•
2
cn 72
300
U
Z
200
?/
cn
1
5
Z - 60 Z F *P j . 1.5

54
v r
r E
? 1w-
w
?- w L 100 /

? a
j 48 Q 80 °
J = ?
60 Z
- L) / N = 1.0 1.0
.V r

LL. 42
50
F
t -
40 w _ L0

?6 F
30
HW ENTRANCE
SCALE
¢ .9 .9
w TYPE
D .9
?

a
33

20

(I) Head.au a

?

.B

.8
_
°
30
(z) uttered to conform a
w

8
to $tape =
U
0 27 1
E (3) projecting

T

T
a
i
24 8
.7
6
N S
To use ale (2) or (3) project
21 4 hori:onto to scote (1), then
:%, .6
.6
9h1 clined lino through
use
3 D and o states, r reverse as .6
6 illustrated.
2
15 .S
1.0 S
- 12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR
C. M. PIPE CULVERTS
WITH INLET CONT ROL
BUREAU DF PUBL IC ROADS JAN. 1963
May 1989 3 - 10
3-5.2 Corrugated Aletal Pipe (Outlet Control Nomograms

2000

i H .4

1000 v
z
=
NW -}
h0
5

800 ? J
$IOD? S. -.

6
SUBMERGED OUTLET CULVERT FLOWING FULL
?
600 120 /•
5017 108 For mflot cro.n not wbmarp?A, compute HW by
rW bods oucriWA n IM oo?Ipn Dronaun .B
400 96 Lo
300 84 0?
/ J yo
?
200 72 ?J 1( el ( [L
-66 D O yG" w L
L
2

60 w
w

54 Z
L)
100 = ? 3
a ? 80 Z -48 v

w
? 60
z 4 2 4
a v 5
50 3
N 40 300 6

O p._S
- --
30 W
H
-
3
?
EXAMPLE
----
N.7.5
300
,? 02
?7 B
o 000
10
20 24 400
21
10 IB
8
6 15
5
4
12
3

BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS AW 1963
500
20
HEAD FOR
STANDARD
C. M. PIPE CULVERTS
FLOWING FULL
n = 0.024
L -? Z S
May 1989 3 - 18
SHEET 1 OF -
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 415199
SUBJECT Drop Inlet Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY G?r2_
Objective To design the inlet structure for a drop inlet. Either a weir or grated inlet will be used. Check
the appropriate inlet type(s) for proper flow capacity. Analyze outlet for drop inlet separately
by evaluating its behavior as a culvert.
Analvsis -
- Determine Peak Flow Rate to Drop Inlet:
MA F`
Use Rational Method (Qp = CIA)
- Weir-Type Inlet - Use the Weir Equation:
Q = C,,LH3'
where: Q = Discharge (cfs)
C,,, = Weir Coefficient (=3.0 for Free Overfall)
L = Length of Weir (ft)
H = Driving Head (ft) (=Allowable Height of Water above Crest of Weir)
- Grated Inlet - Use the Orifice Equation:
Q = CdA 2gh
where: Q=Discharge (cfs)
Cd =Coefficient of Discharge (0.6 = Typical Value)
A = Cross-Sectional Area of Flow at Orifice Entrance (ft')
g = Acceleration of Gravity (32.2 ft/sec''-)
h = Driving Head (ft) (=Allowable Height of Water above Grate)
DROPINLET.WPD
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: /5
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/5/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Drop Inlet Analysis - Drop Inlet No. 1 (Final) CHKD BY: 5?'2
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 6.28 (User Input) Areas 6 & 15
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 930 (User Input) Head of Area 6 to Drop Inlet No. 1
Fall Along Length (ft) = 96 (User Input) EL. 882 - EL. 786
Time of Conc. (min.) = 3.6
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 17.9
Drop Inlet Parameters: (User Input)
Weir Coefficient = 3.0
Coefficient of Discharge (Orifice) = 0.6
Allowable Driving Head (ft) = 1.0
Weir-Type Inlet: / _
L (ft) = 9 (USER INPUT) x
Q (cfs) = 27.0 7 17 9 O. ?.
Grated Inlet:
A (in^2) = 720 (USER INPUT)
Q = 24.1
DROPINLET.
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 3 1-5
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/5/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Drop Inlet Analysis - Drop Inlet No. 2 (Final) CHKD BY: ??J?Z--
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 6.62 (User Input) Areas 7, 8, & 16
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 1400 (User Input) Head of Area 8 to Drop Inlet No. 2
Fall Along Length (ft) = 78 (User Input) EL. 877 - EL. 799
Time of Conc. (min.) = 6.3
Intensity (in/hr) = 7.76 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimpro ved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 18.0
Drop Inlet Parameters: (User Input)
Weir Coefficient = 3.0
Coefficient of Discharge (Orifice) = 0.6
Allowable Driving Head (ft) = 1.0
Weir-Type Inlet:
L (ft) = 9 (USER INPUT) -Z-- 3 51d? 0-F 3 k3 J z7.
Q (cfs) = 27.0 7 / 6,0 O, K
Grated Inlet:
A (in^2) = K720 ER INPUT)
Q (cfs)
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: *1-5-
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB 4: HPOINT-12
DATE: 7129/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Drop Inlet Analysis - Drop Inlet No. 3 (Final) CHKD BY: 1?110r2-
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 0.95 (User Input) Area 17
Hydraulic Length (ff) = 340 (User Input) Head of Area 17 to Drop Inl et No. 3
Fall Along Length (ft) = 12.5 (User Input) EL. 830 - EL. 817.5
Time of Conc. (min.) = 2.5
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 (User Input) (EOUSD - Exhibit 1 - Unimproved, Cleared Conditions)
Q (cfs) = 2.7
Drop Inlet Parameters: (User Input)
Weir Coefficient = 3.0
Coefficient of Discharge (Orifice) = 06
Allcwable Driving Head (ff) = 1.0
Weir-Type Inlet:
,t /
v S _ x 1 l'11' \
L (ft) = 12 (USER INPUT) 3 -5 4
0(cfs)= 36.0 (Ilry SOX S)F
7r)?\i ?On(? Cu?VCI?
7
Grated Inlet:
A (in^2) = 150 (USER INPUT)
Q (cfs) = 5.0
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 515
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 7/29/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Drop Inlet Analysis - Drop Inlet No. 4 (Final) CHKD BY: ?1J(L
Peak Flow Rate:
Drainage Area (Ac.) = 3.12 (User Input) Area 18B
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 575 (User Input) Head of Area 18B to Drop Inlet No. 4
Fall Along Length (ft) = 24.2 (User Input) EL. 840 - EL. 815.8
Time of Conc. (min.) = 3.5
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input) (25 Year Storm)
Runoff Coefficient = 0.38 (User Input) (Composite Avg. - 0.75 Ac. (0.95) & 2.37 Ac. (0.20))
Q (cfs) = 9.7
,7
Drop Inlet Parameters: (User Input) /
Weir Coefficient = 3.0 ?yl• I R (I
Coefficient of Discharge (Orifice) = 0.6
Allowable Driving Head (ft) = 1.0
Weir-T elnlet:
L (ft) = 9 (USER INPUT)
(?(e = 27.0
Grated Inlet:
A (in^2) = 300 (USER INPUT) 1 ??h ?S 73 O Q E?VA L
Q(cfs)= 10.0 14=3Z6 inL
SHEET 1 OF 1 9
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/7/99
SUBJECT Selection of Concrete Pipe Strength COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY qU2
Objective Evaluate the required pipe strength for concrete pipe and select the appropriate class of
pipe to satisfy the strength requirement.
Reference Concrete Pipe Design Manual, American Concrete Pipe Association, Vienna, VA, 1992.
"Design Data 40 - Standard Installations and Bedding Factors for the Indirect Design
Method", American Concrete Pipe Association, Vienna, VA, September 1994.
ASTM C 76, "Standard Specification for Reinforced Concrete Culvert, Storm Drain, &
Sewer Pipe", American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Analvsis The analysis is based on the following procedure recommended by the American
Concrete Pipe Association (ACPA):
1. Determination of Earth Load
2. Determination of Live Load
3. Selection of Standard Installation
4. Determination of Bedding Factors
5. Application of Factor of Safety
6. Selection of Pipe Strength/Class.

The design parameters will vary depending on the type of installation (trench,
embankment, etc.).
Equations
- Determination of Earth Load, WE_
Based on the assumed concrete pipe parameters (size, backfill, etc.) use the tables and
figures in the Concrete Pipe Design Manual to determine the earth load acting on the
pipe. Note that the values determined in the tables and figures are based on a backfill
unit weight of 100 lbs/ft3. This value must be adjusted for the anticipated backfill unit
weight. Also, for non-trench installations, values for projection ratio, p (vertical distance
between the top of the pipe and natural ground divided by the outside vertical height of
the pipe), and settlement ratio, r,d, must be determined in order to use the figures. Table
43 of the Design Manual gives suggested values for rya based on the known or assumed
value of p.
CONCPIPE.WPD
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 2 OF l7
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/7/99
SUBJECT Selection of Concrete Pipe Strength COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY !"jNZ
- Detennination of Live Load, WL:
Based on the concrete pipe parameters (size, backfill, etc.) use the tables in the Concrete
Pipe Design Manual to determine the live load acting on the pipe. Note that the values
for backfill heights of 10 feet or more and considered insignificant to the design of the
pipe.
-Selection of Standard Installation:
Select the Standard Installation based on the guidance given in Design Data 40. Note
that a Type 1 Standard Installation requires the highest construction quality and degree of
inspection while a Type 4 Standard Installation requires virtually no construction quality
or inspection.
-Determination of Bedding Factors:
Determine the bedding factors based on the guidance given in Design Data 40. For
embankment installations, the bedding factor, B f, is found from Table 4 of Design Data
40 depending on the selected Standard Installation. For trench installations the bedding
factor is based on the following equation:
B = (Bfe-Bf) (Bd B) +Bf
o (Design Data 40 Eqn. 5)
fv (Bdr_B)
Where: Bra = Variable Bedding Factor, Trench
Bfe = Bedding Factor, Embankment (Design Data 40 Table 4)
Bfo = Minimum Bedding Factor, Trench (Design Data 40 Table 6)
Bd = Trench Width at Top of Pipe (ft)
Bc = Outside Horizontal Span of Pipe (ft)
Bdl = Transition Width at Top of Pipe (ft) (Given in Design Manual
Tables for Earth Load).
Use Table 7A of Design Data 40 to determine the live load bedding factor, B,LL.
-Application of Factor of Safety, FS:
According to the ACPA, a factor of safety of 1.0 should be applied if the 0.01-inch crack
strength is used as the design criterion rather than the ultimate strength.
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 3 OF /9
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/7/99
SUBJECT Selection of Concrete Pipe Strength COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY ?j?.?P?i
-Selection of Pipe Strength/Class:
The required three-edge bearing strength of circular reinforced concrete pipe is expressed
as D-load in the following equation:
D-load=E + WL ]+FS (Design Data 40 Eqn. 6)
BF BjLL D
Where: WE = Earth Load on Pipe (lbs/linear ft)
WL
BF=
BfLL
FS
D=
Live Load on Pipe (lbs/linear ft)
Bedding Factor
= Bfe for Embankment Installations
= B fV for Trench Installations
Live Load Bedding Factor
Factor of Safety
Pipe Diameter (ft)
Note that if BELL is greater than Bfe for embankment installations or Bf, for trench
installations, use B fe or B., in place of B fLL.
Select class of reinforced concrete pipe based on the following ASTM C-76 guidelines:
Maximum D-Load
For 0.01-inch Crack
Pipe Class (lbs/lf/ft of diameter)
I S00
II 1000
III 1350
IV 2000
V 3000
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 4 119
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/7/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Concrete Pipe Strength Analysis - Culvert No. 3 CHKD BY: G1,?Q1
Trench Installation 11
Concrete Pipe Parameters: (User Input
Type of Pipe = Circular, Concrete
Pipe Diameter, D (in) = 30
Outside Horzontal Span, Bc (ft) = 3.08 (From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Height of Backfill, H (ft) =
kfill T
B
= 19
m
acted Soil
C
p
??
ype
ac p
o
MAR
l,
.
s
Backfill Unit Wt. (Ibs/ft^3) = 120
Standard Installation = Type 2
Trench Width, Bd (ft) = 6

?m
01
Determine Earth Load:
WE (Ibs/LF) (@ 100 pcf) = 7768 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual - Table 22C)
WE (Ibs/LF) (Adjusted) = 9322
Determine Live Load:
WL (Ibs/LF) = 0 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Determine Bedding Factors:
Embankment Bedding Factor, Bfe = 2 95 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 4)
Transition Width, Bdl (ft) = 6.5 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual -Table 22C)
Min. Trench Bedding Factor, Bfo = 1 9 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 6)
Variable Trench Bedding Factor, Bfv = 2.8
Live Load Bedding Factor, Bfll = 2 2 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 7A)
Factor of Safety:
Factor of Safety, FS = 1 (User Input - Use 1.0 for Reinforced and 1.25 to 1.5 for Non-Reinforced Pipe)
Selection of Required Pipe Strength/Class:
D-Load (Ibs/LF/ft) = 1333
Pipe Class Max. D-Load
1 800
II 1000 Table per ASTM C-76.
111 1350 Use Class III RCP
1V 2000
V 3000
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: S 1/9
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4!7/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: P
KS
Concrete Pipe Strength Analysis - Culvert No. 4 CHKD BY: ?
Positive Projecting Embankment Installation 1
Concrete Pipe Parameters: (User Input)
Type of Pipe = Circular, Concrete
Pipe Diameter, D (in) = 24
Outside Horzontal Span, Bc (ft) = 2.5 (From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Height of Backfill, H (ft) = 12
Backfill Type = Compacted Soil
Backfill Unit Wt. (Ibs/ft^3) = 120
Standard Installation = Type 3
Determine Earth Load:
Projection Ratio, p = 0.7 (User Input - Known or Assumed)
Settlement Ratio, rsd = 0.7 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 43)
rsd x p = 0,49
WE (Ibs/LF) (@ 100 pcf) = 5000 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual - Figure 166)
WE (Ibs/LF) (Adjusted) = 6000
Determine Live Load:
WL (Ibs/LF) = 0 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Determine Bedding Factors:
Embankment Bedding Factor, Bfe = 24 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 4)
Live Load Bedding Factor, BIII = 22 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 7A)
Factor of Safety:
Factor of Safety, FS = 1 (User Input - Use 1.0 for Reinforced and 1.25 to 1.5 for Non-Reinforced Pipe)
Selection of Required Pipe Strength/Class:
D-Load (Ibs/LF/ft) = 7250
Pipe Class Max D-Load
1 800
11 1000 Table per ASTM C-76.
111 1350 Use Class III RCP
1V 2000
V 3000
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: ? //19
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB d: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/7/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Concrete Pipe Strength Analysis - Culvert No. 5 CHKD BY: '1012,
Positive Projecting Embankment Installation
Concrete Pipe Parameters: (User Input)
Type of Pipe = Circular, Concrete
Pipe Diameter, D (in) = 24
Outside Horzonlal Span, Bc (ft) = 2.5 (From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Height of Backfill, H (ft) = 12
Backfill Type = Compacted Soil
Backfill Unit Wt. (Ibs/ft13) = 120
Standard Installation = Type 3
Determine Earth Load:
Projection Ratio, p =
Settlement Ratio, rsd =
rsd x p =
WE (Ibs/LF) (@ 100 pct) _
WE (Ibs/LF) (Adjusted) _
Determine Live Load:
WL (Ibs/LF) =
Determine Bedding Factors:
Embankment Bedding Factor, Bfe =
Live Load Bedding Factor, BIII =
Factor of Safety:
Factor of Safety, FS =
0,7 (User Input - Known or Assumed)
0.7 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 43)
0.49
5000 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual - Figure 166)
6000
0 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
2.4 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 4)
22 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 7A)
1 (User Input- Use 1.0 for Reinforced and 1.25 to 1.5 for Non-Reinforced Pipe)
Selection of Required Pipe Strength/Class:
D-Load (Ibs/LF/fl) = 1250
Pipe Class Max. D-Load
1 600
It 1000
III 1350 Use Class III RCP
1V 2000
V 3000
Table per ASTM C-76.
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET:
9
-7 J9
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/7/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Concrete Pipe Strength Analysis - Culvert No. 6 CHKD BY: AJ?L?
Positive Projecting Embankment Installation
Concrete Pipe Parameters: (User Input)
Type of Pipe = Circular, Concrete
Pipe Diameter, D (in) = 18
Outside Horzontal Span, Bc (ft) = 1.92 (From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Height of Backfill, H (ft) = 1
Backfill Type = Compacted Soil
Backfill Unit Wt. (Ibs/fl13) = 120
Standard Installation = Type 3
Determine Earth Load:
Projection Ratio, p =
Settlement Ratio, rsd =
rsd x p=
WE (Ibs/LF) (Q 100 pcf)
=
WE (Ibs/LF) (Adjusted) =
Determine Live
WL (Ibs/LF) =
Determine Bedding Factors:
Embankment Bedding Factor. Bfe =
Live Load Bedding Factor, Bfll =
0.7 (User Input - Known or Assumed)
0.7 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 43)
0.49
200 (User Input)
240
2610 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
2.4 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 4)
2.2 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 7A)
Factor of Safety:
Factor of Safety, FS = 1 (User Input - Use 1.0 for Reinforced and 1.25 to 1.5 for Non-Reinforced Pipe)
Selection of Required Pipe Strength/Class:
D-Load (Ibs/LF/ft) = 858
Poe Class Max. D-Load
I 800
II 1000 Use Class II RCP Table per ASTM C-76.
III 1350
IV 2000
V 3000
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: ° l J r
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB p: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/7/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Concrete Pipe Strength Analysis - Culvert No. 7 CHKD BY: ? L
Positive Projecting Embankment Installation
Concrete Pipe Parameters: (User Input)
Type of Pipe = Circular, Concrete
Pipe Diameter, D (in) = 18
Outside Horzontal Span, Bc (ft) = 1.92 (From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Height of Backfill, H (ft) = 1
Backfill Type = Compacted Soil
Backfill Unit Wt. (Ibs/ft13) = 120
Standard Installation = Type 3
Determine Earth Load:
Projection Ratio, p = 03 (User Input - Known or Assumed)
Settlement Ratio, rsd = 0.7 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 43)
rsd x p = 0.49
WE (Ibs/LF) (@ 100 pcf) = 200 (User Input)
WE (Ibs/LF) (Adjusted) = 240
Determine Live Load:
WL (Ibs/LF) = 2610 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Determine Bedding Factors:
Embankment Bedding Factor. B'e = 2.4 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 4)
Live Load Bedding Factor, Bill = 2.2 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 7A)
Factor of Safety:
Factor of Safety, FS = 1 (User Input - Use 1.0 for Reinforced and 1.25 to 1.5 for Non-Reinforced Pipe)
Selection of Required Pipe Strength/Class:
D-Load (Ibs/LF'ft) = 858
Pipe Class Max. D-Load
1 800
11 1000 Use Class II RCP Table per ASTM C-76.
III 1350
IV 2000
V 3000
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 9 / /?
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 417/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Concrete Pipe Strength Analysis - Culvert No. 8 CHKD BY:
Positive Projecting Embankment Installation
Concrete Pipe Parameters: (User Input)
Type of Pipe = Circular, Concrete
Pipe Diameter, D (in) = 12
Outside Horzontal Span, Bc (ft) = 1.33 (From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
He,ghl of Backfill, H (ft) = 1
Backfill Type = Compacted Soil
Back011 Unit Wt. (Ibs/ft13) = 120
Standard Installation = Type 3
Determine Earth Load:
Projection Ratio, p =
Settlement Ratio, rsd =
rsd x p =
WE (Ibs/LF) (Q 100 pcf) _
WE (Ibs/LF) (Adjusted) _
Determine Live Load:
WL (Ibs/LF) =
Determine Bedding Factors:
Embankment Bedding Factor, Bfe =
Live Load Bedding Factor. B01 =
Factor of Safety:
Factor of Safety, FS =
0.7 (User Input - Known or Assumed)
0.7 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 43)
0 49
150 (User Input)
180
2080 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
2.5 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 4)
2.2 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 7A)
1 (User Input - Use 1.0 for Reinforced and 1.25 to 1.5 for Non-Reinforced Pipe)
Selection of Required Pipe Strength/Class:
D-Load (Ibs/LFift) = 1017
Pipe Class Niax. D-Load
I 800
II 1000
ul 1350 Use Class III RCP
IV 2000
V 3000
Table per ASTM C-76.
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: ID / /9
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 6129/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Concrete Pipe Strength Analysis - Culvert No. 9 CHKD BY:
Positive Projecting Embankment Installation 1
Concrete Pipe Parameters: (User Input)
Type of Pipe = Circular, Concrete
Pipe Diameter, D (in) = 18
Outside Horzontal Span, Bc («) = 1.92 (From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Height of Backfill, H (fl) = 1
Backfill Type = Compacted Soil
Backfill Unit Wt. (Ibs/f(13) = 120
Standard Installation = Type 3
Determine Earth Load:
Projection Ratio, p = 03 (User Input - Known or Assumed)
Settlement Ratio, rsd = 0.7 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 43)
rsd x p = 0.49
WE (Ibs/LF) (Q 100 pcf) = 150 (User Input)
WE (IDs/LF) (Adjusted) = 180
Determine Live Load:
WL (lbs/LF) = 2080 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Determine Bedding Factors:
Embankment Bedding Factor. Bfe = 2.5 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 4)
Live Load Bedding Factor, BII? = 2.2 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 7A)
Factor of Safety:
Factor of Safety. FS = 1 (User Input - Use 1.0 for Reinforced and 1.25 to 1.5 for Non-Reinforced Pipe)
Selection of Required Pipe Strength/Class:
D-Load (Ibs/LF/fl) = 678
Pipe Class Max. D-Load
1 800 Use Class I RCP
II 1000 Table per ASTM C-76.
111 1350
IV 2000
V 3000
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET I I / / 9
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/7/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Concrete Pipe Strength Analysis - Culvert No. 10 CHKD BY:
Positive Projecting Embankment Installation
Concrete Pipe Parameters: (User Input)
Type of Pipe = Circular, Concrete
Pipe Diameter, D (in) = 12
Outside Horzontal Span, Bc (ft) = 1.33 (From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Height of Backfill, H (fl) = 1
Backfill Type = Compacted Soil q ? ?r
Backfill Unit Wt. (Ibs/ft^3) = 120?1F1, '"I
Standard Installation = Type 3
Determine Earth Load:
Protection Ratio, p = 0.7 (User Input - Known or Assumed)
Settlement Ratio, rsd = 0.7 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 43)
rsd x p = 0.49
WE (Ibs/LF) (Q 100 pcf) = 150 (User Input)
WE (Ibs/LF) (Adjusted) = 180
Determine Live Load:
WL (Ibs/LF) = 2080 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Determine Bedding Factors:
Embankment Bedding Factor, Bfe = 2.5 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 4)
Live Load Bedding Factor, Bfll = 2.2 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 7A)
Factor of Safety:
Factor of Safely, FS = 1 (User Input - Use 1.0 for Reinforced and 1.25 to 1.5 for Non-Reinforced Pipe)
Selection of Required Pipe Strength/Class:
D-Load (Ibs/LFfft) = 1017
Pipe Class Max D-Load
I 800
II 1000 Table per ASTM C-76.
II 1350 Use Class III RCP
IV 2000
V 3000
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: IZ //g
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 7/15/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Concrete Pipe Strength Analysis - Culvert No. 11 CHKD BY: -? N(L--
Positive Projecting Embankment Installation
Concrete Pipe Parameters: (User Inout
Type of Pipe = Circular, Concrete
Pipe Diameter, D (in) = 12
Outside Horzontal Span, Bc (fq = 1.33 (From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Height of Backfill, H (ft) = 1
Backfill Type = Compacted Soil
Backfll Unit Wt. (Ibs/fl^3) = 120
Standard Installation = Type 3
Determine Earth Load:
Projection Ratio. p = 0.7 (User Input - Known or Assumed)
Settlement Ratio, rsd = 0.7 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 43)
rsd x p = 0.49
WE (Ibs/LF) 1@ 100 pcf) = 300 (User Input)
WE (Ibs/LF) (Ad)usted) = 360
Determine Live Load:
WL (Ibs/LF) = 2080 (User Input - From Concrete Pipe Design Manual Table 45)
Determine Bedding Factors:
Embankment Bedding Factor, Sfe = 2.5 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 4)
Live Load Bedding Factor. BBI = 2.2 (User Input - From ACPA Design Data 40 Table 7A)
Factor of Safety:
Factor of Safety. FS = 1 (User Input - Use 1.0 for Reinforced and 1.25 to 1.5 for Non-Reinforced Pipe)
Selection of Required Pipe Strenqth/Class:
D-Load (IDs/LF/ft) = 1089
Pice Class Max. D-Load
1 800
II 1000 Table per ASTM C-76.
III 1350 Use Class III RCP
IV 2000
V 3000
'=F
MAN -,-%L
ABOVE TOP OF PIPE. FEET
N(7<?m CO no1O
., e,nmrm 0lO
N N N N N N N (7 ? `? lh C'I N M ? N N e
.^ O_ ly l? Q N m r
NhQlnmrm 010- , .
._ n r i- i? r i? i? 'r r o0 6o m is m is m o0
gglvri clN++?ma
m
N m m r r r m
0 010 O O C ?IiQ c
m Q '?` m r.lx ^ ;v c? .n
m t7 m'N r N Ian iD :O 'D 'D
IS
N f'1 P1'Q a ?_ ^
00 00 30 00 ^ JCIo
JJ-ON<.-_ -NNN.NR?"?
.'iJ1 ^
n 9 -
3) ?l
-^ N J=- -- x c- ? n
_ :- D D Im x
x ,n n - c. N
ti ^'D
.9 NAN` xT^IC ..J OJ
_ p? N h Q N ID r Cf 01 O :?
;?QV1rm morrr?ri?ni-r-mmmmmmmcommm ?,.
00 o O 010000f0
r m Q Q,N O In 01 C
N tD
i
pIm °p m °^ - N h ?10 x D
v11m n ml^ a v a o?:n n n n'n
^i^ N N N1 ^I^ - - - ^ .
-00000 ^'?I 9xnTl:n??m
^v1ommon< Nn ? ?^
^ O O N N? N N NIh N (J'I t7 NI^ ? ? ? i?__-^__ ^ppo000000o11co?o°,?r
N t00 m T C1 9 'D 'v ^ D n 9 OI ^ N N^^
^:, mONQt09O ryNNN
_ ° e c n v e
O e N N O''n ° o
m
iD m9 Sol °N 01 c7N ^' ? -?i 00 0 OI000??
0101TO• o
!' <I :7 N N n r N C.) N S
D 0 e 0 m m 0 N f7 N O Q N m r
.n C7 Ol LL'1 01 f`7 C1 N (7 ? O O 01
9 m C1r Nm < w m mlrn O
m m m m m I x OI
0 0 0 0 0
_ o1
.- tp Qt ^ e In '.n ?; '.f I N N O n Q O ? N N m
- r 901 N M ^ .0 min mn 07 0) m 00 ?.
'D IDm nnn
_ p N N m 0"19 01 N r ?^ N X10
-MC-Mp _^SmIA N1014
In In mD omxlm l0m mmtD10(O?e.-
-r7o O?Q0101 Q;a1e 010 nOi ?' o01m
h^ Sm ANN hQ QIO oo t0 norr?
10 In
N to o ,no
? N _
v 0 N In 1n In In N
Qt01?m
- x^ TNON InOI^ON Incc
Qn LL] In m a f
C. O^^ N aND C7 A Q QIa In N
eeelQeeeQ
-;eee QQe
rmsr
.-NC'7 Q Nm?
- N c7 Q N m 01 0 !7
N N N N cy N N N N N l7 f7 f7 c7
A09V H'1"lldN0d9 d01H913H k.
TABLES
121
HEIGHT OF BACKFILL H ABOVE TOP OF PIPE, FEET
N m n m 01 0 N l 7 e N IO n m 0 ? O N m Q In m n w o o ^ N M Q N m n m m O
^^^^^ N N N N N N N N N N f7 t7 (? (7 c7 (7 (7 N N N Q
Z Z =
a Q H
Q O) N Q N m r m O O O N l7 Q N m r m 01 0 0 O N N e') Q N m m r m 00

,? 3 Q m N N M In N N N N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m r r r r r r r r r r r r

4
C1
c o o
Q N Cf Q
m r r m
a 2:2 0 o g gi o o c o-
W mIN n m m I
r
o?
?
d ? v
i
o
r1 Q Q u1 u1 ml m r n
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 .^. J C J O
I
Q N O N p
p
m Q m c'f ^
? J ;7 ;? S O ;h n
CL ^
0 O^ O ^
o11 n O^ O C .^? O O O
^
:D _
h r N r^ b ?
L _ x;
Q :D r r m co C1 m O J J
.. __- 1 NI _ O__ v .-
V1 m m N N 9 O C n ^,n N t0 •• ^•^. C "'? O- ^• -• z ^•
r
?
? ^ t7 10
oQmgm ; -
r,
n OlN
? m ? N N
r? nr
x tC 21 J _h ? D ?I ... .n J ill „^
i
nn
JN

0
?
N N N m 10 .
.
'? ? ? ."^, ,
9 CI S ,^ l
D...I-i-n?=
J O C J_ '__ N N N^
n
0 p
.0N m N C e i? f. .
;j
? x x 1? ., J ? O

'- 7 C C T< JI hl ;?; h J

:D T .J -^ ? r. N 9 ^. '^ T-_ ^. t CI J ^ .., h ? :D ? - ? 1] el ?: ? :0 O
- N :\ ^. t^, -? ? c C C T tl .n .^. ,n ip 'D :C "J D D 'D m '? ? ? n ?

Z n:
' m
N
!h ..7 '? ^ h C '? m
7 h (7 C
.n :D '? n
h
N^ :7 C C
-
h N N^.
0
O
Z
Y
}
g
O
w
F..
Q
cc
F-
Q
co
0
0
N
T
O
C
O
u
Z
Q O M o N Q v1 n m O O O ^ N n Q 1n m m m 0 0 0 ^^ N P'1 Q V1 m n m m 0 0- O^ N
N 3 O In o o N In N N m m m m w W 10 m m 1010 11 11 -1 r r r r r r r r m co m

a 00
Omf Q
° 10c?°
O
N
O r
ml m r
Q N
W 4 °o
I °opp°og 2
1 Q m t7 m 0_Aa?
lr`1 m N R 0,0c,'
e m m 0 N
a
a ^ ^
N N f') c'11 Q < ? Q 'n n .n ,n 9 tD

U.
R
P.
0, Nf O O O O
Q rNO O O O 00
mWcl0 0 c? C
C)J O 0 0 0
3S InNm
n
Ol m u-lOe
A 0 0 ID CD em
N N N 9 In In n
N.^, :7 (") N<In
:"1 C e e e
N
m o^O^m
Pf T N Q e Cf e00
(7 O n N n 00000
_ c7 N D m 0 c o?
1; ^ OOO
m
m W m r N r m N N C N N m M D T e 7 n m m
r r m m m m O 01 O O_ O O O ___ _N N_ N_ N_ N
Q - N

N
m Inmm n

^ r m
m e n m

_ "
N m N
o
N NCI
nNOI
m
m ^^In0
00000
'
'
00000

2
F

0
pp N

Qv
O Q O N O

000
m N
D
T N e n O
10
m JO
N
N
N N n O-
m mm X01 In
a (7 p
n n- 8 8
01 o Of m 0 (7 .
: (
?
c) n m co
0 0 0 0 0 Q m m O O
T O ^ N e

0^
___- _
3 ?Q m N O^ N
m
N:?co n m_ N 0
c7O m N p n e
n NIpm 7 N N m
NN^ O n n
m m
^
m mO n n 0 tam 0? ^ ew m ^ mm
m0 mO M0m
Nn4 mm mQ 001 n
om m
2 U1 Nmm e QU71n NN m10 n nn nm mmmmm mO:mO T C1 m 01
V

Z

R Ol n
n cl N I N m m
O O
m N Q N n
m m N n O
O M Q In m
n Q e (7 ^
m N n N e
m In 04 O
n 4 N m e
N N n m a)
n Q m A n
m N
l0 _ N p ^
co ^ m N

v1 0 m N N m
N N N O r; fh ^ e n m N
e e e Q In Q m co pp N
N N N t0 m N In n m m
m - N t7 e N m r m 01 0 N N f`1 Q
m
m m m n n n n n n n n n m m m m m m

m01 mN^
An -0 T O) Q
mO ^ ^ m In Om m mw N _
; Q.-f7O N O) N m n In O ^O m

Q

TNInm -e

mm -mv m mmM

om0 t7 n O eI

em mm NNQ co ^

0 Nmv mmf7 m0

v nmmn
Nn
mmmarn0
NNNmcl mNeQ. ...4N NInInN Vl mmmmm mmto mm mmmm I
R

O mO
n Q m
;

Q l'1 nM
m e m
n.-em
NO N
mmrm v
m cn m m m
^mN ^ r
m N c? m^
7m
)n N
^ m N m m
m I

Q
n01N
^ N N
um
^f71Amm
f7 (7 ('? (? N
O)N(7e
M e e e e
Nmnm01
Q Q e e e
OO^NN
N In N Ill to (
C
C7t7Q etn
N In 11; N u-1 m O
D 01
Nlnmm m
In In N N N
O
c7
C
I
Y
}
V
U C1
m
8s
O m
N m
2c
?In
0 03
O ? t
of c
$-m
C x
8O?
U t O
g 3r
g?
8 m
?sE
L ? m
3 0 0
hmf?mOO^NC7Q In mAm G)NNNNNNNNNNe7 f7O(7?0 ?lONV 2[4
1334 '3dld d0 dOl 3AO9V H 1l1d>10`dB d01H013H °':
W
r'
162 CONCRETE PIPE DESIGN MANUAL
TABLE 43
DESIGN VALUES OF SETTLEM ENT RATIO
Settlem ent
Installation and Foundation Condition Ratio rsd
Usual Design
Range Value
Positive Projecting ............................................... 0.0 to +1.0
Rock or Unyielding Soil ....................... ......
' +1.0 +1.0
Ordinary Soil ................................................. +0.5 to +0.8 +0.7
Yielding Soil .................................................. 0.0 to -0.5 -0.3
Zero Projecting .................
...................................
Negative Projecting ..............................................
-1.0 to 0.0 0.0
p" = 0.5 ...........
............................................. -0.1
p' = 1.0 ...........
............................................. -0.3
p' = 1.5 ...........
............................................. -0.5
p' = 2.0 ...........
.............................................
Induced Trench -1.0
................................................... -2.0 to 0.0
p' = 0.5 ..........
.............................................. -0.5
p' = 1.0 ..........
.............................................. -0.7
p' = 1.5 ..........
.............................................. -1.0
p' = 2.0 ..........
..............................................
-2.0
The value of the settlement ratio depends on the degree of compaction of the till material adjacent to
the sides of the pipe. With good construction methods resulting in proper compaction of bedding and
sidetill materials, a settlement ratio design value of -0.5 is recommended.
TABLE 44
DESIGN VALUES OF COEFFICIENT OF COHESION
Type of Soil Values of c
Clay
Soft .....
.......................................................... 40
Medium
......................................................... 250
Hard ..
............................................................ 1000
Sand
Loose Dry ..........
............................................. 0
Silty ............
.................................................. 100
Dense
............................................................ 300
Top Soil
Saturated
........................
...............................
100
149
45
PIPE S
!+2 ?;• Q N oMkD MN
N N N M M M M Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0
-
• 0
j M O T N 0 co o M 0 N
N N N N M M M M
_
.
• ;`1
+ a
.
`' r
r c o o 00000000
0
co N N N M M M M Q Q
00000000000
} 0 O M 0 O M 0 0 N V1 m
'Y n .. N N M M M M Q Q Q V)
. a ?
j p w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0

i
LL 0
m
M N ?D O Q N 9 -?
-

. (t D V1 N o D
N M M Q Q Q
-
Z
S .J O w o 00000000000

?
d 0, N 0 V1 O 0 m Mn,N
D t3 N N
V
i V V1 1 t
N M Q Q Vl V)
FL
LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U Q O C? co VI N co Q 0 VN ••+ -+ V1
lU Q M Q N 0 m N N m m a1 ao
a
O ] 00000000000
u N Q N MOON?M
H ti W
M .
Q N w 0 t0 N N m m Oi
W >
Q CL Cc) 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0000
O N M ? co ? M O U
V tD N Q M
J p Q M ;
U)tDNm0, 0 N N M

Q J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200
O N
0
0 O M N N m m m Q
d J
-J N m
-?'D
N m O.•?
Q
LL i .
n.r .
?
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO MN 0M17 ID
O N m CO ID N
N
M
Q
N
N
O
F O
N N
N
N
. 2?2
N
N
= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0=
(7 N Q n 0 66 N V1 M V) N
Q
N
N ?
L11 N N N N NC,
.
.;
N
0 0020000020C
m 0 N, QMMN V
OM ?D mOMWM m ov
N N N N M N N N N N n
0000002C
00
N 2
N O m N M 0
a
m Q
0 0
-
N N•+a, .•+OD 0In Oa
M Q O M Q M M M M M ?
M M N+0 O+mmN0U
u MtD D?NUiN C! O0+C
m •? n .•i N N N M M M M<
N a')CO .y Q N OM.
.r .y .rN N NMMMM?
S3H'

yt i ??????ti .??...r ???d y,? h?^1 '.. 1 ? ? I`? '. ? t,? '. ? r ` I L''"? `?• ?"7'?? .4?9arrc.: ?' I
... >: :v..' .7a?_.?..n. ?..4Y1? Mae!
ae!
V
qtr.
TABLE 45
LEMENT RATIO
Settlement
Ratio rsd
;
:J
l
ua
Design
nge Value
0.0 to -1.0
+1.0 -1.0
+0.5 to -0.8 -0.7
0.0 to -0.5 -0.3
0.0
-1.0 to 0.0
-0.1
-0.3
-0.5 d
-1.0
Cr

-2.0 to 0.0 Q
-0.5 J O
-0.7 U LL

-1.0 U w
........ 0
-2
i z z
.... .... . .
'i
0
J

?! --0 n of the fill material adjacent to

4
r

a
W
-uIUny oper conmcachon of bedding and 0 N
-ecommended. Y z

a
f' ' t g

;TENT OF COHESION
Values of c
ti
40
.............
250
1000
............. ,
_i -
$
0 J
100
........
....
300
.............. ?t
-
3

100
TABLES
I 5,iq 163
PIPE SIZE D IN INCHES
N N W -. Q r O MID M N W V 010 N W Q O 1D N W V O ?, N W Q
N M M M M Q Q N W tD I? n m? C1 O O .^.. N m^ V
o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0
M W W -+ Q 1p W O M n
-+ V W
Q n O M In W 0 M .1 . C1 M
01 M
"
.? .+ N N N N M M M M Q Q V N n 010 ID 1D ID N I I? n W co
y
0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O 0 0

W 1D O1 N 0 W O M 1D W M N N W C1 M 1D a1 N to m W M -.D W O N Q
.-1 N N N M M M M Q O Q 0 Vl Vl 1D 10 1D r` h I? W W ?^. W O 01 C1 y
n
9 D

O O O O O O O C C O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0
2 y
°
-
l ul O V W .. Y1 co .-? Q I C1 N Q N O
T M
O M 1D 01 N 1n m- 10 C
h .^ N N M M M M Q Q Q J) to 1D lD n I? N W W W a1 C1 M 1 0 0 0 O
W
W O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C 0 .^. 0 0 0
- .,
LL M W N 0 O Q W W, n M m M W N 10 O N N W
' -•
J
W N N M M Q V Q .
1 Il 11 1DJ ^ W W Q1 M, C O O - N N N N

W O O o 0 0 0 O o 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N C 3000 C=
-
CL
to C7 N O to O 1D s M n N C? in 0 1D -? lD N 0 M M '0 C M 'D M N
N M Q Q N V1 to J J '? W co C7 O O -+ .+ N N N M M C Q Q Q V _
-% :J

LL 0 0 0 0 0 o C O O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0020 0 0 0 C 002
n N
m
W^
'
I

d V W
., M Ln
W .
W Q O
,n 1D ^. ?n V N 0 O M M 1D M
Q
M V Ln to lD N f` CO m C1 C1 2
O ^+ •? N 2 m M N N N N N M N N N

y J
.. .. ...-... _. ..... .. .. .., -..-... .. -C ..
U C
O
F- W O 00 O 0000 O 00000000000 O O O C 000 _
3 y y U

W N V N C1 1D M C1 tD N 1 m M N O W -+ 1D -? 10 M to M O N U
D
V in 1D ID N W W 01 O O -1 N m Q Q ill Q Q M M M M V Q M M N N c=
?
o` 7 7 m
O 0
0 y
M 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C )C) C
.
r? N W n O M
o
o
M
W '? W
O

-
_
_
- °
Q m ' W W Q
t
1D t
Q M; W W
M
10 Q
Q
N ID I W C1 O O ^. N N M V to 10 10 1n n V V to O N to V y M m M -
N
7 Q 0 ^. O

J N 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000000020200 0 0 0^ 0000 D C 0 q
y

? 1D O M i11 I? W W W 10 Q O 0 1D W N 0 W .. M 1D O Q m M W N 0 '.D y
_
-
N I? m O .. N M Q N 10 n W D? O Q1 m W n W m W C1 W n ^ .n to Q ? O
C L N
LL _
y 0
LL. 0 0 000 0000 0000000000000 00 : 000
m
c, m
+ C0 N W 3-? `
tlj
y
"
O
N x
N
co co 1D N co M N 0 m r W W 1D o tD O Q 51 M a1 C1 a
;
-+ N N M N .?. O O O 9 W I? W
O N
t0 n a1 O N
o
N y
_
O
V
M V t
V M
N
-. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N _
N? °
= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^ 0 0 0
h 3 y "- C
0'
0 0- N V
O V
I? Q I? T O M 1 N M N N N M 0 N W M M M
in 1D N W V M N 0 C1 W W N
n O
o 1 0
) Q
C y
l1J g
.+ V t
Q
CO N 10 Q Q U1
0
N N N N N
N N N C '-
N N N N N N N N N N N
N N
y II
0 0020200020000000000000000000
y I
O U

~ CO z N V M M n 1n M 2 0 N M M Q 0 W N 1D O N O z N co
m f? W u'S V M M N N ?. + 0 0 O1
O M tp W O C1 W 0
I C
y C L
W W 0 M O

N NN N
2 !
-
+
+
x-+22 O
O
.f,2
O
-:
M N N N N NN NN. -1
- •
+•-
-
- ?
O ? ?
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0020000200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
' 0 0
O- Q
01-
O D ... I? N
W V .y N O W N 0 D1 0 M 0 n N W N N N 01 N 10 •'+
t?
N
O O O Y1
v)
.. -+
N O m 1D M O m to M + O W n 10 1n V M M N
O
C II II °

•+-+.+.+-y.+.-1.y.? ^+^???
M V
M
MMMM M N N N N N o

oIIT
Q 0

NO Wn L
U
?
m
MtD C1N U1^W W N1D 0 M NO WI?NM NOW D WM

O M W Qt N W V O in .+ 1? M I7 in O 1D N W Q O 11 -+ N
ONLL LL LL
-
C
O
D
L-
m + _
. V
0
-

•-
-•I N N N M M M M V Q In W ID N N W W 01 0 0 -? N M M V U
N 9
°
M D U J
?
y
p
C
10 .
+
C
0 C U
Z)
-J
NOW" V n O M W W N W Q 0 w NW Q O %o N W V O O N W V
+ rl rl N N N M M M M Q Q N tp ?D I? t` W O 01 O O "'1 N N M M V '" N -+ N M
rl ti N r1 .q -H N rl
N
W
S3HDN1 NI 0 3ZIS 3dld Q F-
0
D Z

14 MANUAL
WS ON CIRCULAR PIPE
100 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT FILL

FIGURES I? jf 379
FIGURE 166
EMBANKMENT FILL LOADS ON CIRCULAR PIPE
POSITIVE PROJECTING r, p = 0.5 100 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT FILL
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,00
40.00

1
,I
15 20 25 30„
OP OF PIPE IN FEET
IC%; for 120 pounds increase
0

I O
_
z 1
Li
a

a ]
z

0
a
z

r..
? ¢
4 . o

ILL

1 1 ( 111A
? I i I I I
? I 1 I I I I I I ?

_ I
Al ll
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 25 30 - 3 - - -0
HEIGHT OF FILL H ABOVE TOP OF PIPE IN FEET
fill weighing 110 pounds per cubic root, increase loads 10%; for 120 pounds increase 20%, etc.
rpolate for intermediate pipe sizes.
TABLE 4 BEDDING FACTORS, EMBANKEMENT CONDITION, Bfe
PIPE STANDARD INSTALLATION
DIAMETER, IN.
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
12 (300mm) 4.6 3.2 2.5 1.7
24 (600mm) 4.4 3.0 2.4 1.7
36 (900mm) 4.2 2.9 2.3 1.7
72 (1800mm) 4.0 2.8 2.2 1.7
144 3600mm 3.8 2.8 2.2 1.7

NOTES:
For pipe diameters other than listed in Table 4, embankment condition factors, B,e, can be
obtained by interpolation.

2. Bedding factors are based on the soils being placed with the minimum compaction specified in
Tables 2 and 3 for each standard installation.
Determination Of Earth Load
The Design Manual tables and graphs can
be used to determine the earth loads on a
buried pipe. These tables and graphs refer to
soils by common names, while SIDD soils are
Cferred to by generic soil types. Table 5 pres-
ents the relationship between these two
different methods of soil designations:
One of the informative calculations output by
SPIDA is the arching factor, which is defined
as the ratio of the calculated vertical load on
the pipe to the weight of the prism of earth
directly above the outside diameter of the pipe.
Evaluation of the arching factor from the
SPIDA studies shows that the factor
approaches a value of 1.45 as an upper limit
for any of the four standard installations.
. For positive projection embankment
installations, since the arching factor will not
exceed 1.45, the appropriate earth load can be
obtained from Desigri Manual graphs (Figures -
163, 164, 165 and 166)for embankment earth
load for the range of rsdp values from zero to
0.5. When the product of rsd, settlement ratio,
and p, projection ratio, is zero, the earth load
on the pipe is equal to the weight of the prism
of soil above the pipe. For positive values of
rsdp, the load on the pipe will be greater than
the weight of the prism of soil above the pipe,
and for negative values of rsdp, the load on the
pipe will be less than the weight of the prism of
soil above the pipe.
For trench installations, Design Manual
tables (Tables 13 through 42) and graphs
(Figures 147, 148, 149 and 150) for earth load
can be used as is to determine the load on the
pipe. These tables and graphs take into
account the beneficial effects of upward
frictional forces on the trench wall in reducing
the load on the pipe to less than the prism
load.
Determination Of Live Load
Design Manual Table 45 can be used as is to
determine the live load for both the trench and
embankment conditions.
Selection Of Standard Installation
The selection of a Standard Installation for a
project should be based on an evaluation ofthe
quality of construction and inspection
anticipated. A Type 1 Standard Installation
requires the highest construction quality and
degree of inspection. Required construction
quality is reduced for a Type 2 Standard
.Installation, and reduced further.for.a Type 3
Standard Installation. A Type 4 Standard
Installation requires virtually no construction
orquality inspection. Consequently, a Type 4
Standard Installation will require a higher
strength pipe, and a Type I Standard
Installation will require a lower strength pipe for
the same depth of installation.
Determination Of Bedding Factor
Table 4 presents bedding factors, B1e, for
each of the Standard Installations.
For trench installations as discussed in C.P.
Info No. 12 and in the Design Manual,
V I-
TABLE 5 RELATIONSHIP OF ACPA DESIGN MANUAL SOIL DESIGNATIONS
TO SIDD SOIL DESIGNATIONS
ACPA DESIGN MANUAL SOILS SIDD SOILS
Sand and Gravel SW
Saturated Top Soil ML
Ordinary Clay and Saturated Clay CL

J'?
NOTE:
The USCS and AASHTO soil classifications equivalent to the generic soil types designated in
the Standard Installations are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 6 TRENCH MINIMUM BEDDING FACTORS, Bfo
STANDARD INSTALLATION MINIMUM BEDDING FACTOR, Bfo
Type 1 2.3
Type 2 1.9
Type 3 1.7
Type 4 1.5

NOTES:
Bedding Factors are based on the soils being placed with the minimum compaction specified
in Figures 2 and 3 for each Standard Installation.

2. For pipe installed in trenches dug in previuosly constructed embankment, the load and the
bedding factor should be determined as an embankment condition unless the backfill placed
over the pipe is of lesser compaction than the embankment.
experience indicates that active lateral
pressure increases as trench width increases
to the transition width, provided the sidefill is
compacted. A SIDD parameter study of the
Standard Installations indicates the bedding
factors are constant for all pipe diameters ---. --
under conditions of zero lateral pressure on the
pipe. These bedding factors exist at the
interface of the pipewall and the soil, and are
called minimum bedding factors, Bfo, to
differentiate them from the fixed bedding
factors developed by Spangler. Table 6
presents the minimum bedding factors.
A conservative linear variation is assumed
between the minimum bedding factor and the
bedding factor for the embankment condition,
which begins at transition width. The equation
for the variable trench bedding factor, modified
for use with the Standard Installations, is:
[5]
.
-[Bj-BjnBJ -Bc
- -- e B f
B n
_ j
where:
B.- outside horizontal span of pipe, feet
Bd trench width at top of pipe, feet
B transition width at top of pipe, feet
Bre bedding factor, embankment
B,,, minimum bedding factor, trench
Bfo variable bedding factor, trench
NOTE:
1. For pipe diameters other than listed in Table 7A, BUl values can be obtained by interpolation.
The Design Manual tables (Tables 13
through 42) for trench earth loads present
transition width values which are sufficiently
accurate for use as values for B., in the
preceding equation.
For pipe installed with six feet (1.98m), or
less, of overfill and subjected to truck loads,
the controlling maximum moment may be at
the crown rather than the invert. Conse-
quently, the use of an earth load bedding factor
may produce unconservative designs.. Crown
and invert moments of pipe for a range of
diameters and burial depths subjected to HS20
truck live loadings were evaluated. Evaluated
also, was the effect of bedding angle and live
load angle (width of loading on the pipe).
When HS20 live loadings are encountered to a
significant value, the live load bedding factors,
BU, presented in Table 7A or B are satis-
factory for a Type 4 Standard Installation, and
become increasingly conservative for Types 3,
2 and 1. Limitations on BIB are discussed in
the Section on Selection of Pipe Strength.
The indirect design method for concrete pipe
is similar to the comnion working stress
method of steel design, which employs a factor
of safety between yield stress and the desired
working stress. In the indirect method, the
factor of safety is defined as the relationship
between the ultimate strength D-load and the
0.01 -inch(0.3mm) crack D-load. This
relationship is specified in the ASTM
Standards C76 and C655 on concrete pipe.
The relationship between ultimate D-load and --
0.01 -inch(0.3mm) crack D-load is 1.5 for 0.0 1
-inch(0.3mm) crack D-loads of 2000 or less;.
1.25 for 0.0 1 -inch(0.3mm) crack D-loads of
3000 or more; and a linear reduction from 1.5
to 1.25 for 0.01 -inch(0.3mm) crack D-loads
between more than 2000 and less than 3000.
Therefore, a factor of safety of 1.0 should be
applied if the 0.01-inch(0.3mm) crack strength
is used as the design criterion rather than the
ultimate strength. The 0.01-inch (0.3mm)
crack width is an arbitrary chosen test criterion
and not a criteria for field performance or
service limit.
J
Application Of Factor Of Safety
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3
SUBJECT Existing Sedimentation Basin Analysis
SHEET 1 OF
JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/7/99
COMPUTED BY
CHECKED BY
PKS
Objective To evaluate the ability of the existing sediment basin(s) to handle the maximum flow
from the design storm.
References North Carolina Erosion & Sediment Control Planning & Design Manual, North Carolina
Division of Land Resources, 1988.
Malcom, H. Rooney, Elements of Urban Storinwater Design, N. C. State University,
Raleigh, NC, 1989.
Analysis The following approach is used to properly size and evaluate the sediment basin:
1. Determine Peak Flow Rate into Basin
2. Formulate Design Hydrograph.
3. Determine Stage-Storage Function.
4. Route for Flow Check.
5. Check Settling Efficiency. 'i; faF0!W
I 91'7P IN
Calculations
- Determine Peak Flow Rate Into Basin:
Use Rational Method (QP CIA)
- Formulate Design Hvdroaraph:
Estimate Volume of Runoff from 6 hour storm for the design return period (Le, 6 hr. 10
yr., or 6 hr. 25 yr. storm). The six hour storm for the return period of interest is typically
included in the design hydrograph (Malcom).
Q,_ (P-0.22
(P+0.8$)
(Malcom Equation III-6)
EXISTBASIN.WPD
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 2 OF S
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 417!99
SUBJECT Existing Sedimentation Basin Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY 402,
Where: Q* = Volume of Runoff from 6 hr, x year storm (in.)
S = 1000_10
CN
CN = Runoff Curve Number
P = 6 hr, x year Storm Depth (in.)
Set Time to Peak Using Step Function as Pattern Hydrograph
Tp _ Q A (Malcom Eq. III-4)
1.39Qp
Where: TP = Time to Peak (min)
Q' = Volume of Runoff (in.)
A = Area Flowing to Basin (Ac)
Qp = Peak Flow into Basin (cfs)
Design HydroQgraph
Q= I 1-COS I T` I I (Malcom Eq. III-1)
for 0!<ts 1.25Tp
Q = 4.34 Qp exp I -1.30 ( t 1 ( (Malcom Eq. I1I-2)
l Tn I
for t > 1.25 Tp
Where: Q = Flow into Basin at Time t (cfs)
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 3 OF
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4!7199
SUBJECT Existing Sedimentation Basin Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY 4 LJ -
- Determine Stage-Storage Function:
Determine Stage-Storage Function
S =KSZb
Where: S =
Ks&b =
Z =
Storage Volume (ft)
(Malcom Eq. III-7)
Linear Regression Constants Describing the Stage-Storage
Relationship
Stage Referenced to the Bottom of the Basin (ft)
- Route for Flow Check:
Route design hydrograph through the sediment basin to determine peak stage and outflow.
- Check Settling Efficiency:
Settling Velocity of Design Particle
Vo - 9 [(SS -1 Yu] d z
18
Where: Vo
g
SS
U
d
(Malcom Eq. IV-3)
Settling Velocity (ft/s) - convert from (m/s)
Gravitational Acceleration (m/s')
Specific Gravity of Design Particle
Kinematic Viscosity of the Fluid (mz/s)
(= 1.14 x 10"6 mz/s @ 15°C RE Streeter, 1975)
Diameter of Design Particle (m)
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 4 OF g
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/7/99
SUBJECT Existing Sedimentation Basin Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY 41-10 ?
Settling Constant
C bK.,(Vo)
C,
Where: N =
E
Settling Envelope
Q = Cs Z(b- ')
Where: Q
Surface Area
A, = bK,Z(b-'I
Settling Efficiency
-N
E=1-1+ V0As
NQ
(Malcom Eq. IV-10)
Number of Effective Cells (N=2=>Conservative)
Settling Efficiency (Decimal Fraction )
(Malcom Eq. IV-9)
Discharge Limit at Given Stage Z (ft)
MAR 2000
(Malcom Eq. IV-7)
(Malcom Eq. IV-1)
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: S / 8
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPONT-12
DATE: 4/7/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Existing Sed. Basin Analysis - Basin No. 1 (Final) CHKD BY: 4)U(Zi
AREAS DRAINING INTO BASIN:
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 2500 (User Input) Head of Area 2 to Basin No. 1
Fall Along Length (ft) = 124 (User Input) EL. 876 - EL. 752
Drainage Area Area (Ac.) C
Areas 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19 29.09 0.35 (User Input)
Total = 29.09 Acres
Avg. C = 0.35
PEAK FLOW RATE:
Time of Conc. = 10.3
Intensity (in/hr) = 6.57 (User Input)(25 yr Storm)
Qp (cfs) = 66.9
ESTIMATE VOLUME OF RUNOFF:
P6,25 (in) = 4.3 (User Input)(6 hr, 25 yr Storm)
Runoff Curve # (CN) = 79 (User Input)(NC Sed. & Erosion Control Man., Fair Condition Soil Type C)
Q' (in) = 2.21
SET TIME TO PEAK:
Tp (min) = 41.8
(
o
BASIN REQUIREMENTS: (NC = 1800 ft^3/Ac) SHEET: /
JOB #: HPONT-12
Required Storage Capacity (ft^3) = 52362 Minimum DATE: 4/7/99
Required Surface Area (Ac) = 0 67 Minimum BY: PKS
CHKD BY:
I
DETERMINE STAGE-STORAGE FUNCTION:
Contour Area Incr Accum Stage In S In Z Z est
(sq ft) Vol (cu ft) Vol (cu ft) (ft)
752 12300 0 0
754 15800 28100 28100 2 10.24 0.69 2.00
756 19500 35300 63400 4 11.06 1.39 4.00
758 23300 42800 106200 6 11.57 1.79 6.00
760 27800 51100 157300 8 11.97 2.08 8.00
762 33300 61100 218400 10 12.29 2.30 10.00
Regression Output:
'REGRESSION ANALYSIS IS NOT Constant 9.334287 Ks = 11320
RUN AUTOMATICALLYI Std Err of Y Est 0.0402925 b = 1.27
R Squared 0.998127
No of Observations 5
Degrees of Freedom 3
X Coefficient(s) 1 267671835
Std Err of Coef. 0.031700908
EXISTBASIN Y:B3(2)

SHEET: 7 /
n
RISER BARREL ROUTING • PRELIMINARY DESIGN: JOB #: HPONT-12
DATE: 4/7/99
Input Data: BY: PKS
CHKD BY:
1
Op (cfs) = 66.9
Tp (min) = 41.8
dT (min) = 4 (user input)
Ks= 11320
b= 1.27
Zo (ft) = 752 (user input)
Zinitial (ft) = 752 (user input)
Riser: Dr (in) = 60 (user input) Spreadsheet As sumes Riser Acts As A Weir.
Cw = 3.3 (user input)
Zcr (ft) = 760 (user input) Normal Surface Area = 0.57 ac
Barrel: Db (in) = 42 (user input) Peak Outflow = 26.01 cfs
Zi (ft) = 752 (user input) Peak Stage = 760.63 ft
Cd = 0.59 (user input)
TIME INFLOW STORAGE STAGE OUTFLOW RISER BARREL
(min) (cfs) ICU ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0 0.0 0 752.00 0.00 na na
4 1.5 0 752.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 5.9 360 752.07 0.00 0.00 0.16
12 12.7 1766 752.23 0.00 0.00 102
16 21 4 4812 752 51 0.00 0.00 3.35
20 31.2 9944 752.90 0.00 0.00 7.91
24 41.1 17421 753 41 0.00 0.00 15.35
28 504 27293 754,00 0.00 0.00 26.12
32 58.2 39395 754 67 0.00 0.00 4032
36 617 53361 755 40 0.00 0.00 57.74
40 666 68659 756.15 0.00 0.00 70.39
44 664 84638 756.89 0.00 0.00 80.58
48 63.4 100585 757.60 0.00 0.00 89.27
52 576 115791 758.26 0.00 0.00 96.59
56 50.9 129613 758.84 0.00 0.00 102.64
60 45.0 141835 759.35 0.00 0.00 107.60
64 39.7 152628 759.78 0.00 0.00 111.73
68 35.1 162159 760.17 3.50 3.50 115.20
72 31.0 169737 760.47 16.45 16.45 117.86
76 27.3 173221 760.60 24.22 24.22 119.05
80 24.2 173973 760.63 26.01 26.01 119.31
84 21.3 173526 760.61 24.94 24.94 119.16
88 18.8 172659 760.58 22.90 22.90 118.86
92 16.6 171683 760.54 20.67 20.67 118.53
96 14.7 170714 760.50 18.53 18.53 118.20
100 13.0 169791 760.47 16.57 16.57 117.88
104 11.5 168928 760.43 14.79 14.79 117.58
108 10.1 168127 760.40 13.21 13.21 117.30
112 8.9 167385 760.37 11.79 11.79 117.04
116 7.9 166699 760.35 10.53 10.53 116.80
120 7.0 166065 760.32 9.41 9.41 116.58
124 6.2 165479 760.30 8.41 8.41 116.38
128 5.4 164938 760.28 7.51 7.51 116.19
132 4.8 164439 760.26 6.72 6.72 116.01
136 4.2 163977 760.24 6.01 6.01 115.85
140 3.7 163550 760.22 5.38 5.38 115.70
144 3.3 163156 760.21 4.82 4.82 115.56
148 2.9 162791 760.19 4.32 4.32 115.43
152 2.6 162454 760.18 3.88 3.88 115.31
156 2.3 162142 760.17 3.48 3.48 115.20
160 2.0 161854 760.15 3.12 3.12 115.09
EXISTBASIN WB3(3

RISER BARREL ROUTING - REFINED DESIGN:

Input Data:

Particle Data:
Diam. (microns) = 40 (user input)
Specific Gravity = 2.65 (user input)
Efficiency Data:
Desired Efficiency (%) = 80 (user input)
No. of Effective Cells = 2 (user input)

ettling Veloc.
Reynolds No,

ft/s) =
(<0.5) =

Cs = SHEET:
JOB #:
DATE:
BY:
CHKD BY:

0.0041397053
0.0442843952

24.0289 0/g,
HPONT-12
4/7/99
PKS
??J (L
-"1
TIME INFLOW STORAGE STAGE OUTFLOW SURF. AREA SET ENV. SET EFF.
(min) (cfs) (cu ft) (ft) (cfs) (ft^2) (cfs) (%)
0 0.0 0 752.00 0.00 0 na na
4 1.5 0 752.00 0.00 0 0 ERR
8 5.9 360 752 07 0.00 6927 12 ERR
12 12.7 1766 752 23 0 00 9693 16 ERR
16 214 4812 752.51 0.00 11978 20 ERR
20 31 2 9944 752 90 0 00 13962 23 ERR
24 41 1 17421 753 41 0 00 15717 26 ERR
28 504 27293 754 00 0 00 17280 29 ERR
32 582 39395 754 67 0 00 18672 31 ERR
36 63.7 53361 755 40 0.00 19908 33 ERR
40 666 68659 756 15 0 00 20996 35 ERR
44 664 84638 756 89 0 00 21945 37 ERR
48 63.4 100585 757.60 0.00 22759 38 ERR
52 57.6 115791 758.26 0 00 23446 39 ERR
56 50.9 129613 758.84 0.00 24011 40 ERR
60 45.0 141835 759.35 0.00 24472 41 ERR
64 39.7 152628 759.78 0 00 24854 42 ERR
68 35.1 162159 760.17 3.50 25174 42 99.6
72 31.0 169737 760.47 16.45 25418 43 943
76 27.3 173221 760 60 24 22 25527 43 90.1
80 24.2 173973 760.63 26.01 25551 43 89.1 p O o/
o
7
84 21.3 173526 760.61 24.94 25537 43 89.7 O
88 18.8 172659 760.58 22.90 25510 43 90.8
0
92 16.6 171683 760.54 20.67 25479 43 92.1 ,
96 14.7 170714 760.50 18.53 25449 43 93.2
100 13.0 169791 760.47 16.57 25420 43 943
104 11.5 168928 760.43 14.79 25392 43 95.2
108 10.1 168127 760.40 13.21 25367 42 96.0
112 8.9 167385 760.37 11.79 25343 42 96.6
116 7.9 166699 760.35 10.53 25321 42 97.2
120 7.0 166065 760.32 9.41 25301 42 97.7
124 6.2 165479 760.30 8.41 25282 42 98.1
128 5.4 164938 760.28 7.51 25264 42 98.4
132 4.8 164439 760.26 6.72 25248 42 98.7
136 4.2 163977 760.24 6.01 25233 42 98.9
140 3.7 163550 760.22 5.38 25219 42 99.1
144 3.3 163156 760.21 4.82 25207 42 99.3
148 2.9 162791 760.19 4.32 25195 42 99.4
152 2.6 162454 760.18 3.88 25184 42 99.5
156 2.3 162142 760.17 3.48 25173 42 99.6
160 2.0 161854 760.15 3.12 25164 42 99.7
EXISTBASIN.W83(4)
SHEET 1 OF 17
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 417199
SUBJECT Sedimentation Basin Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY L) /2
Objective To design a sediment basin to handle the maximum flow from the design storm.
References North Carolina Erosion & Sediment Control Planniny, & Design Manual, North Carolina
Division of Land Resources, 1988.
Malcom, H. Rooney, Elements of Urban Stormwater Design, N. C. State University,
Raleigh, NC, 1989.
Analysis The follo%ving approach is used to properly size and evaluate the sediment basin:
1. Determine Peak Flow Rate into Basin
2. Formulate Design Hydrograph.
3. Size Basin & Determine Stage-Storage Function.
4 Preliminarily Design Riser/Barrel
5. Route for Flow Check.
6. Refine Design for Desired Settling Efficiency.
7. Determine Cleanout Level, Design Basin Dewatering Method, Calculate Anchorage
Requirements, Determine Anti-Seepage Collar Requirements, & Design Emergency
Spillway.
Calculations
- Determine Peak Flow Rate Into Basin:
Use Rational Method (Q,=CIA)
- Formulate Desic-,n HvdroaWh:
Estimate Volume of Runoff from 6 hour storm for the design return period (i.e. 6 hr. 10
yr., or 6 hr. 25 yr. storm). The six hour storm for the return period of interest is typically
included in the design hydrograph (Malcom).
Q , _ (P-0.2,)2
(P+0.8,?)
(Malcom Equation III-6)
SEDBASIN.WPD
G.N. RICIEIARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 2 OF 17
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/7/99
SUBJECT Sedimentation Basin Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY c, Li-/?
Where: Q* = Volume of Runoff from 6 hr, x year storm (in.)
S = 1000_10
CN
CN = Runoff Curve Number
P = 6 hr, x year Storm Depth (in.)
Set Time to Peak Using Step Function as Pattern Hvdrograph
T _ Q 'A (Malcom Eq. III-4)
p 1.39Qp
Where: Tp = Time to Peak (min)
Q' = Volume of Runoff (in.)
A = Area Flowing to Basin (Ac)
Qp = Peak Flow into Basin (cfs)
Design Hvdroaraph
Q= I 1-COS I Tr I I (Malcom Eq. III-1)
for 0 < t < 1.25 Tp
Q = 4.34 Qp exp I -1.30 t I I (Malcom Eq. III-2)
Tn
for t > 1.25 Tp
Where: Q = Flow into Basin at Time t (cfs)
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 3 OF 17
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/7/99
SUBJECT Sedimentation Basin Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY 5iu
- Size Basin & Determine Stage-Storage Function:
Size Basin based on required minimum storage volume and surface
areas.
Determine Stage-Storage Function
S =KSzb
Where: S =
Ks&b =
z =
- Preliminarily Design Riser/ Barrel:
(Malcom Eq. III-7)
Storage Volume (ft)
Linear Regression Constants Describing the Stage-Storage
Relationship
Stage Referenced to the Bottom of the Basin (ft)
Select riser/barrel parameters such that the minimum flow capacity for this structure is met.
- Route for Flow Check:
Route design hydrograph through the sediment basin to determine peak stage and outflow.
- Refine for Desired Settling Efficiency:
Settling Velocity of Design Particle
V0 = g L1SS -1 Yul d z
Where: V.
0
SS
U
d
(Malcom Eq. IV-3)
Settling Velocity (ft/s) - convert from (m/s)
Gravitational Acceleration (m/s2)
Specific Gravity of Design Particle
Kinematic Viscosity of the Fluid (m2/s)
(= 1.14 x 10-6 m2/s @ 15 °C Rf. Streeter, 1975)
Diameter of Design Particle (m)
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 4 OF 1-7
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/7/99
SUBJECT Sedimentation Basin Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY ?'lv
Settliny, Constant
bK.,(Vo)
CS =
Af(I _E)-'IN_I?
Where: N =
E
Settling Envelope
Q=Cs Z(b1)
Where: Q
Surface Area
AS = bKSZlb-1)
Settling Efficiency
V?s -N
E=1-1+
NQ
(Malcom Eq. IV-10)
Number of Effective Cells (N=2=>Conservative)
Settling Efficiency (Decimal Fraction )
Discharge Limit at Given Stage Z (ft)
(Malcom Eq. IV-9)
(Malcom Eq. IV-7)
(Malcom Eq. IV-1)
- Basin Dewaterina (Riser/ Barrel System Only):
Design dewatering system for riser. Use '/2 inch ? holes. Perforate riser below sediment cleanout
level and cover with NCDOT No. 57 stone.
Find Total Area of Holes Required
A
A (2h)
Ao = s of/z inch ? Holes
T Cd (20428) Ay,
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 5 OF 17
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/7/99
SUBJECT Sedimentation Basin Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY
Where: A,, = Surface Area of Dewatering Hole (ft)
AS = Surface Area of Basin (ft)
h = Head of Water Above Hole (ft)
Ca = Coefficient of Contraction (=0.60)
T = Detention Time (hrs.) (10 hrs. recommended)
Note: - Assume h = Crest of Riser to Cleanout Elevation.
- Cleanout Elevation is at''/z Basin Volume.
- Anchorage Requirements (Riser/Barrel System Only):
Design anchor for riser with buoyant weight greater than 1.1 times the water displaced by the
riser.
Design Uplift Force (IF)
i F = 1.1 (Volume of Riser) (pH,O = 62.4 lb/ft') (lbs)
Volume of Concrete Ballast
Volume = 1 F 1 F (ft')
Pconcrete, buoyant (150 pcf - 62.4 pcf )
- Anti-Seepage Collar Requirements
LS=y(z+4)[1 + I
(0.25-s)
Where: Ls = Length of Pipe in the Saturated Zone (ft)
y = Distance from Barrel Invert to Riser Crest (ft)
z = Slope of Upstream Embankment (zH:1V)
s = Pipe Slope (ft/ft)
Determine Ls and use design chart to determine anti-seepage collar requirements. If more
than one collar is used, the spacing between collars should be 14 times the projection (P) of
the collar above the barrel. The first collar should be set at 2P from the riser.
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
SHEET 6 OF 17
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 4/7199
SUBJECT Sedimentation Basin Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY 6 k-?
- Design Emergency Spillway:
Allow 1 foot of driving head and determine spillway length based on the weir equation:
L = QP (Malcom Eq. I11-11)
CWH3/2
Where: L = Length of Spillway Crest (ft)
C,,, = Weir Coefficient (= 3.0 for Broad Crest)
H = Driving Head (ft)
Check Crest Velocity: (Assume Flow Depth at Crest = 2/3 H)
V = QP
A
Where: V = Velocity at Crest (ft/s)
A = Area of Flow = 2/3 HL (ft)
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: 7 / 17
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/7/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Sedimentation Basin Analysis - Basin No. 2 (Final) CHKD BY: z #'j fl-
AREAS DRAINING INTO BASIN:
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 1050 (User Input) Head of Area 6 to Basin No. 2
Fall Along Length (ft) = 105 (User Input) EL. 877 - EL. 772
Drainage Area Area (Ac.) C
Areas 6, 15, 20 6.68 0.35 (User Input)
Total = 6.68 Acres
Avg. C = 0.35
PEAK FLOW RATE:
Time of Conc. = 4.0
Intensity (in/hr) = 8.16 (User Input)(25 yr Storm)
Qp (cfs) = 19.1
ESTIMATE VOLUME OF RUNOFF:
P6,25 (in) = 4.3 (User Input)(6 hr, 25 yr Storm)
Runoff Curve # (CN) = 79 (User Input)(NC Sed. & Erosion Control Man., Fair Condition Soil Type C)
Q' (in) = 2.21
SET TIME TO PEAK:
Tp (min) = 33.7
SE
BASIN REQUIREMENTS: (NC = 1800 ft^3/Ac) srflat I:
JOB #:
Required Storage Capacity (ft^3) = 12024 Minimum DATE:
Required Surface Area (Ac) = 0.19 Minimum BY:
CHKD BY:
DETERMINE STAGE-STORAGE FUNCTION:
Contour Area Incr Accum Stage In S In Z Z est
(sq ft) Vol (cu ft) Vol (cu ft) (ft)

772 4000 0 0
774 5575 9575 9575 2 9.17 0.69 2.00
776 7390 12965 22540 4 10.02 1.39 4.00
778 9550 16940 39480 6 10.58 1.79 6.00
'REGRESSION ANALYSIS IS NOT
RUN AUTOMATICALLYI
Regression Output:
Constant 8.268107
Std Err of Y Est 0,0304066
R Squared 0.999092
No. of Observations 3
Degrees of Freedom 1
X Coefficient(s) 1 28362898
Std Err of Coef. 0.038701783
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY - PRELIMINARY DESIGN:
Estimate Height of Principal Spillway:
Min. Height of Principal Spillway (ft) _
Check Capacity:
Minimum Capacity (cfs) = 1 3
Riser/Barrel Parameters:
Riser Diam. (in) = 48.00 (User Input)
Riser Height (ft) = 5.00 (User Input)
Barrel Diam. (in) = 24.00 (User Input)
Riser Driving Head (ft) = 1.00 (User Input)
Barrel Driving Head (ft) = 5.00
Weir Coefficient = 130 (User Input)
Discharge Coef. = 0.59 (User Input)
2.4 (Based on Storage)
6.0 (Based on Surface Area)
Ks = 3898
b= 1.28
Analyze Capacity of Riser Acting as a Weir:
0 (cfs) = 41.5 OK
Analyze Capacity of Riser as an Orifice:
0 (cfs) = 59.5 OK
Analyze Capacity of Barrel as an Orifice:
0 (cfs) = 33.3 OK
SEDBASIN-2 ?%
SHEET: 9 / /
RISER BARREL ROUTING - PRELIMINARY DESIGN: JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/7/99
Input Data: BY: PKS
CHKD BY:
Op (cfs) = 19.1
Tp (min) = 33.7
dT (min) = 4 (user input)
Ks = 3898
b = 1.28
Zo (ft) = 772 (user input)
Zinitial (ft) = 772 (user input)
Riser: Dr (in) = 48 (user input) Spreadsheet Assumes Ris er Acts As A Weir.
Cw = 3.3 (user input)
Zcr (ft) = 777 (user input) Normal Surface Area = 0 18 ac
Barrel: Db (in) = 24 (user input) Peak Outflow = 13.25 cfs
Zi (ft) = 772 (user input) Peak Stage = 777 47 ft
Cd = 0 59 (user input)
TIME INFLOW STORAGE STAGE OUTFLOW RISER BARREL
(min) (cfs) (cu ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0 0.0 0 772.00 0.00 na na
4 0.7 0 772 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
8 25 158 772 08 0 00 0 00 0.12
12 5.4 766 772 28 0 00 0 00 0 79
16 8.8 2057 772 61 0 00 0 00 2 50
20 12.3 4168 773.05 0.00 0.00 5.70
24 154 7123 773 60 0 00 0 00 10.66
28 17.8 10831 774 22 0 00 0 00 16 38
32 19.0 15096 774.87 0.00 0 00 20.32
36 18.9 19647 775.53 0.00 0.00 23.60
40 17.5 24172 776.14 0.00 0.00 26.33
44 15.1 28363 776.69 0.00 0 00 28.54
48 13.0 31999 777.16 2.55 2.55 30.28
52 11.1 34501 777.47 13.25 13.25 31.39
56 9.5 33990 777.40 10 66 10.66 31.17
60 8.2 33720 777.37 9.36 9.36 31.05
64 7.0 33433 777.34 8.05 8.05 30.92
68 6.0 33182 777 30 6.95 6.95 30.81
72 5.1 32954 777.28 6.00 6.00 30.71
76 4.4 32748 777.25 5.18 5.18 30.62
80 3.8 32563 777.23 4.47 4.47 30.53
84 3.2 32395 777.21 3 87 3.87 30.46
88 2.8 32243 777.19 3.34 3.34 30.39
92 2.4 32106 777.17 2.89 2.89 30.32
96 2.0 31982 777.15 2.50 2.50 30.27
100 1.7 31870 777.14 2.17 2.17 30.22
104 1.5 31768 777.13 1.88 1.88 30.17
108 1.3 31676 777.12 1.63 1.63 30.13
112 1.1 31593 777.10 1.41 1.41 30.09
116 0.9 31518 777.10 1.22 1.22 30.05
120 0.8 31450 777.09 1.06 1.06 30.02
124 0.7 31388 777.08 0.92 0.92 29.99
128 0.6 31332 777.07 0.80 0.80 29.97
132 0.5 31282 777.07 0.70 0.70 29.94
136 0.4 31236 777.06 0.61 0.61 29.92
140 0.4 31194 777.05 0.53 0.53 29.90
144 0.3 31156 777.05 0.46 0.46 29.89
148 0.3 31122 777.05 0.40 0.40 29.87
152 0.2 31091 777.04 0.35 0.35 29.86
156 0.2 31063 777.04 0.31 0.31 29.84
160 0.2 31037 777.03 0.27 0.27 29.83
SEDBASIN-2 "'93(3)

RISER BARREL ROUTING • REFINED DESIGN:

Input Data:

Particle Data:
Diam. (microns) = 40 (user input)
Specific Gravity = 2.65 (user input)
Efficiency Data:
Desired Efficiency (%) = 80 (user input)
No of Effective Cells = 2 (user input)

ettling Veloc.
Reynolds No.

ft/s) =
(<0.5) =

Cs = SHEET:
JOB #:
DATE:
BY:
CHKD BY:

0.0041397053
0.0442843952

8.3778 /0 / 17
HPOINT-12
4/7/99
PKS
J (L
TIME INFLOW STORAGE STAGE OUTFLOW SURF. AREA S ET ENV. SET EFF.
(min) (cfs) (cu ft) (ft) (cfs) (ft^2) (cfs) (%)
0 0.0 0 772.00 0.00 0 na na
4 0.7 0 772.00 0.00 0 0 ERR
8 2.5 158 772.08 0.00 2462 4 ERR
12 5.4 766 772,28 0.00 3492 6 ERR
16 8.8 2057 772.61 0.00 4344 7 ERR
20 12.3 4168 77105 0.00 5078 9 ERR
24 154 7123 773.60 0 00 5716 10 ERR
28 178 10831 774.22 0 00 6271 11 ERR
32 19.0 15096 774.87 0.00 6748 11 ERR
36 18 9 19647 775.53 0 00 7152 12 ERR
40 17.5 24172 776.14 0.00 7488 13 ERR
44 15
1 28363 776.69 0.00 7757 13 ERR
48 .
130 31999 777.16 2.55 7966 13 98.2 \
52 11.1 34501 777.47 1125 8100 14 80.5
7 r )
56 9.5 33990 777.40 10.66 8073 14 94.8
60 8.2 33720 777.37 9.36 8059 13 87.-
64 70 33433 777.34 8.05 8044 13 89.4 ?
`\
68 60 33182 777.30 6.95 8031 13 91.3 ; r
72 5.1 32954 777.28 6.00 8018 13 93.0
76 4.4 32748 777.25 5.18 8007 13 94.3
80 3.8 32563 777.23 4.47 7997 13 95.5
84 3.2 32395 777.21 3.87 7988 13 96.4
88 28 32243 777.19 3.34 7980 13 97.2
92 2.4 32106 777.17 2.89 7972 13 97.8
96 2.0 31982 777.15 2.50 7966 13 98.3
100 1.7 31870 777.14 2.17 7959 13 98.6
104 1.5 31768 777.13 188 7954 13 99.0
108 1.3 31676 777.12 1.63 7949 13 99.2
112 1.1 31593 777.10 1.41 7944 13 99.4
116 0.9 31518 777.10 1.22 7940 13 99.5
120 0.8 31450 777.09 1.06 7936 13 99.6
124 0.7 31388 777 08 0.92 7933 13 99.7
128 0.6 31332 777.07 0.80 7929 13 99.8
132 0.5 31282 777.07 0.70 7927 13 99.8
136 0.4 31236 777.06 0.61 7924 13 99.9
140 0.4 31194 777.05 0.53 7922 13 99.9
144 0.3 31156 777.05 0.46 7920 13 99.9
148 0.3 31122 777.05 0.40 7918 13 99.9
152 0.2 31091 777.04 0.35 7916 13 100.0
156 0.2 31063 777.04 0.31 7914 13 100.0
160 0.2 31037 777.03 0.27 7913 13 100.0
SEDBASIN-2 W133(4)
IN DEWATERING:
Determine Cleanout Level:

Ks = 3897.56429 Basin Vol (ft13) = 30761.779
b = 1.28362898 1/2 Basin Vol (ft^3) = 15380.889
Zcr (ft) = 777
Zo (ft) = 772 Cleanout Level (ft) = 774.91
h (ft) _
Area of Basin (ft^2) _
Coef. of Contraction =
Detention Time (hrs.) _
2.09 (crest of riser to cleanout level)
6776 (at cleanout level)
0.6 (User Input)
10 (User Input)
Tot. Area of Holes(ft^2) _
Number of 112" Holes =
ANCHORAGE REQUIREMENTS:
Design Uplift Force:
F (lbs) = 4313
ANTI-SEEPAGE COLLAR REQUIREMENTS:
Slope of Upstream Embankment (zH:1V) _
Slope of Outlet Pipe (ft/ft) _
Ls (ft) _
0.1129
81
Concrete Ballast Required:
Volume (K13) --49- 2 7-D
?S ?x 5 ?x Z
o K,
2.5 (User Input)
0.065 (User Input)
44
Use Design Chart to Determine Amount and Size of Anti-Seepage Collars.
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DESIGN:
Required Capacity (cfs) = 191
Driving Head (ft) = 1 (User Input)
Weir Coefficient = 3 (User Input)
Length of Crest (ft) = 6 4 (Determine by Weir Equation)'
Design Crest Length (ft) = 20 (User Input)
Length = 20 ft minimum.
Velocity (ft/s) = 1.4 Grass OK
G.N. Richardson & Associates SHEET: I Z / ( 7
ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGICAL SERVICES JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/7/99
City of High Point LF - Phase 3 BY: PKS
Sedimentation Basin Analysis - Basin No. 3 (Final) CHKD BY: ?.D(L
AREAS DRAINING INTO BASIN:
Hydraulic Length (ft) = 1950 (User Input) Head of Area 1 to Basin No. 3
Fall Along Length (ft) = 87 (User Input) EL. 877 - EL. 790
Drainage Area Area (Ac.) C
Areas 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 21 20.54 0.35 (User Input)

Total = 20.54 Acres
Avg. C = 0.35
PEAK FLOW RATE:
Time of Conc. _
Intensity (in/hr) _
Qp (cfs) _
8.8
7 (User Input)(25 yr Storm)
503
ESTIMATE VOLUME OF RUNOFF:
P6,25 (in) = 4.3 (User Input)(6 hr, 25 yr Storm)
Runoff Curve # (CN) = 79 (User Input)(NC Sed. & Erosion Control Man., Fair Condition Soil Type C)
Q' (in) = 2.21
SET TIME TO PEAK:
Tp (min) = 39.3
BASIN REQUIREMENTS: INC = 1800 ft^3/Ac)
Required Storage Capacity (ft^3) = 36972 Minimum
Required Surface Area (Ac) = 0.50 Minimum
DETERMINE STAGE-STORAGE FUNCTION:
Contour Area Incr Accum Stage In S In Z Z est
(sq ft) Vol (cu ft) Vol (cu ft) (ft)

790 5100 0 0
792 9300 14400 14400 2 9.57 0.69 2.00
794 14600 23900 38300 4 10.55 1.39 4.00
796 20500 35100 73400 6 11.20 1.79 6.00
798 25900 46400 119800 8 11.69 2.08 8.00
'REGRESSION ANALYSIS IS NOT
RUN AUTOMATICALLYI
Regression Output:
Constant 8.492545
Std Err of Y Est 0.0486867
R Squared 0.998115
No of Observations 4
Degrees of Freedom 2
X Coefficient(s) 1.521729128
Std Err of Coef. 0046757833
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY - PRELIMINARY DESIGN:
Estimate Height of Principal Spillway:
Min. Height of Principal Spillway (ft) _
Check Capacity:

Minimum Capacity (cfs) = 4.1
Riser/Barrel Parameters
Riser Diam. (in) = 48.00 (User Input)
Riser Height (ft) = 5.00 (User Input)
Barrel Diam. (in) = 24.00 (User Input)
Riser Driving Head (ft) = 1.00 (User Input)
Barrel Driving Head (ft) = 5.00
Weir Coefficient = 3.30 (User Input)
Discharge Coef. = 0.59 (User Input)
3.8 (Based on Storage)
8.0 (Based on Surface Area)
Ks = 4878
b= 1.52
Analyze Capacity of Riser Acting as a Weir:
0 (cfs) = 41.5 OK
Analyze Capacity of Riser as an Orifice:
0 (cfs) = 59.5 OK
Analyze Capacity of Barrel as an Orifice:
0 (cfs) = 33.3 OK
SHEET: //7
RISER BARREL ROUTING • PRELIMINARY DESIGN: JOB #: HP INT-12
DATE: 4/7/99
Input Data: BY PKS
CHKDBY: Cu(L
Op (cfs) = 50.3 ``
Tp (min) = 39.3
dT (min) = 4 (user input)
Ks = 4878
b= 1.52
Zo (ft) = 790 (user input)
Zinitial (ft) = 790 (user input)
Riser: Dr (in) = 48 (user input) Spreadsheet Assumes Riser Acts As A Weir.
Cw = 3.3 (user input)
Zcr (ft) = 797 (user input) Normal Surface Area = 0 47 ac
Barrel: Db (in) = 24 (user input) Peak Outflow = 25.58 cfs
Zi (ft) = 790 (user input) Peak Stage = 797 72 ft
Cd = 0.59 (user input)
TIME INFLOW STORAGE STAGE OUTFLOW RISER BARREL
(min) (cfs) (cu ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0 0.0 0 790.00 0.00 na na
4 1.3 0 790.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 5.0 307 790.16 0.00 0.00 0.34
12 107 1503 790 46 0 00 0 00 1 65
16 18.0 4080 790.89 0.00 0.00 4 42
20 259 8390 791.43 0 00 0.00 8.99
24 33.8 14609 792,06 0,00 0.00 15.26
28 40.8 22718 792.75 0.00 0.00 19.64
32 46.2 32507 793.48 0 00 0.00 23.38
36 49 5 43594 794.22 0 00 0 00 26.64
40 503 55468 794 94 0.00 0.00 29.48
44 48.5 67535 795.62 0.00 0 00 31.93
48 44.4 79182 796.24 0.00 0.00 34.00
52 39.0 89840 796.78 0.00 0.00 3511
56 34.2 99207 797.24 4.87 4.87 37.10
60 29.9 106242 797.57 18.00 18.00 38.08
64 26.2 109109 797.71 24.65 24.65 38.46
68 23.0 109488 797.72 25.58 25.58 38,51
72 20.1 108864 797.70 24.06 24.06 38.43
76 17.6 107920 797.65 21.82 21.82 38 30
80 15.4 106915 797.60 19.50 19.50 38.17
84 13.5 105940 797.56 17.34 17.34 38.03
88 11.8 105025 797.52 15.38 15.38 37.91
92 10.4 104178 797.48 13.63 13.63 37.79
96 9.1 103397 797.44 12.08 12.08 37.69
100 8.0 102680 797.41 10.71 10.71 37.59
104 7.0 102022 797.37 9.49 9.49 37.49
108 6.1 101417 797.35 8.42 8.42 37.41
112 5.4 100863 797.32 7.47 7.47 37.33
116 4.7 100353 797.29 6.64 6.64 37.26
120 4.1 99886 797.27 5.89 5.89 37.19
124 3.6 99456 797.25 5.24 5.24 37.13
128 3.2 99062 797.23 4.66 4.66 37.08
132 2.8 98699 797.22 4.15 4.15 37.02
136 2.4 98366 797.20 3.69 3.69 36.98
140 2.1 98059 797.18 3.29 3.29 36.93
144 1.9 97777 797.17 2.94 2.94 36.89
148 1.6 97518 797.16 2.62 2.62 35.86
152 1.4 97279 797.15 2.34 2.34 36.82
156 1.2 97059 797.14 2.09 2.09 36.79
160 1.1 96856 797.13 1.87 1.87 36.76
SEDBASIN-3 WOO)

RISER BARREL ROUTING - REFINED

Input Data:

Particle Data:
Diam. (microns) = 40
Specific Gravity = 2.65
Efficiency Data:
Desired Efficiency (%) = 80
No. of Effective Cells = 2
DESIGN:

user input)
(user input)

(user input)
(user input)

ettling Veloc.
Reynolds No,

ft/s) =
(<0.5) =

Cs = SHEET:
JOB #:
DATE:
BY:
CHKD BY:

0.0041397053
0.0442843952

12 4308 15> / 17
HPOINT-12
417/99
PKS
C,1J2
1
TIME INFLOW STORAGE STAGE OUTFLOW SURF. AREA S ET ENV. SET EFF.
(min) (cfs) (cu ft) (ft) (cfs) (W2) (cfs) (%)
0 0.0 0 790 00 0.00 0 na na
4 1.3 0 790.00 0.00 0 0 ERR
8 5.0 307 790.16 0 00 2875 5 ERR
12 10.7 1503 790.46 0 00 4958 8 ERR
16 18.0 4080 790.89 0.00 6982 12 ERR
20 25.9 8390 791.43 0 00 8940 15 ERR
24 33.8 14609 792.06 0.00 10812 18 ERR
28 40.8 22718 792.75 0.00 12579 21 ERR
32 46.2 32507 793 48 0 00 14224 24 ERR
36 49.5 43594 794.22 0.00 15729 26 ERR
40 50.3 55468 794.94 0.00 17084 29 ERR
44 48.5 67535 795 62 0.00 18276 31 ERR
48 44.4 79182 796.24 0.00 19301 32 ERR
52 39.0 89840 796.78 0 00 20155 34 ERR
56 34.2 99207 797.24 4.87 20852 35 990
60 29.9 106242 797 57 18.00 21348 36 91.6
64 26.2 109109 797.71 24 65 21543 36 87.3
68 23.0 109488 797.72 25.58 21569 36 86.7
72 20.1 108864 797.70 24.06 21527 36 87.7
76 17.6 107920 797.65 2182 21463 36 89.2
80 15.4 106915 797 60 19.50 21394 36 90.7
84 13.5 105940 797.56 17.34 21327 36 92.0
88 11.8 105025 797 52 15.38 21264 36 913
92 10.4 104178 797.48 13.63 21205 36 94.4
96 9.1 103397 797.44 12.08 21150 35 95.3
100 8.0 102680 797.41 10.71 21100 35 96.1
104 7.0 102022 797.37 9.49 21053 35 96.8
108 6.1 101417 797.35 8.42 21010 35 97.4
112 5.4 100863 797.32 7.47 20971 35 97.8
116 4.7 100353 797.29 6.64 20934 35 98.2
120 4.1 99886 797.27 5.89 20901 35 98.6
124 3.6 99456 797.25 5.24 20870 35 98.8
128 3.2 99062 797.23 4.66 20842 35 99.0
132 2.8 98699 797.22 4.15 20815 35 99.2
135 2.4 98366 797.20 3.69 20791 35 99.4
140 2.1 98059 797.18 3.29 20769 35 99.5
144 1.9 97777 797.17 2.94 20749 35 99.6
148 1.6 97518 797.16 2.62 20730 35 99.7
152 1.4 97279 797.15 2.34 20712 35 99.7
156 1.2 97059 797.14 2.09 20696 35 99.8
160 1.1 96856 797.13 1.87 20681 35 99.8
SEDBASINJ WB7(1)
BASIN DEWATERING:
Determine Cleanout Level:
Ks = 4878.26637
b = 1 52172913
Zcr (ft) = 797
Zo (ft) = 790
h (ft) _
Area of Basin (ft^2) _
Coef. of Contraction =
Detention Time (hrs.) _
Tot Area of Holes(ft^2) _
Number of 112" Holes
ANCHORAGE REQUIREMENTS:
Design Uplift Force:
F (lbs) = 6038
ANTI-SEEPAGE COLLAR REQUIREMENTS:
Slope of Upstream Embankment (zH 1V) _
Slope of Outlet Pipe (fUft) _
Ls (ft) _
Use Design Chart to Determine Amount ai
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DESIGN:
Required Capacity (cfs) _
Driving Head (ft) _
Weir Coefficient =
Length of Crest (ft) _
Design Crest Length (ft) _
Basin Vol (ft^3) = 94248.797
112 Basin Vol (ft^3) = 47124 398
Cleanout Level (ft) = 794.44
2.56 (crest of riser to cleanout level)
16155 (at cleanout level)
0.6 (User Input)
10 (User Input)
0.2983
213
SHEET. /( , /)7
JOB #: HPOINT-12
DATE: 4/7/99
BY: PKS
CHKD BY: Gt tv r(,
Concrete Ballast Required:
Volume (ft^3) = 68.9
2 5 (User Input)
0 043 (User Input)
55
id Size of Anti-Seepage Collars.
50 3
1 (User Input)
3 (User Input)
16 8 (Determine by Weir Equation)'
20 (User Input)
Length = 20 ft minimum.
Velocity (ft/5) = 3 8 Grass OK
Figure 5A.33 (2)
Anti-Seep Collar Design Charts
20C
150
J
o, 100
c
nJ
a)
O
O ?3
?Z
0
17??

I
roll"

Two C Ilo s
F, 7, x 0

I M ET Col lor

lo?
i

COLLAR P
I OJE TION, V, FEET
3 4 5

}
}

II
}

G q

E

NOTE : This procedure is
I ? H for a 15 % increose
in the length of the
iivw Vum.
J
d
o?
N_
L
_O
U
a
> d
? c
Q
)i S? ?sy
October 1991 - Third Printing P:i,e >A.65 Nc\v York Guidelines for Urban
SHEET 1 OF S
PROJECT City of High Point - Kersey Valley LF - Phase 3 JOB NO. HPOINT-12
DATE 417199
SUBJECT Outlet Protection Analysis COMPUTED BY PKS
CHECKED BY '`UQ_,
Objective To design rip-rap aprons at the outlet of facility culverts and sediment basin barrel pipes
to handle the maximum flow from the design storm. The maximum flow for each pipe
was calculated in culvert and/or sedimentation basin calculations.
Reference North Carolina Erosion & Sediment Control Planning & Design Manual, North Carolina
Division of Land Resources, 1988.
Analvsis The following approach, based on Section 8.06 of the NC Erosion & Sediment Control
Planning and Design Manual, is used to properly size rip-rap aprons:
Determine the tailwater condition and select the appropriate design chart.
2. Using the appropriate design chart, determine the d,0 rip-rap size and minimum apron
length (La) based on the maximum design flow.
3. Using the same chart, determine apron dimensions.
4. Determine the maximum stone diameter: d,,„c = 1.5 x d,0
Determine the apron thickness:
Thickness = 1.5 x d,,,, (No Filter Geotextile)
Thickness = 1.5 x d50 (With Filter Geotextile)
OUTLETPROTECT.WPD
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
Engineering and Geological Services
425 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: [phone]

3
w

i

o m
U
w
F-

Z
D, C
CL
C f9 0 1

<D o m o o o o? o m cD
1 -
v'
' ~
O I? a J O1 N 1 d
N 4 W

O

w m ~ v
= O < O x
Y o m m m m m m m m m m m
U i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
...
y
3
N ?
•
Y
U x , Ki
- ^ y
- - - - - - - - - - -
W
O
Z .y
V

10
?-
Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1- x
y ` i Q
C O ? tf! Lo IA In N Ln 0 .7 LA iA Lf7 V
?? ? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o s

?1 1
_
CL c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0^ O'o O Ln O

?- +
"

1
_
a; ?0 Ln Lo
00000000000 U ? ?l
? v v v v v v v v v v v
'^ ? U 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ? ? ?r
7 r r r r r r r- r r r 1
V

Cn ' 3
W (,? C ?`
N V W O 00 - m O M tD 0 O
N _
`m .a U
N co M- 6.- N m N
N
\
O LLI a N w
T O
N

Q (-,? J Q G '6 o N

?(
O
C
C E o
o N N ---- N - N N
4 (^
VO
W N m c

C O CL 4 O
O (D c) 2 Z
' . 4
2
d z `
=
CC a
O ++ V) N M V LD
0 5 nnn
ao C) j W
V Z ?w c a
a'aaaa 1
W UO ` Mvn°'EEEEENM Z
` Q ? o o
Z Z Z Z V V
Z Z Z
w w w o
Z ri a c c •
(' d 2 E E E
?n z 7 5 7 3
m m
v W ? N w d d w
UUUUrrrrrmco
.-1 ppendices

3 0
L '
Outlet a
W Do 90 - - -
.
.
pipe ,,
dameter (Do) SO
La o
Tailwater < 0.5Do

70

r P
60
ati
_ ::f... ........ _.:.....
50 -

4
I
. ZQ _
30 j
i 7,

a - -

o- _. . __.._ ..

:

a

..

-

- - -

-

..

..

....

I .. .... ... ... ....
--

N

0 _
.?.... .... .._...
.._.- .._
.-- . ..
.... ..
... -.-_. - -. - --
O i
v -
2 to
.... .. ... .
4

25 a a

-77
:i: r T 1
I

-
V 0-
`..
..

3 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000
Discharge (ft3/sec) U, d 5?

Curves may not be extrapolated.
Figure 8.06a Design of outlet protection protection fr om a round pipe flowing full, minimum tailwater condition (TW < 0.5 diam eter).
Rcv. 12AB 8.06.3
Date
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP ?J? 5( ZMV
TO: (Name, office symbol, room number,
building, Age t)
1. cl, ' Initials Date
2.
3.
4.
5.
Action File Note and Return
Approval For Clearance Per Conversation
As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply
Circulate For Your Information See Me
Comment Investigate Signature
Coordination Justify
REMARKS &.01
o? a Y c?foj? eQ??e?,?
?l
say 4? A 415 f'
fu
D`c ?U ?lo? ?Av-lz 74? 4?? 1
V ok s44 / '4m r ?
C. tea)/,, 7 a
Q'0V a Jam./? ?u J tv CA 3? G vL
U ? ' ?i! 2J d?v1
call rt,? of ?'?? ? ? eKI
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
clearances, and similar actions
FROM: (Name, org. Symbol, Agency/Post) 01 941. Z )^Af
Room No.-Bldg.
Phone No.
5041-102
* U.S.G.P.O.: 1993 342-198/80007
OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7.76)
Prescribed I GSA
FPMR (41 rFR)101-11.206
w
November 8, 1999
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199920165
C'Op,

Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Enclosed is the application of the City of High Point for Department of the Army (DA)
authorization and a State Water Quality Certification for the proposed 20 acre expansion (0.20
acre DA jurisdictional impact) of the Kersey Valley Solid Waste Landfill, located off of Kivett
Drive, in High Point, Guilford County, North Carolina. Your receipt of this letter verifies your
acceptance of a valid request for certification in accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our
administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality certification is required under the
provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted
until the certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, in most cases, 60 days after receipt of a
request for certification is a reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if you have not acted on
the request, or asked for an extension of time, by January 3, 2000, District Engineer will deem
that waiver has occurred.
Al
If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone].
Sincerely, file:cl4.kv
CESAW-CO-RG-R/JT/mj
CESAW-CO-RG-R/KJ/s
CESAW-CO-RG-R/files
mail
S. Kenneth Jolly
Manager, Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
SUSPENSE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 199920165
November 11, 1999
PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY OF HIGH POINT, SOLID WASTE SERVICES, POST OFFICE BOX
230, HIGH POINT, North Carolina, 27261, has requested a
Department of the Army (DA) permit TO AUTHORIZE THE PROPOSED 20
ACRE EXPANSION (0.20 ACRE DA JURISDICTIONAL IMPACT) OF THE KERSEY
VALLEY SOLID WASTE LANDFILL, LOCATED OFF OF KIVETT DRIVE, IN HIGH
POINT, GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data
provided by the applicant and from observations made during site
visits by representatives of the Corps of Engineers. Plans
submitted with the application show the placement of compacted
construction fill into 0.20 acre of jurisdictional wetland
adjacent to, and above the headwaters of, an unnamed tributary of
Richland Creek. These proposed impacts would be in addition to
7.4 acres of impacts to waters of the United States, including
wetlands, authorized in 1991 by DA nationwide permit for the
initial Kersey Valley Landfill construction. It should also be
noted that the 7.4 acres of original impacts were based on
delineations conducted under the criteria for the 1989 Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
In most cases wetland delineations conducted pursuant to the
criteria for the currently used 1987 Wetlands Delineations Manual
are more conservative (i.e., less area identified as wetlands due
to the mandatory requirement that all three criteria are
present).
The proposed expansion site is located south of the
existing landfill. It consists of a forested slope adjacent to a
flood plain terrace and small tributary of Richland Creek. The
proposed landfill expansion avoids fill impacts to the flood
plain terrace and small tributary. However, fill for the
proposed project will be placed into a 0.20 acre drainage way /
side-slope seep; this wetland area can be characterized as a
hardwood community vegetated primarily by red maple, sweet gum,
Virginia creeper, greenbriar and poison ivy.
The applicant proposes to mitigate for the 0.2 acre of
requested impacts, at a 2:1 ratio, by the enhancement of 0.8 acre
of wetlands within a sediment basin constructed for a previous
phase of the landfill. Although 0.8 acre of wetlands are
proposed to be enhanced by plantings, the applicant plans to
utilize only 0.4 acre for this project with the remaining 0.4
acre to be used for potential, future impacts. A complete
mitigation plan will be required before a DA permit decision can
be made on this proposal.
The purpose of the work is to expand the existing landfill to
accommodate construction of a 13-acre lined, solid waste
facility. Plans showing the work are included with this public
notice.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to
determine the need for the applicant to obtain any required State
authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit will be
issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has
been received and reviewed by this agency, nor will a DA permit
be issued until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) has determined the applicability of a Water
Quality Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request,
in writing within the comment period specified in the notice,
that a public hearing be held to consider this application.
Requests for public hearing shall state, with particularity, the
reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published
version of the National Register of Historic Places for the
presence or absence of registered properties, or properties
listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and this site is
not registered property or property listed as being eligible for
inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the
District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of
such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific,
prehistorical, or historical data may be lost or destroyed by
work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer has determined, based on a review of
data furnished by the applicant and onsite observation, that the
activity will not affect species, or their critical habitat,
designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an
evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts,
of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed
activity may have on the public interest requires a careful
weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each
particular case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected
to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its
reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to
authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which it
will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome
of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect
the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics,
general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish
and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain values (in
accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation,
shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and
conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership,
and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For
activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials
in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the
discharge that would be authorized by such permit would not
comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other
applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted
unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary
to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the
public; Federal, State and local agencies and officials; Indian
Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments
received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to
determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit
for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to
assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water
quality, general environmental effects and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the
preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to
determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the
overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of
the Army (DA) permit will not be made until the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) issues, denies, or
waives State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. The NCDEM considers whether or not the proposed
activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the
Department of the Army (DA) permit serves as application to the
NCDEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act
certification may be reviewed at the offices of the Environmental
Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM), Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh,
North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished to
any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for Clean Water Act certification should do so in
writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM), Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27611-7687, on or before December 3, 1999, Attention:
Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined
above, will be received in this office, Attention: Mr. John
Thomas, until 4:15 p.m., December 10, 1999, or telephone (919)
876-8441, Extension 25.
Action ID No. 199920165
Applicant: City of High Point
Proposed Work: the proposed 20 acre expansion (0.20 acre DA
jurisdictional impact) of the Kersey Valley Solid Waste Landfill,
located off of Kivett Drive, in High Point, Guilford County,
North Carolina.
No. Cys. Mailed To
1 Applicant
389 Required Lists 2 and 2A
7 List for Guilford County
1 Congressman Burr
1 Postmaster, Greensboro, N.C. 27401-55
1 CESAW-PD-EA/Richard Kimmel
1 CESAW-PD-EW/Coleman Long
15 Mr. John Parker, DCM, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC
2 Mr. William Cox, EPA, Atlanta, GA
1 Mr. Frank McBride
North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
1 Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Hubert Floyd
1220 Jackson Lake Road
High Point, NC 27263
John Floyd
1214 Jackson Lake Road
High Point, NC 27263
C.G. Douthit
1210 Jackson Lake Road
High Point, NC 27263
Charles W. Horton
3712 East Kivett Drive
High Point, NC 27263
Praise & Worship Center
3718 East Kivett Drive
High Point, NC 27263
Jamey's Garage
3720 East Kivett Drive
High Point, NC 27263
10 EXTRA
435 TOTAL
Mr. John Dorney
NC DENR Division of Water
Quality
Wetland/401 Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
1621
Mr. William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Doug Huggett
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 325) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of Information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information0perations and Reports, 121 5 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC
20503. Please DO NO RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 40' , Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting,
navigable waters of t ie United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material Into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application
for a permit. Disclost re: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be
processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original dr twings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An applicatic n that is not completed in full will be returned.
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED 14. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
D APPLI ANT'S NAI11
uane ?arman - golid Waste Services Manager 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
City of High Point G. N. Richardson & Associates, Inc.
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
P.O. Box 230 425 North Boylan Avenue
High Point, North Carolina 27261 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 1 0. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 336-883-3215 b. Business 919-828-0577
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, G. N. Richardson & Associates, Inc. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and tc
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.

APPLICANTS SIGNATURE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
1 2. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase III
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (ifapplicable)
of Richland Creek
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Guilford
COUNTY
NC
STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (see instructions)
LAT LONG: 35 57'2211/ 79 56'17"
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
'ity of High Point
:ersey Valley Landfill
748 East Kivett Drive
Ugh Point, NC 27260
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
from I-85 business, exit on Kivett Drive, turn east at the top of the ramp, landfill is on the right
1 8. Nature of Activity (Description of protect, include ail features)
Construction of a 13 acre lined municipal solid waste landfill consisting of compacted soil liner and
geomembrane liner. Also, construction of sediment basins, diversion channels, and access road to the landfill
(total project footprint is 20 acres). Wetland impacts will occur during the pre-grading and construction of
the structural fill subgrade for the liner. The landfill is an expansion of current Phases 1 and 2 to the east.
1 9. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
To increase landfill capacity at the site and continue disposal of Municipal Solid Waste within the local area
using most cost effective expansion plan for local government. Other sites have been evaluated but
considered cost prohibitive. Construction to begin in April 2000 and be completed by December 2000.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Filling small vegetated swale and channel in order for the soil subgrade (below the landfill liner) to be at least
4 feet above seasonal high ground water (per Solid Waste Regulations).
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Compacted soil (structural fill) - 1600 c.y. (average 4' thickness over surface area)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
0.20
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
Land clearing (not in wetland areas) and soil stockpiling commenced in Summer 1999.
24. Addresses of Adjoining Properly Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
see attached list
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NCDENR SWS Site Suitability Study 10/98 Pending
City of High Point Zoning Approval 98-55 01/07/99
City of High Point Special Use Permit 99-09 01/07/99
* Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly authorized agent of the applicant. " ? 3 1-1- '7- l0 2IQw
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIG RE OF NT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 1 1 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1 001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
• U 5 GPO 1994-520478782018
Kersey Valley Landfill Phase 3
Individual Application
PART 24
Adjacent Property Owners
Name Street Address
1 Hubert Floyd 1220 Jackson Lake Road
2 John Floyd 1214 Jackson Lake Road
3 C. G. Douthit 1210 Jackson Lake Road
4 Charles W. Horton 3712 East Kivett Drive
5 Praise & Worship Center 3718 East Kivett Drive
6 Jamey's Garage 3720 East Kivett Drive
City State Zip
High Point NC 27263
High Point NC 27263
High Point NC 27263
High Point NC 27263
High Point NC 27263
High Point NC 27263
KERSEY VALLEY LANDFILL - PHASE 3 G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA Engineering and Geological Services
VICINITY MAP (USGS High Point East, NC) 425 N. Boylan Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina
LAT/LONG: 35 57' 22" / 79 56' 17" 11 19191-828-0577 Fax:[phone] www.gnra.coni
F DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO. FIGURE N0. FILE NAME
hown PWM PKS 10/5/99 HPOINT-11 1 Topofgure.ppt

LOT QE
i CRIPTION:, PLAT BOOK 131, p
'
g .118 - -

ADJACE
NT,PflPERTY OWNERS I i
{
1 RANT
J, FLO.YD
-; 4. A

4 l C.
! ,,G DDUTHIT
R?b?
CHARLES H

L
X
5 iI )
,
PkA S'c7- ?N $ Ri
T-R
l L,
? .I
l
" r
'

EXISTING HAWSES 1 & °2 ` ` ?/ ,; !

;pQ

?li?/;?1
•? r i ,
J I •I+ j1Y1 ? ?
i ..
_ _ '
_
k"` _
_ __
? 'F ?4y )?/,i ?
',

I
Ix,

r

/
`
- !r

-
I
` . I
_• \ .
\` ?
5
1 1 t ! (/ , it - ,til (, /
IY
,i \ } (
! \\. -. - t l• I

t
i ,
,
'I r_
1 + , , I
l If
I
!
l

WSZ,"i 13

Nil.
NbS
NUT1 ON
I V,
9001

K E R S E Y VALLEY LANDFILL-PHASE 3 I
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
HIGH POINT
NORTH CAROLINA Engineering and Geological Services
,
PLAN VIEW 425 N. Avenue Raleigh, Boylan
NorWW g
l

Fax[phone],
nra.c
om
(919)-828-0577
SCALE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. FILE NAME
1"=300' C.T.J. P.W.M. SEPT. 1999 HPOINT-11 2 321-AO050
Z_
l[7
N
w
rn
rn
rn
O
N
W
N
Q
D
Q
3
O
CZD
0
Q
1
d
i
a,
a,
i
I
c
T
N
N
?.i
0
N
d
W
N
Q
D
Q?
3
O
O
Q
I
a.
a?
a?
s
a

!

l;
b
e'
b 8

n b
I
rot i
!

b I I ?
!

I
I
a - Ad

4
1 I

a pi

a

n
i
4
f9
e<
Is
I
111111111[

I
0

KERSEY VALLEY

LANDFILL-PHASE 3

G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
/

T

NORTH CAROLINA

Geologic
Engineering and al Services

IGH POIN
H
,
CROSS
SECTIONS 425 N. Boylan Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina
8-3899
-
www.gnra.com
82
19191-828-0577 Faxl(919)
SCALE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. FILE NAME
AI T C (` T I P W kA CFPT 1000 HP(11NT-11 3 321-A0051

M ?y
7
3 h
I\<` ?T
0 .

:
+.++.+++.+++++++++++++++..
i.
i
y
Z \ +
+ +2
?'
'
+
s r
. . .
?
r

By/r pp5

F T .'. `+

?
4
+
? h

p
^L
?. r . + . i
'
?
?
?
?
? ?
C ? 4 .
y
A ? .
i
.oz

A
57
? ? r
* U
4

E )s
sa a flo i=
E
N 1wJ
? k
p

O
N
?
a
W
N
Iq

D L
3
CV
O q
I

i

O L i
Q
I
d
2
VI

•

-
N

E
QJ
d
N
I
C
KERSEY VALLEY LANDFILL-PHASE
3
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

NORTH CAROLINA
HIGH POINT Engineering and Gal Services
'' ogic
I
,
LINER CROSS SECTION
425 N. Boylan Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina
nra
com
t9191-828-3899
F
.
www.g
ax,
19191-828-0577
SCALE: DRANK BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. FILE NAME
AI T C r T I P w m CFPT 1444 HPOINT-11 4 321-AO052
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
NTYVA
? lk
D E N R
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch & Wetlands/401 Unit
Location: 4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Mailing Address: 1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699
FAX: [phone]
FAX TO: 1 I/ I FAX NUMBER: I
FROM:
PHONE:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: Waq(
[A
)4
d -t?4 "s

If you receive this fax by mistake call;
? J
ESB [phone] or Wetlands [phone],
i
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
ngmeering • -• ••
October 21, 1999 PAYM
RECEIVED
.Mr. John Thomas
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Ralei,h, North Carolina 2761
RE: Individual Permit Application
Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase 3
High Point, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Thomas,
On behalf of the City of High Point, G. N. Richardson and Associates, Inc. (GNRA) has
prepared the enclosed application for an Individual Permit for the construction of Phase 3
of the Kersey Valley Landfill. This project Nvill impact 0.20 acres of wetlands and 200
feet of channel, however due to previous impacts of approximately 7.4 acres (based on
1989 delineation methodology) an individual permit is required. The application includes
Engineering Form 4345, project plans, and a proposed mitigation plan for the wetland
impacts. Also included are the wetland delineation and letters received from other
agencies during our Solid Waste Permit preparation. This letter summarizes the project,
the unavoidable wetland impacts, and the wetland mitigation for those impacts.
The landfill will be constructed along a ridge and slope west of the existing landfill
Phases 1 and 2. Landfill construction will include a compacted low-permeability soil
liner, a geomembrane liner, and a leachate collection system to prevent leachate
outbreaks from the waste placement. Other associated construction will include a new
access road and sediment basins. The road and basins have een esipe to avoid any
wetland impacts. The purpose of the landfill is to expand the current landfill and
continue to provide the area residents with low cost waste disposal for an additional seven
years. At this time, alternate landfill sites are not practical due to the costs associated
with moving the infrastructure. Our intent is to use all practical space at the current
landfill site in order to keep solid waste disposal costs to a minimum for the High Point
area residents.
.... n.I -- w ^r%RA
Mr. (ohn Thomas
October 1, 1099
Pare 2
The impacted wetlands consist of a shallow vegetated swale along the slope and a
channel in the southeast corner of the site. The primary impact will be the s,,N'ale, which
is detailed in the attached wetland assessment from ECS, Inc. The channel will be filled
above the significance point that was determined by yourself and Mr. Ken Jolley and
therefore does not require mitigation.
The landfill has been designed to minimize wetland impacts in a number of ways. First,
we will avoid impacting the bottomland wetlands around the tributary of Richland Creek,
and the pond and fringe wetlands to the Nvest of the site (refer to Figure 2). Also, the tie
in to Phases 1 and 2 has been curved to the north to minimize impacts to the channel. We
will be filling the upper portions of the channel down to flag '344, which represents the
significance point where the channel begins to show evidence of aquatic habitat. Above
that point, the channel consists of mostly stormwater runoff from Phases 1 and 2.
The attached wetland assessment letter reviews the basic wetland functions in both the
vegetated swale and the wetland mitigation site. ECS recommends a 1:1 mitigation ratio
for this site based on their findings and mitigation design. Please note that the 0.25 acre
wetland impacts mentioned in the letter is based on early estimates, the actual 0.20 acre
impact was calculated from the final designs included in this submittal.
The assessment letter is presented to justify the potential 2:1 mitigation ratio that we have
previously discussed. In addition, if the mitigation plan is acceptable, Nve also request a
response regarding the crediting of the additional acreage in the mitigation site
(approximately 0.4 acres) for minimal impacts foreseen during the construction of future
landfill cells. We estimate this future impact to be approximately 0.11 acres in the area to
the north of the wetland mitigation site.
As mentioned during our conversation on September 30, 1999, we are a,,vare that the
project falls within the Randleman Reservoir Watershed, and therefore under jurisdiction
of the stream buffer rules for that watershed. GNRA contacted several agencies regarding
this issue in early 1999, prior to the rules being implemented.
According to a phone conversation between Mr. David Garrett, P.G. and Asst. Attorney
General Kathy Cooper on February 18, 1999, the project meets the vested rights
requirements of the buffer rules for this reservoir for the following reasons. First, the
initial design and site investigation was performed from 1997 through February 1999,
prior to implementation of the rules. Also, the city purchased, rezoned, and acquired a
special use permit for the landfill site on January 7, 1999. Further documentation
regarding this issue is available upon request.
%1r. John Thomas
October 21. 1999
Page ,
Please call us at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or if additional
information is necessary for your review.
Sincerely,
G. N. Richardson & Associates, Inc.
C
Philip May
Staff Scientist
Pieter K. Scheer, P.E.
Project NlanaLer
attachments
cc: David Garrett, P.G.
Duane Jarman, City of High Point
Steve Pendrv, City of High Point
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0C3
;; / /, :,:, Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of InformationOperations and Reports, 121 5 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC
20503. Please DO NO RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority. 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting,
navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application
for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be
processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEAIS I THRU a TO BF- FILLED RF THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3 DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
rct,cu;'rnn'Tn NF FIIIVr) R1' .innIIC 4\'Ti
APPLIc ANT'S NAM
6uane ,larman - golid Waste Services Manager 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE tan agent is not required)
Citv of High Point G. N. Richardson & .associates, Inc.
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9 AGENT'S ADDRESS
P.O. Box 230 425 North Boylan Avenue
High Point, North Carolina 27261 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS W/AREA CODE 1 0. AGENT'S PHONE NOS W/AREA CODE

a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 336-883-3215 b. Business 919-828-0577
11 STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, G. N. Richardson & Associates, Inc. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE

T
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
1 2. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase III
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (d applicable)
Tributarv of Richland Creek
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Guilford
COUNTY
NC
STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (seeinstruct,cns)
I.AT LONG: 35 57' 22" / 79 56' 17"
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
City of High Point
Kersey Valley Landfill
3748 East Kivett Drive
High Point, NC 27260
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
_r X11- - --- _-- 1, _A. 1;11 :? __ +h. right
1 8 Nature of Activity =e- _ -'a eater esi
Construction of a 13 acre lined municipal solid ANaste landfill consisting of compacted soil liner and
geomembrane liner. .also, construction of sediment basins, diversion channels, and access road to the landfill
(total project footprint is 20 acres). Wetland impacts will occur during the pre-grading and construction of
the structural fill subgrade for the liner. The landfill is an expansion of current Phases 1 and 2 to the east.
1 9 Project Purpose (Descr;ce ree reason or purpose of the project, see instruct ens)
To increase landfill capacity at the site and continue disposal of Municipal Solid Waste within the local area
using most cost effective expansion plan for local government. Other sites have been evaluated but
considered cost prohibitive. Construction to begin in April 2000 and be completed by December 2000.
13
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Filling small vegetated Swale and channel in order for the soil subgrade (below the landfill liner) to be at least
4 feet above seasonal high ground water (per Solid Waste Regulations).
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Compacted soil (structural fill) - 1600 c.y. (average 4' thickness over surface area)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled ;see nstruct,ons)
0.20
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes ' No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
Land clearing (not in NNetland areas) and soil stockpiling commenced in Summer 1999.
115 24. Addresses of Adjoining Properly Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
see attached list
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NCDENR SWS Site Suitability Study 10/98 Pending
City of High Point Zoning Approval 98-55 01/07/99
!5 6
City of High Point Special Use Permit 99-09 01/07/99
" Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly authorized agent of the applicant.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGN RE OF NT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 1 1 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1 001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Kersey Valley Landfill Phase 3
Individual Application
PART 24
Adjacent Property Owners
Name Street Address City State Zip
1 Hubert Floyd 1220 Jackson Lake Road High Point NC 27263
2 John Floyd 1214 Jackson Lake Road High Point NC 27263
3 C. G. Douthit 1210 Jackson Lake Road High Point NC 27263
4 Charles W. Horton 3712 East Kivett Drive High Point NC 27263
5 Praise & Worship Cen ter 371 S East Kivett Drive High Point NC 27263
6 Jamey's Garage 3720 East Kivett Drive High Point NC 27263
_0 \ d6 _- ' ^
CSC . `?
` / }-.? , ?? Cry L ??t _ =v..,,`??
_j ?r .
'la
ba ... L.' o
7 •?.... ewe _,f , U.:? 7;,`?a Qa. _? C' „ \r
_0 U)
?? •y n- Is ?,?.- J O?? \ ??''''.I '•? rel. r• °- c
S .? s ?- ? ill. ^`?^ _ ?i.•p? c i/ ?) .? , 'mac ?a?I \ ~? •s
?c
i p _ -8? \- •"-` ^\-. /rte. ? -? ? ? t ? ? ^r ?,'? ? ;;?? •? /?b - " ;
.-.(?_?? •%v\";? r - ? ?. a ?? l' e L'_ .? `1 ? !?.i ice-: ,,. .._
KERSEY VALLEY LANDFILL - PHASE 3 G,N, RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
?_ e ...?__ „.. __... _ _.. ,.
O, a
VICINITY MAP (C'SGS High Point East, NC) _ cy:,.ri r;venuo =Ial'oigh, iJo'ih ar Jm
J Fa,°3 399y \i'w •: In
LAT/LONG: 35 57' 22" / 79 56' 17" 11
As shown PNVM PKS 10/5/99 HPONT-11 1 Topof gure.ppt

,J?YJ.} r-?y _.O?' Yoo
,-
/
K E R S E Y VALLEY LANDFILL-PHASE 3 G.N, RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
I
PLAN VIEW
SCALE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE:
1"= inn' r T J P W M. SEPT. 1999
425 N. Boylan Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina
(919)-828-0517 Fax-(919)-828-3899 www.gnra.com
PROJECT NO. I FIGURE NO. I FILE NAME .
HPOINT-11 1 2 1 321-A0050
1
i

1
1 I ? V
' I VVW
_ y
I
7 11
G
e
NXYAM
wuVAM
KERSEY VALLEY LANDFILL-PHASE 3 G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1.1. 1=3
HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
425 N. Boylan Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina
CROSS SECTIONS (919)-828-0577 Faxd919)-828-3899 www.gnra.com
SCALE: I DRAWN BY: ICHECKED BY: 'DATE: IPROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. FILE NAME
_"T
U i7
a
n
;\ a
_f x
1 CL
n
- F
1
U
N m
N j
O U
%0
a
F wy O
m W
71 ? / 9 C >
1/? U
1
1
I
< 1
i
II
KERSEY VALLEY LANDFILL-PHASE 3
HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
LINER CROSS SECTION
SCALE: DRAWN BY: I CHECKED BY: ;DATE:
. d
I --
;I
-_s
s 3
1

yUW?
WU N
N ? U C7
O
O
O O '
m
W
W =
a
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
425 N. Boylan Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina
(919)-828-0577 Fax-(919)-828-3899 www.gnra.com
PROJECT NO. I FIGURE NO. FILE NAME
.. _ k ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD.
Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental
ra r
Mr. Philip W. May
G.N. Richardson S: Associates
126 North Bo,!an avenue
Ralei,h. NC 2-603
Reverence: Kersey Valley %IS%V Landfill
Hizh Point, North Carolina
ECS Proiect G-2 7 S7
Dear Mr. May:
October 6, 1999
En2lneen'ng Consulting Serv ces, Ltd. (ECS) recently completed a mitigation plan for the Kersey Valley
Landfill. The proposed im:Pact is to 0?6 acres of jurisdictional wetlands located in the landfill expansion
area. This area :s located on a side slope and is dominated by facultaii%e specles cor,s:si:nu of red maple.
eet gum, %i-u:7.:a creeper, (are°:lbriar and poison i%-%.
T.-:e mitigation a.-ca is located :n a 1.-16 acre sediment basin on the east side of Kersey Valley Road,
annroxima- 2.J00 feet south of Its intersection %vith Kip:tt Drive in H:,-,h Point. .An unnamed tributary
of Richland Gee's crosses ; _ ediment basin. Approximately 0.66 aces of the sediment basin have lot--i
e as iu; sdictior.al et!ands. Ho%% e\ er, some portions of the jurisdictional wetlands are not
nderlain by h%dric soils. The ?%etland area a dominated b} obligate species including catcalls, rushes.
_, ; Res and black- %N illow.
T-1--- 0.25 acre wetland located in the expansion area has marginal % alue. Due to its small size and
andscape position. its effect on water quality is minimal. The mitigation area is located in a sediment
gas:n. After construction, the majority of the sediment basin will have the hydrology necessary to support
a %ariery of ob!i_ate wetland plants and to create hydnc soil conditions throughout the basin. The micro-
:ot,gTaphy vt-ill result in wildlife diversity. Its location in an existing sediment basin %vIII have a greater
positive effect on water quality than the wetland that is to be impacted.
although the proposed mitigation will result in the creation of approximately 0.50 acres of wetlands, it is
our opinion that a mitigation ratio of 1:1 is sufficient and should be acceptable to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The remaining 0.55 acres of created wetlands should be used to mitigate for future impacts
resulting from landfill expansion.
ECS appreciates the opportunity to provide our services on this project. Please contact us at (336) 866-
7160 if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD.
Denise tit. Poulos, LSS
Principal Scientist
Ste hen J. osselin, P.G.
Principal Geologist
-C Dundas Circle, Greensboro, NC 27407 • (336) 856-71 50 • Fax [phone]
-
I r\
I ' t
- ? f 1
?C?rl h, ??-;I
° FUTURE PROPERTY ACQUISITION
ONSIDERATION
DER
5AS
y II I? -
?o? DaIES'
I"N
1 1 sue to
1 I fJ / ny5 ( r4
fl FUTURE GATE RESE QED, -?
.. (,- ;? -? ? - - ? ; ?• PER?1ITTED AREA SVJL I,
I _ FOR FUTURE M
Y BUFFERS H00 1
REZULAITOR ? r
,I
lc?
m ?? ? ? / ?14?t?.E S
4 try m o - -. ,
Cif T Z C ? J
4 r R ?i
s ? N (ll ? ? o L
,??- ? D j -- son
Z
v lom ?I r '? 4

o?>
?- n
I
T11 V11
V .,
r n
C
rZ ?

1 z

Je"
i
r

( `J /I

i
1
v I 1
i
, I
i
i

i
-A ling
X90' I I _ ` t
°• d ?, ? i?11 ,y? EBSS3 I e I \ I_ a F ID I -till]
gEGi _ R I I 1 '. Pz'
"ae 40 :.?e??° E t to \
2 3 F °
?NE4TION : =?sFY VALLEY ??s,? _ ??_?? 1G.N. RICHARDSON b ASSOCIATES, INC
G. N. Richardson & Associates, Inc., 425 N. Boylan Ave., Raleigh, NC, 27503 [phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project'Site: Kersey Vallee Landfill - Phase III
Applicant/Owner: Cite of Hi;h Point
I nvestigator. Philip stay
Date: 7/]/98
County: Guilford Coun
State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID: WL
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 0 Transect ID: 700
Is the area a potential Problem ,Area? Yes ? Plot ID: 700\V
(If needed. exolain on reverse.)
V=(-,FTATInN
Dominan! Plant S^ec,es
Accr rubrum Stratum
T nd? a!or
FAC 1?m?nant Plan' Soe? es Stratum Ind,zator
2 Liquidambar sty racinua
3 Accr rubrum T
S FAC+
F:1C
< Parthenocissus quingcfolia V FAC
5 Smilax rotundifolia
5 Vitis aestivalis
7 Parthenocissus quingefolia V
V
H FAC
FAC-
FAC
e Toxicodendron radicans H F.AC

Percent at Dominant Speaes t nat are C3L. FACW or FAC

I- :o
(exc!udino =4?-1
Remarks.
Mostly FAC speices.
HYnRni nr;y
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
- Stream, Lake, or Tine Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs
Oth Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
er
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
X Dhft Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: V Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Sur`ace Water. (in) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
X Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12 (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
G21) Aooendix B Blank and Example Data Forms
Plot ID: 0ONV

Ntap Unr, Name Enon clay loam sell drained
Dramaae Class:
iSenes and ?ease)
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Suogroup) Utic hapludalfs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
?rofle Description!
rfatrix Color
Mottle Colors t0ottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
Deppth
?rnches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure. etc
0-10 A IOl R a/1 10YR 3!6 50%/11/Promin. Loam
10-16 B IOYR 61 40%/1\t/Promin. Sandy clav
Hydnc Soil Ir.d.ators:
H s:csol ConcreLons
_
;Hsl:: _o - _ High Omarnc Content in Surla:x Laver in Sandy So!Is
_
Sulfid:- Dior _ Omani: Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
A7U1= t."o:stu,e Reo," e _ Listed on -Dzal Hydnc Soils List
Reduong Condrt:ons _ Listed on Nathocal Hydnc Soils List
T Giev=d or Low Cnrc-.a Color _ Otner :=xc a:n in RemarKS)
Remar}S
IReducin2 conditions from 10 to 16 inches using a-a-diwridNI solution. 1RCS field indicator F3 (Depleted matrix).
vpproveu uy nvu-.",-
Appendix B Blank and Example Data Forms B3
\AlrTl Onlr1 r1=7=.?t\AlN!A7lnNI
G. N. Richardson S Associates, Inc., 425 N. Boylan Ave., Raleigh, NC, 27603 [phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Projec"Site: Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase III Date: 7/I/98
ApplicanUOwner: Cite of Hi;h Point County: Guilford County
I nvestioator. Philip State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ? No Community ID: UPL
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes (::? Transect ID: 700
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ® Plot ID: 70OU
(If needed. exDlain on reverse.)
V=GFTATIC N
Dom!na-.r o a-' Ste:'es
I Liriodendron tulipifera S!atum
T Indicator
FAC Dnmina-.• plant st'--s Statum Indicator
2 Pinus N ir2iniana T NI
3 .Iuniperus N ir2iniana T FACU-
4 Liquidambar stN raciflua S FAC+ •,
5 I'latanus occidentalis S FACNN'-
6 Lonicera japonica
7 Liquidambar st racitlua
6 H
H FAC-
FAC+

-

Percent a! Dominant Spe:.-es '.-.at are DBL. FACW or FAC
ezcluc = -1 ,? I o
'
Remar,.s
I-4YnPnI nrZY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): VVetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aenal Photographs Inundated
Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Retarded Data Avai',able Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: - Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Sura?e Water. (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (h.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
-No hvdrolon' indicators.
B2 Appendix B Blank and Example Data Forms
Plot ID: -00U
SOILS
r.tapUni!Na_2 Enon cla% loam "ell drained
D:aicage Class'
(Series ana Pnase) .
rie,d Observations
Taxonomy l llic haplutlalfs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Doccr.^tion'
Matrix Color
Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
De 'In
tinCnes) Horizon (Munsell r loist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure. etc
0-6 -% 101'R 5 6 Fine sand}' loam
6-16 B 10)'R 33 Sandy' loam
Hydnc Sci' 1-.o: ,atc,s
Concreticris
High Organic Content in Sur a ;e Layer in Sandy Soils
Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
4^ l: ^ sure Re-:-e _ Listed on Local Hyonc Soils Last
_
Conj t;o.^.s on N vic-,a' H; cnc S- is List
- O eved or Low Cnrorr,a Co ,') ner (Exa'am m. Remaws)
._T,arvs
INo h%dric soil indicators
\ArTI G1\I1 i =T=PMIN!TION
Hydrophyi;c VegetationPrese-d? 0 IN C)
?,ie!land Hycroiogy Present) Yes
Hydric Sors P.esenl7 Yes is this Samphg Point Within a Wetland? Yes
Remarrs

B3
Appendix 5 31ank and Example I-ata Forms
U.S. _ R_NIY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 1994`016 Count%.: Guilford
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property Agent G.N. Richardson .& Assoc.
Owner Citv of High Point c/o Mr. Duane Jarman Philip N,lay
Address P.O. Box 230. High Point. North Carolinaaddress 425 N. Bovlan Avenue. Raleigh. NC 27603
27261
Telephone Number 336 Telephone Number 919 828-077
Authorized
Size and Location of Property (NN-aterbodv, Highway name/number, town, etc.) City of High Point's
proposed expansion of the Kersey Valley Land Fill site located off of Jackson Lake Road, adjacent
to an unnamed tributarv of Richland Creek, near High Point, in Guilford County, North Carolina.
Indicate «'hich of the FolloN?-ing apply:
There are wetlands on the above described property wlvch v,e --=1710v suL'Rest should be delineated and surveyed.
The surveved -wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps Mill make a final jurisdictional
determination on your property.
0 Because of the size of your property and our present «-orkload, our identification and delineation of your NN-etlands
cannot be accomplished in a timely manner. You may %%ish to obtain a consultant to obtain a more timely
delineation of the wetlands. Once the consultant has flagged a -,vetland line on the property, Corps staff mill
review it, and, if it is accurate. we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for final approval be the
Corps. The Corps will not make a final jurisdictional determination on }-our property %Nithout an approved sun'ey.
Tile wetlands on your lot hai-e been delineated. and the limits of the Corps li LCdiction hai,e been evolained to
1 ou. Unless there is a chanze in the laiv or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon
or a period not to exceed five years from the date of this noti nation.
0 There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements of
section 404 of the Clean `Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a chanae in the law or our published
regulations, this detemunation may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
0 The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of Coastal
Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the
Army permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A
permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you
have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact
John Thomas at 919 - 876 - 8441 extension 25
Project Manager Signature
Date Dec. 16. 1998 Expiration Date

SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE «'ETLAND
DELINEATION FORM "`MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM.
Sep 24 99 10:40p
?,s,ti. ? tom.. ?'•?tl,
1A
RC, -
JAMES B. HUNT JR-.
WAYNC M.-DNITr." J
lC,y .e?
??..?rytt?? -
?CI(NELI.Y
•?r
David Garrett
919 231 1059
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
August 4, 1998
Mr. G. David Garrett, P.G.
G.N. Richardson and Associates
425 N. BoylanAvenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality Natural Communities, and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas at the Proposed Landfill
Development Site, High Point, Guilford County, NC.
Dear Mr. Garrett:
p.2
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NC NHP) does not have records of
known rare species, high quality natural communities, scenic rivers, or Significant
Natural Heritage Areas occurring at the site of the proposed lined landfill
development site, High Point, Guilford County, North Carolina.
Enclosed is a list of rare species and high quality natural communities that are known
to occur in Guilford County. If suitable habitat for any of these species occurs in the
project area, then those species may be present at the project site. In order to
determine if rare species are present, a survey would be necessary.
Please do not hesitate to contact me e the address b?tw fir can me at (919) 715-
9703 if you have any questions or n
Sincerely,
Susan Reece Giles
Information Specialist
Natural Heritage Program
Enclos,.ire
'r
' ?. y 6
Sep 24 99 10:41p David Garrett 919 231 1059 p.3
SC.::ITIFIC NAHLE Co..-SON NAHE
?;::ilford
Vertebrates
?,. ystoma talpoideum Mole Salamander
?theo5toma collis Carolina Darter
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Sagle
:anius ludovicianus ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike
Vascular plants
Berberis canadersis American Barberry
Cardamine dissecta Dissected Toothwort
Collinsonla tuberosa Piedmont Horsebalm
Gnaphalium helleri var helleri Heller's Rabbit Tobacco
Parthenium auriculatum Glade Wild Quinine
Platanthera peramoena Purple Fringeless orchid
?uercus prinoides Dwarf Chinquapin Oak
Smilax lasioneura a carrion-flower
:hermopsis mollis sen5u stricto Appalachian Golden-banner
Natural co-pities
Basic Mesic Forest (Pied:nor.t -
Subtype)
Basic oak--Hickory Forest -
Low Elevaticn Seep -
?iedmont/Low mountain Alluvial -
Forest
Piedmont/Mountain Swa-Tp Forest -
pland Depression Swamp Forest -
Guilford*
Vascular pla=ts
Acalinis decemloba Piedmont Gerard-,a
STATE FED. STATE GLOBAL
STATUS STATUS RANK RANK
Sc - S2 GS
SC - 53 G3
E T S2B,S2N G4
SC - S3B,S3N G575
SR - 52 G3
C - S2 G4?
C - 51 G3G4
SR - 52? G4GST3
C - S1 G3?Q
C - S1 G5
C - SH G5
C - SH as
SR - S2 G3G4
- - S2 G5T3
- - S3 G4
- - 53 G4?
- - S5 G5
- - S1 G2
- - 52 G3
SR - 52? G4Q

Sep 24 99 10:41p
Pavid Garrett

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James S. Hu,-.,, 17., G,wemor
Petty Ray Mc-Cain, Sezrc:ary
August 25, 1993
3. David Garrett, P.G.
Vice President
71. N. Richardson & Associat:-s
425 Ncrth Boylan Avenue
Raleigh NC 27603
Pe: Proposed expansion of exis,ing landfill, High
Point vicinity, Gui!ford County, ER 99-7192
D;ar [v11-. Garrett:
p.4

Division of Ar.h1vc5 and History
Jeffrey 1. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of July 31 , 1993, Concerning the above project,
VVe have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
Tie above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Freservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/'733-4763.
Sincerely,
;'t •r
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slVV
919 231 1059
cc: jim Coffey, Division of Waste Management, DENR
REPORT OF FIELD INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN FOR THE KERSEY
VALLEY LANDFILL WETLANDS CONSTRUCTION
PREPARED FOR:
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
425 N. Boylan Ave., SUITE 451
HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
ECS, LTD. PROJECT NUMBER G2787
AUGUST 20, 1999

ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD.
Geotechnical Construction Materials, Environmental
Mr. Philip W. May
G.N. Richardson & Associates
425 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Reference: Kersey Valley MSW Landfill
Mitigation Plan
High Point, North Carolina
ECS Project G-2787
Dear Mr. May:
August 20, 1999
Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS) is pleased to submit this wetlands mitigation plan and
specifications for the Kersey Valley Landfill. This mitigation plan was authorized by your acceptance of
ECS Proposal No. 1755-P, dated February 26, 1999.
We have enjoyed working on this phase of your project. Please contact Denise Poulos at [phone]
or Ben Wilson at [phone] if you have questions or if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD.
Denise M. Poulos, LSS
Principal Scientist
nja V. Wilson, P.E.
Princ al Engineer/Vice President
?1 _J?a? lit .. ?• ??,'?'GV C.)
P.O.Box12015,ResearchTrianglePark,NorthCarolina27709, [phone]<Fax[phone] www.ecslimited.com
Offices: Baltimore, MD • Frederick, MD Aberdeen, MD Chantilly,VA Winchester, VA Fredericksburg, VA • Richmond, VA • Roanoke, VA • Danville, VA
Norfolk, VA ' Williamsburg, VA Charlotte, NC Raleigh, NC • Greensboro, NC • Wilmington, NC Greenville. SC • Atlanta, GA - Chicago, IL

Kersey Vallev Landfill - Aliligalion Plan
ECS Project G-2787
August 20, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................1
2.0 MITIGATION SITE CHARACTERIZATION ........................................................... ...........................2
3.0 EXCAVATION AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS .............................................. ...........................3
4.0 HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS ..................................................... ...........................3
5.0 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES ............................................................................ ...........................4
5.1 Design Methodology ................................................................................................ ...........................4
5.2 Forebay Detention Facility ....................................................................................... ...........................4
5.3 Constructed Wetlands .............................................................................................. ...........................4
5.4 Construction Procedures for Constructed Wetlands
and Forebay Detention Facility ................................................................................ ...........................4
6.0 SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENGINEERED FILL FOR WETLAND
AND FOREBAY DIKES SHOWN ON PLANS ......................................................... ...........................5
7.0 SPECIFICATIONS FOR WETLANDS FILL ............................................................. ...........................6
8.0 OPERATION PROCEDURES .................................................................................... ...........................7
8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. ...........................7
8.2 Maintenance Procedures .......................................................................................... ...........................7
9.0 SOIL AMENDMENT AND PREPARATION PROCEDURES ................................. ...........................8
10.0 PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................................... ...........................9
11.0 MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................... .........................11
12.0 PLANTING SCHEDULE .......................................................................................... .........................12
13.0 GENERAL COMMENTS .................................................................... ...................14
ATTACHMENTS:
Calculations
Figure 1- Site Location Map
Figure 2- Clay Dike and Weir Details Sketch
Figure 3- Topo with Drainage Basins
Figure 4- Plan View with Pipe Location and Planting Schedule
Kerse-v Valley Landfill - Mitigation Plan
ECS Projcc[ G-2787
August 20, 1999
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Construction specifications and planting details for the construction of a 0.80-acre wetland are presented
in the mitigation plan, which is summarized below. The proposed mitigation area was selected by
representatives of G.N. Richardson & Associates and the City of High Point. The proposed mitigation
site is located along a tributary to Richland Creek at a point approximately 2,000 feet south of the
intersection of Kivett Drive and Kersey Valley Road in Guilford County, High Point, North Carolina
(Figure 1).
The objectives of this proposed mitigation are to:
1. establish a wetland environment within a lowland area adjacent to the floodplain of the
aforementioned tributary;
2. minimize the disturbance to the existing wetland area associated with the tributary; and
3. achieve a success criteria to allow for the enhanced development of a functional scrub-shrub
wetlands ecosystem.
The proposed mitigation plan includes:
1. excavation and grading specifications necessary to create appropriate elevations for wetland
hydrology and wetland plants (hydrophytes) to develop and emerge;
2. soil preparation and amendment procedures to facilitate ponding and growth of planted
hydrophytes;
3. planting specifications for selected hydrophytes to be established within the mitigation area; and
4, maintenance criteria to assure the success of the created wetland.
Kersey Valley Lan(lfill - Alrtrgation Plan
ECS Project G-_'787
l ugust 20, 1999
2.0 MITIGATION SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The site is a 1.45 acre sediment basin located on the eat side of Kersey Valley Road, approximately 2,000
feet south of its intersection with Kivett Drive in High Point (Figures 1 and 2). An unnamed tributary of
Richland Creek crosses the site. Approximately 0.65 acres of the sediment basin have been identified as
jurisdictional wetlands. The wetland area is dominated by cattails, rushes, sedges and black willow.
Grading will be necessary within the mitigation area to establish surface elevations that will allow for the
development of ponded water or saturated soil conditions that will support the proposed wetland once the
hydrophytes have been planted. Generally, a functional wetland must be flooded and/or saturated to the
ground surface for at least seven days during the growing season to allow for a successful community of
hydrophytes to emerge and mature. This can be accomplished by grading the area to create a lowland-
type depression and then flooding it from a nearby surface-water source.
Originally, we intended to monitor the shallow ground water conditions in the proposed mitigation area.
However, for purposes of expediency in preparing this plan, an in-depth monitoring study was not
conducted. Three piezometers were installed in the mitigation area. The piezometers were installed to
depths of three to four feet below the ground surface. Groundwater was not detected in the piezometers
during the monitoring period of May 5, 1999 through June 5, 1999. In the absence of a more extensive,
series of groundwater measurements, it is not possible at this time to determine the average seasonal high-
water elevation. However, the proximity of the aforementioned tributary of Richland Creek in
conjunction with seasonal soil saturation via localized precipitation and runoff should provide an effective
hydrologic source for enhancing the ponding and saturation of the proposed mitigation area once grading
of the area is complete.
The site is located in a geologic area known as the Carolina Slate Belt. Soils in this area are weathered
from the underlying granitic rock. The lowlands of the Carolina Slate Belt are generally flat and have
been filled in excess of 12.0 feet with sands, organic matter, and silts eroded from the surrounding
uplands. Soils in these bottomlands are generally saturated at a depth of 3.0 to 4.0 feet below the existing
ground surface. The high water table generally rises to approximately 1.5 to 2.0 feet in late winter and
early spring. The soils encountered in this area consist mainly of silty fine sand with a trace to some clay
or fine sandy silt with a trace to some clay.
In general, the mitigation area is underlain by approximately three to four feet of sediment characterized
as sand and loamy sand. Auger refusal was encountered at depths of three to four feet below grade.
According to the Soil Survey of Guilford County, soils at the site have been mapped as Wilkes sandy
loam. Typically, this is a well drained soil that occurs along sideslopes that border drainageways. The
surface layer is dark brown sandy loam underlain by brownish yellow sandy loam and yellowish brown
clay loam. The underlying material is yellowish brown clay loam and yellowish brown loamy coarse
sand.
Kcrscr Valley Landfill - Ahti ation Plan
ECS Project G-2757
August 20, 1999
3.0 EXCAVATION AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
The proposed grading within the project will be limited to the higher portions of the site. The net effect
of the grading, indicated on the attached plan, will be to create an area with poor surficial drainage that
will be saturated for extended periods of time. It is expected that sufficient saturation and ponding of the
mitigation area will also be achieved from normal precipitation and by periodic flooding from the
adjacent tributary.
We recommend constructing berms in the sediment basin in order to create a hydric environment in the
upper area of the sediment basin. This will result in the creation of approximately 0.80 acres of wetlands.
The general elevation of the wetlands area will be approximately 751 to 756 feet above sea level. The
berms will provide a permanent water table approximately 8.0 to 16.0 inches below the existing ground
surface in the constructed wetlands area.
The forebay detention at this site has been designed to remove in excess of 85% of suspended particulates
from the stormwater influent. The water budget for the site appears to indicate that the present stream
flow along with stormwater runoff will provide adequate moisture to maintain a hydric environment.
Because some portions of the mitigation area will not be graded, it is important that equipment traffic
patterns be established to avoid unnecessary disturbance such as rutting, erosion, and/or compaction of
the subsoil layer. In addition, the grading contractor should take precautions to prevent spills of
fuel/lubricants within the mitigation area during grading.
Fine grading tolerances within the mitigation area should be to within plus or minus one inch of the
grades indicated on the attached plan. Prior to actual construction/disturbance, proper erosion and
sedimentation control measures should also be implemented. A silt fence or staked haybales should be
constructed along the perimeter of the proposed work area and around any stockpiles. The silt fence
could be removed within 30 days after the backslopes have been stabilized. Within 15 days following
completion of grading, the contractor should mulch and seed all backslopes and other exposed transitional
areas with a rye or other suitable grass with a successful germination rate of at least 50 percent. The
existing monitoring wells should be left intact, if practical, or replaced during grading to monitor ground-
water levels following the site improvements. Once the grading has been completed and the area has
been stabilized, it should be protected from future traffic patterns to prevent further disturbance.
4.0 HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
Hydraulic and hydrologic analysis were performed for a water budget analysis and to design the outlet
structure for the forebay. Stormwater detention and spillway design was performed using the 2 year 6
hour storm, which is 2.9 inches in six hours.
The wetland areas were also evaluated using the results from these storm analyses as well as
hydrometoerological reports from NOAA and USGS streamflow records for evaluation of normal and
low flow steam flows and periodic inundation necessary to help sustain the wetlands plants.
The rise of the normal lake level will keep the soils in the area of the constructed wetlands saturated to
within 8.0 to 16.0 inches of the surface, with capillary rise coming slightly above that. The soils proposed
for use in the constructed wetlands will be surficial organic soils taken from the new landfill cell area.
Primarily organic silty sands with a trace to some clay will be used. These soils are rich in humus and
Kersey Valley Landfill - Mitigation Plan
ECS Project G-2 787
August 20, 1999
other organic material and permeable enough so that the design of the stream running through the area
will be sufficient to cause saturation within 8.0 inches of ground surface.
5.0 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
5.1 Design Methodology
The design methodologies for the constructed wetlands are to increase water quality through detention
and treatment in a wetlands environment.
5.2 Forebay Detention Facility
The main forebay will be 10,000 square feet in size. The forebay will be drained by a PVC level spreader
piping system and secondary emergency spillway.
5.3 Constructed Wetlands
The constructed wetlands will be located downstream of the forebay detention area.
5.4 Construction Procedures for Constructed Wetlands and Forebay Detention Facility
1. The first phase of the construction will be to lay out the stormwater detention facility areas, borrow
areas, and sediment control structures. All layout will be performed or confirmed by ECS, Ltd.
The next phase will be to install the forebay and concrete diversion pipe structures. However, surface
water will continue to be channeled through the main outlet area during construction of the wetland
dikes.
3. After installation of the pipes, grading for the clay dikes may begin.
4. It would be advantageous to perform construction of the dikes during a dry period of the year, since
compaction of the clay soils used for construction of the dikes will be critical.
After the dikes in the wetlands are constructed, placement of wetland soils may begin. Wetland soils
should be taken from designated borrow area and placed to the grade shown on the plans.
6. After construction of the dikes and forebay are completed, seeding and planting should be performed.
7. Finally, the surface water should be diverted through the concrete diversion pipe into the forebay of
the constructed wetlands area.
4
Kersey Valley Landfill - Mitigation Plan
ECS Project G-2 78 7
August 20, 1999
6.0 SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENGINEERED FILL FOR WETLAND AND FOREBAY DIKES
SHOWN ON PLANS
1. All procedures will be observed by an experienced geotechnician working under the direct
supervision of a registered, geotechnical engineer. No material will be placed in any section of
the dike embankment until the stripped, excavated surface has been approved by the
geotechnician.
2. No fill material will be placed in any section of the embankment unless it has been approved and
tested in the lab by the engineer. The fill material for the dikes will be a CL or ML silty clay or
clayey silt material with a minimum of 65 % finer than the # 200 sieve.
3. The proposed fill material will be tested prior to placement in accordance with ASTM D-698-A,
Moisture Density Relationship of Soils, using a 5.5 pound hammer with a 12.0 inch drop,
Standard Proctor Method.
1. Fill material will be placed in lifts not to exceed 9.0 inches in loose thickness and will be
compacted using a sheepsfoot roller or other approved means.
The fill will be compacted to a least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM
D-698-A and the moisture content at the optimum moisture, +/- 2%.
The soil placed around the outlet pipe or concrete spillway will be carefully hand compacted to
the above specifications.
The inspector will make field moisture density tests in accordance with ASTM D-2167, D-1557,
D-2922, or other approved means. One test per 2,500 square feet of lift area will be required
except around the pipe where one test per 25.0 feet in the backfill will be required.
Kerse'v Talley Landfill - Alitigation Plan
GCS Prglect G-2787
August 20, 1999
7.0 SPECIFICATIONS FOR WETLANDS FILL
1. All procedures will be observed by an experienced field technician working under the direct
supervision of a wetlands specialist and geotechnical engineer. No material will be placed in any
section of wetlands until the proper subgrade has been established.
2. No wetlands fill material may be placed in any section of the wetlands unless it has been approved
and tested in the laboratory by the engineer.
3. Fill material in the wetlands area will be placed to the desired depth and placed loose and graded with
a high floatation bulldozer D-6 or smaller.
4. All construction equipment will be kept off of the proposed wetland construction area to prevent
over-compaction of the created wetland soils.
5. The inspector will make field moisture density test in accordance with ASTM D-2167, D-1557, D-
2922, or other approved means. Those areas which are over-compacted due to construction traffic
will be loosened by digging with a track backhoe and replacing in-place.
6
Kerset Valle Y Landfill - Mitigation Plan
ECS Project G-2787
August 20, 1999
8.0 OPERATION PROCEDURES
8.1 Introduction
It is important to note that the condition of the wetland and the stormwater detention pond depend on
numerous and constantly changing internal and external conditions and are evolutionary in nature. It
would be incorrect to assume that the condition of the wetlands and detention ponds will not be different
at some point in the future. Only through continued care, maintenance and inspection can we be assured
that the function of the wetlands will be effective.
8.2 Maintenance Procedures
The wetlands and detention ponds shall be inspected a minimum of twice a year for the first five
years for evaluation of continued effectiveness by the designer. After the first five years, annual
inspections shall be performed. Inspections should be conducted with the as-built and pondscaping
plans in hand and should take specific note of species distribution/survival, sediment accumulation,
water elevations, and condition of the wetlands outlet structure. Records shall be kept by the engineer
and owner so that the progressive development of the wetland system over time can be tracked.
2. When the storage area at the bottom of the forebay reaches 40% utilization, the detention ponds will
be cleaned out utilizing a track backhoe. Sediment spoil shall be applied to the spoil area designated
on the plans.
3. Piezometers shall be installed in the wetlands and monitored during the inspections to make sure that
continued high water table is present to ensure function of the wetlands.
4. Mowing - the maintenance access areas shall be mowed twice per year to prevent woody growth. All
remaining areas can be managed as wet meadow or forest.
Kersey Valley Landfill - Alitigation Plan
ECS Project G-2 78 7
:August 20, 1999
9.0 SOIL AMENDMENT AND PREPARATION PROCEDURES
1. Topsoil materials from the impacted wetland area should be saved and stockpiled for respread
within the mitigation area. The weed seed content of the topsoil should be tested prior to
placement. Topsoil and other organic matter shall be incorporated into the subgrade soils of the
graded site by ripping and disking. This amended topsoil layer should be a minimum of 12
inches in thickness.
2. The pH level within the generalized root zone of plants to be established should be tested and
brought to within a range of 5.5 to 7.0.
3. Following preparation of the topsoil layer, a slow release nitrogen fertilizer (granulated) should
be uniformly spread and incorporated within the topsoil across the mitigation area, to achieve a
coverage of approximately 200 pounds per acre.
4. All substantial roots and other deleterious materials shall be removed from the topsoil prior to
application of fertilizer and/or planting.
5. Areas compacted by foot or vehicle traffic shall be retitled and aerated prior to planting.
8
Kersey Valley Landfill - Mitigation Plait
ECS Project G-2 757
. I ugust 20, 1999
10.0 PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
Planting
The general specifications concerning planting procedures are as follows:
Planting shall occur during the active growing season, which will be defined as that period
between April 1 and September 30, or as determined by the appropriate landscape contractor
based on individual plant species type and availability.
The top of the plant rootball shall be set even with or slightly above the existing grade and then
covered with an additional 3"-4" of organic mulch.
3. No planting shall occur in frozen soil or when the ambient soil temperature is below 41o F.
4. Plants stored at the site shall not remain unplanted for longer than three days after delivery. In
addition, the plants should be stored in a protective area upon arrival in order to shade them from
exposure to the sun and drying wind. Plants that cannot be planted immediately upon delivery
shall be kept well shaded, protected, and watered.
5. Rootballs not wrapped by readily biodegradable coverings should be carefully removed prior to
planting. In general, all plants shall be handled in a fashion that will minimize damage to roots
systems and stems.
6. No storage of herbicides or other agricultural chemicals shall be permitted near the plant storage
area.
Plants shall remain upright during transport/storage and all damaged plants shall be removed
from storage whereupon they may be used as mulch unless diseased.
Holes excavated for tree and shrub species shall have vertical sides and a flat bottom. The holes
excavated for the rootball should be a minimum of six inches greater than the diameter of the
rootball. The holes may be excavated either by hand shovel or power auger. Excess soil
generated from the excavation of the holes shall be disposed of randomly over the site.
9. The plants shall be set at the same depth that they were grown in and the trunk should be situated
nearly plumb. Trees and shrubs shall be staked as necessary to prevent them from overturning. If
the plants arrive in containers, the contractor should take care to avoid damage to the root systems
upon removal from the container.
10. Mix one part peatmoss or dehydrated cow manure (as specified) per four parts of native soil as
amendment to support the rootball. Additional slow-release fertilizer consisting of six percent
nitrogen, twenty percent phosphorus, and twenty percent potash should be applied as necessary to
the planted trees and shrubs.
11. All vegetation shall be watered the day after planting and thereafter as necessary to ensure
survival.
Kersei, Vallev Landfill - Aliligation Plain
GCS Project G-2'787
August 20, 1999
12. Trees should be planted in random patterns with the appropriate shrub species interspersed
between them. Trees should be planted with a minimum spacing of ten feet and a maximum
spacing of twenty feet. Trees will be planted as indicated in the schedule provided. Shrub species
should be planted with a minimum spacing of five feet and a maximum spacing of fifteen feet.
Shrubs will be planted as indicated in the vegetation schedule.
13. Emergents will be planted in the eastern fringe area at 24 inches on center in random patterns.
Planting details for emergent seedlings are also included on the attached plan. Emergent species
will not be planted within the tree and shrub zone since this vegetation will recolonize naturally
and then be shaded out as the forested wetland matures.
Materials
Wetlands vegetation shall consist of native species that are nursery grown in accordance with
current professional standards under environmental conditions similar to those expected to be
prevalent on the proposed mitigation site.
The plants provided by the contract nursery shall be sound, healthy, and vigorous. They shall be
free of disease, pests, eggs, or larva, and shall have a healthy, developed root system.
The specific plants selected for this mitigation project are indicated on the vegetation schedule
and shall be grown under contract specifically for this project.
4. Trees planted within the mitigation area shall be a minimum of one-year old and shall consist of
fast-growing species so that there is rapid canopy development and less exposure to extensive
attack by herbivores and disease.
The contractor retained for the mitigation effort should determine the source of the plants prior to
the commencement of the project. The nursery contractor for the supply of the wetland
vegetation must reserve the plant material for this project and assure the supply. Upon arrival at
the site, all plants shall be color-coded and labeled for their future identification.
Plant species may be substituted as required based on availability of nursery stock at time of
planting or upon approval by the environmental consultant or landscape contractor.
All replacements shall consist of plants of the same kind and size as originally planted or as
necessary to match surviving plants of the same planting group. All costs shall be borne by the
landscape contractor except for replacements resulting from loss or damage due to vandalism or
acts of neglect on the part of others, as may be determined by the environmental consultant or
landscape contractor.
All plant materials in transit to the site during delivery shall be covered to prevent drying out or
damage to the root system.
Container-grown stock shall have been grown within the container long enough for the root
system to have developed sufficiently to hold the surrounding soil in place. The size of each
rootball shall be commensurate with the overall size of the plant.
10
Kerscy Vallev Ljmd dl - Alitigation Plant
EC'S Project G-31787
August 30, 1999
11.0 MAINTENANCE
Maintenance shall begin immediately after planting and shall continue until acceptance. Upon
completion and prior to acceptance, the landscape contractor shall remove from the site excess
soil and debris and any other damage resulting from planting operations.
Replace unsuccessful transplants or dead vegetation at the beginning of the second growing
season.
Tree protective devices consisting of wire or plastic mesh guards, or suitable repellants should be
used to prevent grazing or similar damage by herbivores (e.g. beavers). Mesh guards are usually
more expensive but offer lower maintenance costs. Repellant chemicals such as Ro-Pel or
MAGIC CIRCLE can be applied at regular intervals to the base of the tree and along the trunk.
As an alternative, it may be desirable to completely fence-in the mitigation area during the initial
stages of its development.
4. A written monitoring and management plan should be implemented to observe the progress of the
wetlands mitigation area and to determine whether the established success criteria have been
achieved during the first one to five years following completion of planting activities. The
success criteria will be considered as having been met if 85% of the proposed mitigation area has
been successfully graded to pond and/or saturate to within six to twelve inches of the surface with
sufficient frequency to support 80% of the reestablished vegetation following a period of one
year. A site visit should be conducted by the environmental consultant at least once a year over a
period of five years. During these visits observations of the condition, composition, density, and
wildlife utilization of the plant species present, and measurements and observations of the
groundwater levels and surface hydrologic conditions should be made in detail. A report should
then be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency detailing the observations made during
each of these site visits including problems encountered and corrective measures to be
implemented, if necessary.
The landscape contractor and/or nursery contracted to supply and/or plant the vegetation at the
site shall provide a written maintenance/replacement agreement that will be effective for a period
of one year following completion of planting. The maintenance shall include periodic watering,
weeding application of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides where appropriate.
The management of the mitigation area should be performed by a firm with expertise in the
stewardship of wetland systems.
11
Kersey Valle-1, Lam4ill - Mitigation Plan
ECS Pro/cct G-:787
Allgilst 20, 1999
12.0 PLANTING SCHEDULE
Zone 1: Dee Pool
Species Quantitv Size
Wild Celery 20 Tubers, cheesecloth sinkers
Zone 2A: Low Marsh
Species Quantity Size
Duck Potato 250 Containers or eat of
Pickerelweed 200 Containers or eat of
Arrow Arum 175 Containers or eat of
Wild Rice 120 Containers or eat of
Zone 2B: Hlgh Marsh
Species Quantity Size
Common 3 Square 300 Containers or eat of
Softstem bulrush 300 Containers or eat of
Lizards Tail 100 Containers or eat of
Sweet Flag 100 Containers or eat of
Rice Cutgrass 100 Containers or eat of
Sedge Spp. 100 Containers or eat of
Zone 3: Shoreline
Species Quanti Size
Blueflag Iris 225 bulbs Container
Switchgrass over Red Fescue 100 lbs. per acre
Button Bush 6 Container
Black willow 12 F Caliper container
Zone 4: Riparian
Species Quantity Size
Tall fescue, wildlife mix 100 lbs/acre H droseed
Button Bush 6 Container
Green Ash 6 1" B&B
Arrowood Viburnum 15 Container on embankments
Silky Dogwood 6 1" B&B
12
Kersey Valley Landfill - Mitigation Plan
F.CS Project G-2787
August 20, 1999
o All plants shall be one year of age and grown under wet cultivation conditions.
o Planting patterns shall be random and mixed for different species.
o Plant locations will be established and staked prior to planting by environmental consultant.
o Rootballs shall be grown in peat with root systems unbound.
o A wet seed mix consisting of redtop and roughstalk bluegrass shall be applied beneath the tree
and shrub plantings.
o Emergent plants shall be provided in 2" containers. Trees and shrubs shall be provided in 2 to
3-gallon containers or wrapped in burlap.
o Bare root and ball and burlap plants should not be planted in the fall.
All plant material should be guaranteed by the contractor to be in a healthy and vigorous condition at the
beginning of the second growing season, following acceptance by the environmental consultant or
landscape contractor.
13
Kerscy Vallc?t' Landfill - Alitigatior Plan
ECS Projccl G-2'787
August 30, 1999
13.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil
borings and field investigations and tests performed at locations as indicated on the Field Test Location
Diagram and other information referenced in this report. This report does not reflect any variations which
may occur between the borings. In the performance of the subsurface exploration, specific information is
obtained at specific locations at specific times. However, it is a well known fact that variations in soil and
rock conditions exist on most sites between boring locations and also such situations as groundwater
levels may vary from time to time. The nature and extent of variations may not become evident until the
course of construction. If variations then appear evident, it will become necessary for a reevaluation of the
recommendations for this report after performing on-site observations during the construction period and
noting characteristics and variations.
This report has been prepared in order to provide a basis on which the design plans and specifications
were prepared. The scope is limited to the specific project and locations described herein and our
description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects relative to the proposed
development, stormwater detention ponds, wetlands construction and hydrologic characteristics. In the
event that any change in the nature or location of the proposed construction outlined in this report or the
accompanying plans and specifications, we should be informed so that the changes can be reviewed and
the conclusions of this report modified or approved in writing by the design engineer. It is recommended
that all construction operations dealing with earthwork and construction of the proposed wetlands be
reviewed by an experienced engineer or his representative to provide information on which to base a
decision as to whether the design requirements are fulfilled in the actual construction. If you wish, we
would welcome the opportunity to provide field construction services for you during construction.
It is important to note that the condition of the wetland will depend on numerous and constantly changing
interior and exterior conditions, and is evolutionary in nature. It would be incorrect to assume that the
condition of the wetlands at the end of construction would continue to represent the condition of the
constructed wetlands at some point in the future. Unless we continue care and maintenance and close
inspection, there cannot be any chance that conditions harmful to the continued viability of the wetlands
could be detected.
14
Kcrsey Valley Landfill - hfiligation Plan
ECS Project G-2787
August 20, 1999
APPENDIX
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
FIGURES 1-4
15
I
0
ENGINEERING CONSULTING
SERVICES, LTD.
CALCULATION SHEET
PROJECT: ?-
TITLE:
BY: (DATE: APPROVED BY:
7111
.
FIGURE NO.
?f
JOB NO.
(?
SCALE:
DATE
"nn -D

- 3 Gj `/ l? xt?
2cJ?/oF?" ?oLu.?? ??2?..?! v2r?,-J t??p?._o,/ ? .? J
l G ir
r
ti
-7. q) 4 Pr

PROJECT: r , FIGURE NO, 14 2
TITLE: JOB NO.

SCALE:
ENGINEERING CONSULTING

SERVICES, LTD. BY: DAT
7E.,
APPROVED BY:
DATE
CALCULATION SHEET `
>
r? r
z
`=l _ ?1 vim! Py?:
-r
F/? '-
?; ' 4 4-'-7- . /-?; Z SQ .if c
??- .o?zX.Zd ,0 (7C?/?P? PC
?.?rQci-,?oz7? Q?

0?

PROJECT: FIGURE NO.

TITLE: JOB NO.
/
L
7 27S 7
?
?
J SCALE
r
l
_ :
ENGINEERING CONSULTING

SERVICES, LTV. BY: DATE: APPROVED BY: DATE
CALCULATION SHEET 7
xzl

X 15 /7
X43???
/c)
35
?• ?? r ?? ??i ?j / / c=am J
Mitcnei- Grove
-PrL
??. ? I`'.?. -? .1 - . ? _ o? ? ? 3?cGr?^e •, _ 1. `C V ? %? ' ' ^ i),•? _
1 ?J p . i
- / • I ? LYE •!? ` ? _ ` _
17 .32a
- -• - -
' ?`°` - ??
cc
`?/?? y ? _ ?' 111 GO `_'1? / .^? . = ? \\ ('' c(QJ Y ? -?
? VII", `1. r^/? r ?_ ? ti_ ^ :11? ? ^? r 1???' _V i ?. `.? ? // / / r'? ?-1,,.__/?', _ j
JC6CI st 3
dC0 ? ? ???? ? III I'??.? ? • 1 I ?
7 70
SOURCE: ECSLTO FIGURE 1
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC NIAP, HIGH SITE LOCATION MAP
POINT EAST, NC QUADRANGLE, KERSEY VALLEY LANDFILL
DATED 190 PHOTOREVISED 1932 HIGH POINT, NC
E?TGINEERI?iG
SCALE: I"= 2,000' CONSULTING ECS PROJECT G-3737
ISERVICES, LTD
I
D
ENGINEERING CONSULTING
SERVICES, LTD.
CALCULATION SHEET
G
Y
PROJECT:
TITLE:
BY: DATE: APPROVED BY:
i

cl
-? -?
77
Or
r

'M
l
L -( All
FIGURE NO. 12--r4
JOB NO.
Z73
SCALE:
DATE
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
• . and Geological Services
February 7, 2000
PAYS, F
Mr. John Dorney r
NCDENR - DWQ ?EC'E ?` ?.
4401 Reedy Creek Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: Individual Permit Application
Kersey Valley Landfill
High Point, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Dorney,
The purpose of this letter is to transmit the enclosed Individual Permit Application for the
above referenced site. The permit was submitted to the Corps of Engineers (COE) on
October 21, 1999 and the public notice was issued on November 15, 1999 (Action ID #
199920165). This public notice did not reach your office, and a letter requesting the
appropriate fee was not received by the City of High Point. John Thomas of the COE is
mailing the public notice again, however to speed the delayed review process we are
submitting the seven copies you would normally require for a Nationwide Permit along
with the required application fee.
The attached fee for $200.00 was determined based on the acreage of impact (0.20 acres)
and the lack of perennial stream impacts. The total stream channel impacts consist of 200
feet of intermittent and storm water channel.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at your
earliest convenience at [phone] x133.
Sincerely,
G. N. Richardson & Associates, Inc.

Philip May
Staff Scientist - ?.
425 N. BOYLAN AVENUE • RALEIGH, NC 27603 • TEL. [phone] • FAX [phone] • WWW.GNRA.COM
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
• • and Geological Services
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
I,
If enclosures are not as noted or
if you require additional information,
please notify us immediately PAYMENT FEB T 7
DATE: Z/?/pp RECEIVED By: US Mail [ ]
Overnight Mail ( ]
TO: 30?,,• pow, p W Hand ,,<
II Other [ ]
RE: P 1412 l9IT?2_0I69
V1 t
We are sending you the following items:
COPIES ITEM DESCRIPTION
-77
I wo.

These are transmitted as checked below:
[ ] For Information [ ] Approved as Noted
[ ] As Requested [ J Approved as Noted-Revise and Resubmit
[ ] For Review and Comments [ J Not Approved-Revise and Resubmit
[ ] For Revision [ ] For Record and File
[ ] For Approval Submittal
[ ] Approved [ ] For Recording
REMARKS: 4
cc:
i nature
425 N. BOYLAN AVENUE 0 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603 • TEL. [phone] • FAX. [phone] • VA1/W.GNRA.COM
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
• • • -• ..
PAYMENT
October 21, 1999 RECE?VE?
B t f-
Mr. John Thomas
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Array Corps of Engineers
608 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761
RE: Individual Permit Application
Kersev Valley Landfill - Phase 3
High Point, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Thomas,
On behalf of the City of High Point, G. N. Richardson and Associates, Inc. (GNR.A) has
prepared the enclosed application for an Individual Permit for the construction of Phase 3
of the Kersey Valley Landfill. This project will impact 0.20 acres of wetlands and 200
feet of channel, however due to previous impacts of approximately 7.4 acres (based on
1989 delineation methodology) an individual permit is required. The application includes
Engineering Form 4345, project plans, and a proposed mitigation plan for the wetland
impacts. Also included are the wetland delineation and letters received from other
agencies during our Solid Waste Permit preparation. This letter summarizes the project,
the unavoidable wetland impacts, and the wetland mitigation for those impacts.
The landfill will be constructed along a ridge and slope Nvest of the existing landfill
Phases 1 and 2. Landfill construction will include a compacted low-permeability soil
liner, a geomembrane liner, and a leachate collection system to prevent leachate
outbreaks from the waste placement. Other associated construction will include a new
access road and sediment basins. The road and basins have been designed to avoid any
wetland impacts. The purpose of the landfill is to expand the current landfill and
continue to provide the area residents with low cost waste disposal for an additional seven
years. At this time, alternate landfill sites are not practical due to the costs associated
with moving the infrastructure. Our intent is to use all practical space at the current
landfill site in order to keep solid waste disposal costs to a minimum for the High Point
area residents.
Mr. John Fho:mas
October' 1. 1999
Pace 2
The impacted wetlands consist of a shallow vegetated swale along the slope and a
channel in the southeast corner of the site. The primary impact will be the swale, which
is detailed in the attached wetland assessment from ECS, Inc. The channel will be filled
above the significance point that was determined by yourself and Mr. Ken Jolley and
therefore does not require mitigation.
The landfill has been designed to minimize wetland impacts in a number of ways. First,
we will avoid impacting the bottomland wetlands around the tributary of Richland Creek,
and the pond and fringe wetlands to the west of the site (refer to Figure 2). Also, the tie
in to Phases 1 and 2 has been curved to the north to minimize impacts to the channel. We
will be filling the upper portions of the channel down to flag #344, which represents the
significance point where the channel begins to show evidence of aquatic habitat. Above
that point, the channel consists of mostly stormwater runoff from Phases 1 and 2.
The attached wetland assessment letter reviews the basic wetland functions in both the
vegetated swale and the wetland mitigation site. ECS recommends a 1:1 mitigation ratio
for this site based on their findings and mitigation design. Please note that the 0.25 acre
wetland impacts mentioned in the letter is based on early estimates, the actual 0.20 acre
impact was calculated from the final designs included in this submittal.
The assessment letter is presented to justify the potential 2:1 mitigation ratio that we have
previously discussed. In addition, if the mitigation plan is acceptable, we also request a
response regarding the crediting of the additional acreage in the mitigation site
(approximately 0.4 acres) for minimal impacts foreseen during the construction of future
landfill cells. We estimate this future impact to be approximately 0.1 1 acres in the area to
the north of the wetland mitigation site.
As mentioned during our conversation on September 30, 1999, we are aware that the
project falls within the Randleman Reservoir Watershed, and therefore under jurisdiction
of the stream buffer rules for that watershed. GNRA contacted several agencies regarding
this issue in early 1999, prior to the rules being implemented.
According to a phone conversation between Mr. David Garrett, P.G. and Asst. Attorney
General Kathy Cooper on February 18, 1999, the project meets the vested rights
requirements of the buffer rules for this reservoir for the following reasons. First, the
initial design and site investigation was performed from 1997 through February 1999,
prior to implementation of the rules. Also, the city purchased, rezoned, and acquired a
special use permit for the landfill site on January 7, 1999. Further documentation
regarding this issue is available upon request.
Mr. Jahn Thomas
Octobcr 2) 1. 1999
Pace 3
Please call us at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or if additional
information is necessary for your review.
Sincerely,
G. N. Richardson & .associates, Inc.
7-
Philip May
Staff Scientist
Pieter K. Scheer, P.E.
Project ;Manager
attachments
cc: David Garrett, P.G.
Duane Jarman, City of High Point
Steve Pendry, City of High Point
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
3 ('/ /Z ?_:) Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of InformationOperations and Reports, 121 5 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC
20503. Please DO NO RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting,
navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application
for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be
processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITF-,115 I THRU a TO BE FILLED RP THE. CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED 14. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
/ITVWf RFinII'7Y) RF F11 /Fn R)' 4 P111. l('.4 VT)
APPLIC ANT'S NAM
Duane Jarman - Solid Waste Services Manager 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (ar agent is not required)
City of High Point G. N. Richardson & Associates, Inc.
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
P.O. Box 230 425 North Boylan Avenue
High Point, North Carolina 27261 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS W/AREA CODE 1 0 AGENT'S PHONE NOS. WiAREA CODE

a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 336-883-321 b. Business 919-828-0577
11 STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby autnorize, G. N. Richardson & Associates, Inc. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.

APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
I/,/
TE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
1 2. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructrons)
Kersey Valley Landfill - Phase III
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (ifapp)cabie)
Tributarv of Richland Creek
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Guilford NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (seeinstrucnons)
LAT LONG: 35 57'22" / 79 56' 17"
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (i/ applicable)
City of High Point
Kersey Valley Landfill
3748 East Kivett Drive
High Point, NC 27260
.l' at- - 1.,.,.1611 :c -- rho right
1 8 Nature of Activity =es_ - _ ,o)uc: "e a ea:'
Construction of a 13 acre lined municipal solid N? aste landfill consisting of compacted soil liner and
geomembrane liner. Also, construction of sediment basins, diversion channels, and access road to the landfill
(total project footprint is 20 acres). Wetland impacts will occur during the pre-grading and construction of
the structural fill subgrade for the liner. The landfill is an expansion of current Phases 1 and 2 to the east.
1 9. Project Purpose (Des cr;.?e the reason or purpose of the project, see instr¢t on s)
To increase landfill capacity at the site and continue disposal of ?Municipal Solid Waste within the local area
using most cost effective expansion plan for local government. Other sites have been evaluated but
considered cost prohibitive. Construction to begin in April 2000 and be completed by December 2000.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Filling small vegetated swale and channel in order for the soil subgrade (below the landfill liner) to be at least
4 feet above seasonal high ground Nvater (per Solid `Waste Regulations).
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Compacted soil (structural fill) - 1600 c.y. (average 4' thickness over surface area)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled ;see iPstru?hons)
0.20
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes " No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
Land clearing (not in wetland areas) and soil stockpiling commenced in Summer 1999.
In' 24. Addresses of Adjoining Properly Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whese Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list),
see attached list
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NCDENR SWS Site Suitability Study 10/98 Pending
City of High Point Zoning Approval 98-55 01/07/99
City of High Point Special Use Permit 99-09 01/07/99
` Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly authorized agent of the applicant.
J?--
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGN RE OF NT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 1 1 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1 001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than S10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Kersey Valley Landfill Phase 3
Individual Application
PART 24
Adjacent Property Owners
1
2
3
4
5
6
Name
Hubert Floyd
John Floyd
C. G. Douthit
Charles W. Horton
Praise & Worship Center
Jamey's Garage
Street Address
1220 Jackson Lake Road
1214 Jackson Lake Road
1210 Jackson Lake Road
3712 East Kivett Drive
3718 East Kivett Drive
3720 East Kivett Drive
City State Zip
High Point NC 27263
High Point NC 27263
High Point NC 27263
High Point NC 27263
High Point NC 27263
Hiuh Point NC 27263
_NS
71
?\ o''J )J \a?" ?. _ I/??\• of 'il
LlLil
?l& ??1• ???_ ???i //I "ice.\? ?'? "?if /, ??y?,-o/
,
j-<r" i ,,??-?-?s_ ? - / , ?. •? -.? ? ? 1?: 1 ??? - ?' • _-, mss'---
It 2
r4l
.??? _,•il t? ? `i-? or ?: ,?i'? ? CC ??' r' ~ ??y'•. ram„ ? - _
M EL
??: ?? /?\,• ?_ ate` \`??? s?"-?,f -? ?"?rJ :r?r? - ?? ?\??? ?/l,
-1 7-
"Al
.. ,. .l ? _?Ht .•r _'?/i0 ?eg `ll '•? '_ ?,a??c _.?/Y_-y \x `??-??^??v
1 131II tl. rat) -'`?'? ?•?,?: ? ) r^ \ ,? ,,__ ", ,_-/__`__ rJ/_ /r"? -
.yn r mi,v\•`,??` / k ?1?•"?ij k l -?„?? '•?I ,.k t?P \ U t^?` •t?!r \ r?
OF-
t 4C-
KERSEY VALLEY LANDFILL - PHASE 3 G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES, INC,
HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLI'A
... __.u a :.u?.:W .._»....
VICINITY MAP (USGS High Point East, NC)? ??• _ r.y' .n rw :nue s le yh; ivc 1h ar li n
:57 7
LAT/LONG: 35 57' 22" / 79 56' 17" ti Fa ?,,. 828 3899
V' - '-D 3Y: 4 ? CJ iGU??E NO. [As shown PWM PKS 10/5/99 HPOINT-11 1 Toporgure.ppt
SCALE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. FILE NAME .
i"=inn' c T.1 P W M SFPT. 1999 HPOINT-11 2 321-A0050

<K
U
C
WU
N
G
(L!) NOLLYA313
KERSEY VALLEY LANDFILL-PHASE
HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS SECTIONS
SCALE: I DRAWN BY: I CHECKED BY: I DATE:
3 G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
425 N. Boylan Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina
(919)-828-0577 Fax:[phone] www.gnra.com
PROJECT NO. I FIGURE NO. FILE NAME
9
-5
I -
its
I

U
I ?_ N N m U
? NO C

F W CL O -
= 1 1 g m
M 1 rx
U
1 ? 6
I
-1 - a
1 ~1 s® -
i
s
F
1
C 1
i
i
i
KERSEY VALLEY LANDFILL-PHASE 3
HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
LINER CROSS SECTION
SCALE: DRAWN BY: I CHECKED BY: DATE:

1
O
WU N
V7 (n U ?
O
O
2' W J -
? a-
? ? W -
O O
m
W 2
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
425 N. Boylan Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina
(919)-828-0577 Fax,(919)-828-3899 www.gnra.com
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. FILE NAME
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD.
p Geotechnical • Construction Materials • Environmental
Mr. Philip W. May
G.N. Richardson &. Associates
425 North Bolan A%enue
Ra'ei,h. NC 1-603
Re=erence: Kersey `'alley yiSW Landfill
High Point, Nonh Carolina
ECS Project G-? 7S7
Dear Mr. May:
October 6. 1999
Engineering Consulting Services. Ltd. (ECS) recently completed a mitigation plan for the Kersey Valley
Landfill. The proposed impact s to 025 acres of jurisdictional %\etlands located in the landfill expansion
a.-fa. This area is located on a side slope and is dominated by faculta-ive species consisting of red maple.
:.beet «uln, vi-g-.:ia creeper. <-- mbriar and poison iv-.
T-:-.° mitiuation a.-ca is locate.] :n a 1.45 acre sediment basin on the east side of Kersey Valley Road,
approximately 2.000 feet sou-;n of its int-crscotion wiL7 Kivett Drive :n Hi«h Point. .fin unnamed trlbu:ary
of Richland Creek crosses the _ediment basin. Approximately 0.65 acres of the sediment basin ha%e been
de^:tified as iu.sdictional %%f:lands. Ho%te\er, some portions of tine jurisdictional wetlands are not
derlain by h}dric soils. Tl e wetland area is dominated by obligate species including cattails, rushes.
s,-d2-.s and black willow.
T.-.e 0.25 acre %v-,tland located in the expansion area has marginal value. Due to its small size and
andscape position, its effect on water quality is minimal. The mitigation area s located in a sediment
basin. After construction, the majority of the sediment basin will have the hydrology necessary to support
a %ariety of obligate wetland plants and to create hydnc soil conditions throughout the basin. The micro-
:opgraphy will result in %vildlife diversity. Its location in an existing sediment basin «-ill have a eater
positive effect on %yater quality than the wetland that is to be impacted.
Although the proposed mitigation will result in the creation of approximately 0.80 acres of wetlands, it is
our opinion that a mitigation ratio of 1:1 is sufficient and should be acceptable to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The remaining 0.55 acres of created wetlands should be used to mitigate for future impacts
esulting from landfill expansion.
ECS appreciates the opportunity to provide our services on this project. Please contact us at (336) 856-
%150 if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD.
A j
Denise N Poulos, LSS
Principal Scientist
VSte hen J. osselin, P.G.
Principal Geologist
-C Dundas Circle, Greensboro, NC 27407 • [phone] • Fax (336) 8>6-7160
J ;
ION
IT
TY ACQUIS
D FUTURE PROPER
' UNDER ?C)IDS@ERATol
II - 5AS I?l I .
I ? ? D - ', , ? ?o? DIES
t Svc ?GATE _ ' °;'°p RESE VED'.
fl FUTURE,-- PERMITTED AREA
FOR FUTURE MS&/ ? I.
OWN
REGULATORY BUFFERSH
U
if i I
I O . '
?J? r
l/
t
C I n ,\N\1,Vnr n1 0 L`?
I J ?1; U ? l 0. C V
L ?, ? 11it o v m ?- l1?
v
z
itOm ? i` '? z
\t

1
J
o;
?o€
m
1 K K
m?
n
j >
ytin 1'.
m

J r

r 1v
I ', II I
J
y

i i
o
-- a „?a :?[, ..R s;tl? - -------- - _--- - ------- , 1? - j 1
o . sv
fi
?
_! ? e I
1
??
p%q \

a? ? r ?F3: g?"'-
•",} ?4?-f S[a?a a ?
P -7 m 9 Lga a ?` E ? Iz
%
a S E e 10 \?
a! ? 5
€::;
3
? 1
e - F-?
?
4
;
?
e yip Q
Yt

j '~c
K, N
_-N`4TION _ _ sEY VALLEY s.c IG.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CITY OF HIGH PC!k ^N C.
G. N. Richardson & .associates, Inc., 425 N. Boylan Ave., Raleigh, NC, 27503 [phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project;&,_- Kersey Vallee Landfill - Phase III
Applicant/Owner: Cite of Hi;h Point
I nvestigator. Philip stay
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID: WL
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes m Transect ID: 700
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes m Plot ID: 70OW
(If needed, exoialn on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dom,nant Pant S^e- es
. Acer rubrum St-'9t,im
T ".ator
FAC D-;m .a-i: Plan' See: es Stratum Indicator
2 Liquidambar stN racitlua T FAC+
3 Acer rubrum S FAC
4 Parthenocissus quingefolia
5 Smilax rotundifolia V
V FAC
FAC
3
a Vitis aesti%alis V FA C-
7 Parthenocissus quingefolia H FAC
e Toxicodendron radicans H FAC _

Percent at Dominant Species ina; are C_K. FACV l o
texc!udrno =AC-1 r F.,,,
87.E ;o
Remarks
Mostly FAC speices.
NVnpnl nr_V
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
- Aerial Photographs Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
X _ Other
_ No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
X Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: V Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water. (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
-
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in,) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12 (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Date. 7/1X98
County: Guilford Coun
State: NC
r2'7 Annendix B Blank and Example Data Forms
piot ID'. 700W
SOILS
r,napUnit Nan- E n o n clay loam ??ell drained
(Senes and Pnase) Drama-.e Class.
Field Observations
l ltic ha lud:tlfs
Taxonomy:Sccgroup) p Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Droflle Description
pep th rJ atrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
?inChes) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure. etc
0-10 A 10YR 41 10YR 416 50'/./11/Promin. Loam
10-16 B 1018 6'1 ?>.Y 5'6 40'/u/N1/Promin. Sandy clav
Hydnc Soil Indicators.
_ H sls?l Concret ors
_ h s;;c _o;::'2-'on _ High O marnc Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sods
_ Sul, d,c Door _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
A0-j;- %"c.stve Reo.me _ Listed on Local Hydnc Soils List
Red., 7g Condmons _ Listed on r;at oval Hydnc ScJs Lest
vi°v°d or Low Chroma Colas Other i=xpla;n in Remarks)
Reman.s
ReducinL, conditions from 10 to 16 inches using a-a-dipNridNI solution. MRCS field indicator F3 (Depleted matrix).
\?rTl AND D=T=rZMINATION
iydrophyt;c Ve.je:ation Present?
VJetland Hycroicgy Present? r°c
Hydnc Soils Present?
No
No
No
Is this Sampl;g Point Within a Vvet and? rc,c No
Remarks:
r end of Around water seep. above south
rtv line.
Approved oy nuu?r,?c or ac
Appendix B Blank and Example Data Forms B3
G. N. Richardson & Associates, Inc., 425 N. Boylan Ave., Raleigh, NC, 27603 [phone]
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project'Site: Kersey Vallc? Landfill - Phase III
Applicant/Owner: City of High Point
I nvestioator. Philip MaV
Date: 7/1/98
County: Guilford Coun
State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (:? No Community ID: UPL
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ® Transect ID: 700
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ® Plot ID: 70OU
(If needed, exDlain on reverse.)
VC(•_GTLTIr)NI
Go^, rz- o ?- S^ec es
Liriodendron tulipifera Stra tum
T I,)d:cator
FAC Dom,nant Plant Ste ,es Stratum L?d;cator
1 _
2 Pinus ? ir2iniana T Ni
3 ,luniperus cir2iniana T FACL'-
a Liquidambar stN raciflua S FA C+ •,
Platanus occidentalis S FAC\N'- ,

e Lonicera japonica H FAC-
; Liquidambar st\raciflua H FAC+ ;
8
Percent ac Dorm.-,ant Speoies tna: a e ^9L, FACW or FAC 57 1

Re'rar'S
uvno?i nrv
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aenal Photographs _ Inundated
Other - Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_
No Retarded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: _
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
th
f S
W
t
D
^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
er.
ep
o
u
ace
a
-Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAGNeutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No hvdroloa indicators.
R? Appendix B Blank and Example Data Forms
Plot ID'. -0OU

J V I L J
Map undNa_a Enun claN loam
DrainaaeClass: ll drained
(Series and ?rase)
Fie!d Observations
Taxoncmy S _ ^cp) Ultic hapludalfs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile D-c-7tion'.
Matrix Color
Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
Depth
tn?tles) Horizon (tAunsell Moist ) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure. etc
t
0_6 A 10 R 5,6 Fine sandf loam
6.16 B IOl R 43 Sande loam
Hydnc Soil Irc' .o's.
;• ; _ Concretions
- H -,V- .o;rocon _ High Organic Content in Surface Laver in Sandy Soils
poor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
4c- t.17s1u"e Re---e _ Listed on Local Hyonc Sods Lst
_
7-0ndU3715 _ L:s'e:! on Na; ona! H.:dnc Sc,s L!st
evej or Low Cnroma :c c-. 0:ner =xo:am in Remarrs)
Remar,.s
INo h\dric soil indicators
Hpproveu uy nl1 v-- -'--
B3
Appendix 6 Blank and Example I-aia Forms
%t\=-l /. NI7) R.T.-Z)I\A INI LTIt-)NI
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 1999'_0165 Count"': Guilford
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Properrv Agent G.N. Richardson R Assoc.
ONN ner Citv of High Point c!o qtr. Duane Jarman Philip May
Address P.O. Box 230. High Point. North CarolinaAddress-425 N. Boylan Avenue. Raleivh. ?C 27603
27261
Telechone :Number 336
Authorized
Telephone :Number 919 828-0577
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.) City of High Point's
proposed expansion of the Kersey Valley Land Fill site located off of Jackson Lake Road, adjacent
to an unnamed tributan- of Richland Creek, near High Point, in Guilford County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following apply:
There are %\etlands on the above d-.7o-lbed properrv w}Uch eve wrongly suLaest should be delineated and surveyed.
The = %,Ved ,vetland lines must e verified by our staff before the Corps %N'll make a final jurisdictional
determmation on your property.
0 Beca ise of the size of your properrand our present workload, our identification and delineation of your wetlands
cannot be accomplished in a timely manner. You may -,vish to obtain a consultant to obtain a more timely
delineation of the %\etlands. Once the consultant has flagged a ,vetland line on the property, Corps staff vAill
review it- and, if it is accurate, we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for final approval be the
Corps. The Corps %sill not make a final jurisdictional determination on your property «ithout an approved survey.
The i etlands on roar lot have been delineated and the limits of the Corps jurLsdiction have been e_ plained to
1 oir. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations this determination ntay be relied upon
for a period not to exceed fire rears from the date of this note rcation.
0 There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements of
section 404 of the Clean `Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
0 The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of Coastal
Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the
Army permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A
permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you
have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact
John Thomas at 9191- 876 - 8441 extension 25
Project Manager Signature
Date Dec. 16. 1998 Expiration Date
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE «'ETL_4ND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM.
Sep 24 99 10:40p
RC,_pENR
JAMES 8. HUNTJR..
GOVERNOR
sue- ??.? .Y tr.
pRy; ?ctu? K MCKNO-?.Y
.r.;=.i
David Garrett
919 231 1059
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Or
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
August 4, 1998

W G. David Garrett, P.G.
G.N. Richardson and Associates
425 N. BoylanAvenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
SUBJECT: Rare Species, I-1'rgh QualityNatural Communities, and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas at the Proposed Landfill
Development Site, Hgh Point, Guilford County, NC.
Dear Mr. Garrett:
p.2
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NC NHP) does not have records of
known rare species, high quality natural communities, scenic rivers, or Significant
landfill
Natural Heritage Areas occurring
oinGuilford CountytNorth Carob a.
development site, High Point,
Enclosed is a list of rare species and high quality natural communities that are known
to occur in Guilford County. If suitable habitat for any of these species occurs in the
project area, then those species may be present at the project site. In order to
determine if rare species are present, a survey would be necessary.
Please do not hesitate to contact met the address below or call me at (919) 715-
8703 if you have any questions or need
Sincerely,
Susan Reece Giles
Information Specialist
Natural Heritage Program
Enclosure
Sep 24 99 10:41p David Garrett 919 231 1059 p.3
Sc:::NTIFIC NAu'a COMMON NAME

v:-l if or•d
vertebrates
k-bystoma talpoideum Mole Salamander
1-heo5toma collis Carolina Darter
Naliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle
:anius ludovicianus ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike
Vascular plants
Berberii canadensis American Barberry
cardamine dissecta Dissected Toothwort
collinsonia tuberosa Piedmont Horsebalm
Gnaphalium helleri var helleri Heller's Rabbit Tobacco
par:henium auricular=n Glade Wild Quinine •
Platanthera peramoena Purple Fringeless orchid
Quercus prinoides Dwarf Chinquapin Oak
smilax lasioneura a carrion-flower
:hernopsis mollis sensu stricto Appalachian Golden-banner
Natural communities
Basic Mesic Forest (Piedmont -
Subtype)
Basic Oak--Hickory Forest -
Low Elevation Seep -
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial -
Forest
Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest -
Upland Depression Swamp Forest -
Guilford*
Vascular pla=ts
Aoalinis dec°n'_oba Piedmont Gerardla
STATE FED. STATE GLOaA-L
STATUS STATUS RANK RANK
SC - S2 GS
SC - 53 G3
E T S2B,S2N G4
SC - S3B,53N G5T5
SR - 52 G3
C - 52 G4?
C - S1 G3G4
SR - 52? G45ST3
C - S1 G3?Q
C - S1 G5
C - SH G5
C - SH as
SR - S2 G3G4
- - S2 G5T3
- - 53 G4
- - 53 G4?
- - 55 G5
- - 51 G2
- - 52 G3
SR - 52? G4Q

Sep P4 99 10:41p
Pav i d Garret

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hurt Jr., Gov.-nor
Betty Rav McCain, S.o-::ay
August 25, 1993
G. David Garrett, P.G.
Vice President
G. N. Richardson & Associates
425 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh NC 27603
7e: Froposed expansion of existing landfill, High
Fo?int vicinity, Gui!ford County, ER 99-7192
Dear fvir. Garrett:
p.4
I
Division or .Archivcs and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for yo:.r ictter of July 31 , 1993, concerning the above project.
1'Ve ha, e conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
Tine above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance w th Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank yc j for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
D3:slw
919 231 1059
cc: Jim Coffey, Division of Waste Management, DENR
REPORT OF FIELD INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN FOR THE KERSEY
VALLEY LANDFILL WETLANDS CONSTRUCTION
PREPARED FOR:
G.N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES
425 N. Bob lan Ave., SUITE 451
HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
ECS, LTD. PROJECT NUMBER G2787
AUGUST 20, 1999
D
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, LTD.
Geotechnical Construction Materials, Environmental
Mr. Philip W. May
G.N. Richardson & Associates
425 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Reference: Kersey Valley MSW Landfill
Mitigation Plan
High Point, North Carolina
ECS Project G-2787
Dear Mr. May:
August 20, 1999
Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS) is pleased to submit this wetlands mitigation plan and
specifications for the Kersey Valley Landfill. This mitigation plan was authorized by your acceptance of
ECS Proposal No. 1755-P, dated February 26, 1999.
We have enjoyed working on this phase of your project. Please contact Denise Poulos at [phone]
or Ben Wilson at [phone] if you have questions or if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING CONSLZTING SERVICES, LTD.
/'
J.
Denise M. Poul d 75
os,
LSS
Principal Scientist
nja V. Wilson, P.E.
Princ' al Engineer/Vice President
tit: 11t;I"'
s%'
d
eL?
* 1111-4
.,?, tae+0o-•r:.N P.O.Box 12015, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709* [phone]• Fax[phone] www.ecsliniited.coni

Offices: Baltimore, MD • Frederick, MD Aberdeen, MD • Chantilly,VA • Winchester, VA • Fredericksburg, VA • Richmond, VA • Roanoke, VA Danville, VA
Norfolk, VA • Williamsburg, VA Charlotte, NC • Raleigh, NC Greensboro, NC • Wilmington, NC • Greenville. SC Atlanta, GA • Chicago, IL
Kersey Vallev Landfill - hllligation Plait
ECS Project G-2787
August 20, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................1
2.0 MITIGATION SITE CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................................. ....2
3.0 EXCAVATION AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS .........................................................................3
4.0 HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................ ....3
5.0 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES ................................................................................................... ....4
5.1 Design Methodology ....................................................................................................................... ....4
5.2 Forebay Detention Facility .............................................................................................................. ....4
5.3 Constructed Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... ....4
5.4 Construction Procedures for Constructed Wetlands
and Forebay Detention Facility ....................................................................................................... ....4
6.0 SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENGINEERED FILL FOR WETLAND
AND FOREBAY DIKES SHOWN ON PLANS ....................................................................................5
7.0 SPECIFICATIONS FOR WETLANDS FILL .................................................................................... ....6
8.0 OPERATION PROCEDURES ...............................................................................................................7
8.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................7
8.2 Maintenance Procedures .....................................................................................................................7
9.0 SOIL AMENDMENT AND PREPARATION PROCEDURES ............................................................8
10.0 PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS ..........................................................................................................9
11.0 MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................11
12.0 PLANTING SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................. ..12
13.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ..................................................................................... ..14
ATTACHMENTS:
Calculations
Figure 1- Site Location Map
Figure 2- Clay Dike and Weir Details Sketch
Figure 3- Topo with Drainage Basins
Figure 4- Plan View with Pipe Location and Planting Schedule
Hersey Valley Landitll - Mitigation Plan
ECS Project G-2787
August 20, 1999
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Construction specifications and planting details for the construction of a 0.80-acre wetland are presented
in the mitigation plan, which is summarized below. The proposed mitigation area was selected by
representatives of G.N. Richardson & Associates and the City of High Point. The proposed mitigation
site is located along a tributary to Richland Creek at a point approximately 2,000 feet south of the
intersection of Kivett Drive and Kersey Valley Road in Guilford County, High Point, North Carolina
(Figure 1).
The objectives of this proposed mitigation are to:
1. establish a wetland environment within a lowland area adjacent to the floodplain of the
aforementioned tributary;
2. minimize the disturbance to the existing wetland area associated with the tributary; and
3. achieve a success criteria to allow for the enhanced development of a functional scrub-shrub
wetlands ecosystem.
The proposed mitigation plan includes:
1. excavation and grading specifications necessary to create appropriate elevations for wetland
hydrology and wetland plants (hydrophytes) to develop and emerge;
2. soil preparation and amendment procedures to facilitate ponding and growth of planted
hydrophytes;
3. planting specifications for selected hydrophytes to be established within the mitigation area; and
4. maintenance criteria to assure the success of the created wetland.
kerse)? Faller Lan(lill - Alitigation Plan
ECS Projeel G-' 7 S 7
August 20, 1999
2.0 MITIGATION SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The site is a 1.45 acre sediment basin located on the eat side of Kersey Valley Road, approximately 2,000
feet south of its intersection with Kivett Drive in High Point (Figures 1 and 2). An unnamed tributary of
Richland Creek crosses the site. Approximately 0.65 acres of the sediment basin have been identified as
jurisdictional wetlands. The wetland area is dominated by cattails, rushes, sedges and black willow.
Grading will be necessary within the mitigation area to establish surface elevations that will allow for the
development of ponded ,vater or saturated soil conditions that will support the proposed wetland once the
hydrophytes have been planted. Generally, a functional wetland must be flooded and/or saturated to the
ground surface for at least seven days during the growing season to allow for a successful community of
hydrophytes to emerge and mature. This can be accomplished by grading the area to create a lowland-
type depression and then flooding it from a nearby surface-water source.
Originally, we intended to monitor the shallow ground water conditions in the proposed mitigation area.
However, for purposes of expediency in preparing this plan, an in-depth monitoring study was not
conducted. Three piezometers were installed in the mitigation area. The piezometers were installed to
depths of three to four feet below the ground surface. Groundwater was not detected in the piezometers
during the monitoring period of May 5, 1999 through June 5, 1999. In the absence of a more extensive.
series of groundwater measurements, it is not possible at this time to determine the average seasonal high-
water elevation. However, the proximity of the aforementioned tributary of Richland Creek in
conjunction with seasonal soil saturation via localized precipitation and runoff should provide an effective
hydrologic source for enhancing the pending and saturation of the proposed mitigation area once grading
of the area is complete.
The site is located in a seologic area known as the Carolina Slate Belt. Soils in this area are weathered
from the underlying granitic rock. The lowlands of the Carolina Slate Belt are generally flat and have
been filled in excess of 12.0 feet with sands, organic matter, and silts eroded y from the surrounding
uplands. Soils in these bottomlands are generally saturated at a depth of 3.0 to 4.0 feet below the existing
ground surface. The high water table generally rises to approximately 1.5 to 2.0 feet in late winter and
early spring. The soils encountered in this area consist mainly of silty fine sand with a trace to some clay
or fine sandy silt with a trace to some clay.
In general, the mitigation area is underlain by approximately three to four feet of sediment characterized
as sand and loamy sand. Auger refusal was encountered at depths of three to four feet below grade.
According to the Soil Survey of Guilford County, soils at the site have been mapped as Wilkes sandy
loam. Typically, this is a well drained soil that occurs along sideslopes that border drainageways. The
surface layer is dark brown sandy loam underlain by brownish yellow sandy loam and yellowish brown
clay loam. The underlying material is yellowish brown clay loam and yellowish brown loamy coarse
sand.
2
leer c'v Valley Landfill - Alitigalion Plan
ECS Project G-'7 S7
August 30, 1999
3.0 EXCAVATION AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
The proposed grading within the project will be limited to the higher portions of the site. The net effect
of the grading, indicated on the attached plan, will be to create an area with poor surficial drainage that
will be saturated for extended periods of time. It is expected that sufficient saturation and ponding of the
mitigation area will also be achieved from normal precipitation and by periodic flooding from the
adjacent tributary.
We recommend constructing berms in the sediment basin in order to create a hydric environment in the
upper area of the sediment basin. This will result in the creation of approximately 0.80 acres of wetlands.
The general elevation of the wetlands area will be approximately 751 to 756 feet above sea level. The
berms will provide a permanent water table approximately 8.0 to 16.0 inches below the existing ground
surface in the constructed wetlands area.
The forebay detention at this site has been designed to remove in excess of 85% of suspended particulates
from the stormwater influent. The water budget for the site appears to indicate that the present stream
flow along with stormwater runoff will provide adequate moisture to maintain a hydric environment.
Because some portions of the mitigation area will not be graded, it is important that equipment traffic
patterns be established to avoid unnecessary disturbance such as rutting, erosion, and/or compaction of
the subsoil laver. In addition, the grading contractor should take precautions to prevent spills of
fuel/lubricants within the mitigation area during grading.
Fine grading tolerances within the mitigation area should be to within plus or minus one inch of the
grades indicated on the attached plan. Prior to actual construction/disturbance, proper erosion and
sedimentation control measures should also be implemented. A silt fence or staked haybales should be
constructed along the perimeter of the proposed work area and around any stockpiles. The silt fence
could be removed within 30 days after the backslopes have been stabilized. Within 15 days following
completion of grading, the contractor should mulch and seed all backslopes and other exposed transitional
areas with a rye or other suitable grass with a successful germination rate of at least 50 percent. The
existing monitoring wells should be left intact, if practical, or replaced during grading to monitor ground-
water levels following the site improvements. Once the grading has been completed and the area has
been stabilized, it should be protected from future traffic patterns to prevent further disturbance.
4.0 HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
Hydraulic and hydrologic analysis were performed for a water budget analysis and to design the outlet
structure for the forebay. Storrnwater detention and spillway design was performed using the 2 year 6
hour storm, which is 2.9 inches in six hours.
The wetland areas were also evaluated using the results from these storm analyses as well as
hvdrometoerological reports from NOAA and USGS streamflow records for evaluation of normal and
low flow steam flows and periodic inundation necessary to help sustain the wetlands plants.
The rise of the normal lake level will keep the soils in the area of the constructed wetlands saturated to
within 8.0 to 16.0 inches of the surface, with capillary rise coming slightly above that. The soils proposed
for use in the constructed wetlands will be surficial organic soils taken from the new landfill cell area.
Primarily organic silty sands with a trace to some clay will be used. These soils are rich in humus and
Kersey Galley Landfill - Mitigation Plan
ECS Project G-2 78 7
August _70, 1999
other organic material and permeable enough so that the design of the stream running through the area
will be sufficient to cause saturation within 8.0 inches of ground surface.
5.0 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
5.1 Design Methodology
The design methodologies for the constructed wetlands are to increase water quality through detention
and treatment in a wetlands environment.
5.2 Forebay Detention Facility
The main forebay will be 10,000 square feet in size. The forebay will be drained by a PVC level spreader
piping system and secondary emergency spillway.
5.3 Constructed Wetlands
The constructed wetlands will be located downstream of the forebay detention area.
5.4 Construction Procedures for Constructed Wetlands and Forebay Detention Facility
1. The first phase of the construction will be to lay out the stormwater detention facility areas, borrow
areas, and sediment control structures. All layout will be performed or confirmed by ECS, Ltd.
2. The next phase will be to install the forebay and concrete diversion pipe structures. However, surface
water will continue to be channeled through the main outlet area during construction of the wetland
dikes.
3. After installation of the pipes, grading for the clay dikes may begin.
4. It would be advantageous to perform construction of the dikes during a dry period of the year, since
compaction of the clay soils used for construction of the dikes will be critical.
After the dikes in the wetlands are constructed, placement of wetland soils may begin. Wetland soils
should be taken from designated borrow area and placed to the grade shown on the plans.
6. After construction of the dikes and forebay are completed, seeding and planting should be performed.
7. Finally, the surface water should be diverted through the concrete diversion pipe into the forebay of
the constructed wetlands area.
4
Kersey Valley Landfill - Mitigation Plan
ECS Project G-2787
August 20, 1999
6.0 SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENGINEERED FILL FOR WETLAND AND FOREBAY DIKES
SHOWN ON PLANS
All procedures will be observed by an experienced geotechnician working under the direct
supervision of a registered, geotechnical engineer. No material will be placed in any section of
the dike embankment until the stripped, excavated surface has been approved by the
geotechnician.
No fill material will be placed in any section of the embankment unless it has been approved and
tested in the lab by the engineer. The fill material for the dikes will be a CL or ML silty clay or
clayey silt material with a minimum of 65 % finer than the # 200 sieve.
The proposed fill material will be tested prior to placement in accordance with ASTM D-698-A,
Moisture Density Relationship of Soils, using a 5.5 pound hammer with a 12.0 inch drop,
Standard Proctor Method.
4. Fill material will be placed in lifts not to exceed 9.0 inches in loose thickness and will be
compacted using a sheepsfoot roller or other approved means.
The fill will be compacted to a least 9591% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM
D-698-A and the moisture content at the optimum moisture, +/- 2%.
The soil placed around the outlet pipe or concrete spillway will be carefully hand compacted to
the above specifications.
The inspector will make field moisture density tests in accordance with ASTM D-2167, D-1557,
D-2922, or other approved means. One test per 2,500 square feet of lift area will be required
except around the pipe where one test per 25.0 feet in the backfill will be required.

Kersey Valley Landfill - ,1litigation Plan
ECS Project G-2787
August 30, 1999
7.0 SPECIFICATIONS FOR WETLANDS FILL
1. All procedures will be observed by an experienced field technician working under the direct
supervision of a wetlands specialist and geotechnical engineer. No material will be placed in any
section of wetlands until the proper subgrade has been established.
2. No wetlands fill material may be placed in any section of the wetlands unless it has been approved
and tested in the laboratory by the engineer.
3. Fill material in the wetlands area will be placed to the desired depth and placed loose and graded with
a high floatation bulldozer D-6 or smaller.
4. All construction equipment will be kept off of the proposed wetland construction area to prevent
over-compaction of the created wetland soils.
5. The inspector will make field moisture density test in accordance with ASTM D-2167, D-1557, D-
2922, or other approved means. Those areas which are over-compacted due to construction traffic
will be loosened by digging with a track backhoe and replacing in-place.
6
Kersey Valle-1, landfill - hliti-,ation flan
ECS Project G-2787
August 20, 1999
8.0 OPERATION PROCEDURES
8.1 Introduction
It is important to note that the condition of the wetland and the stormwater detention pond depend on
numerous and constantly changing internal and external conditions and are evolutionary in nature. It
would be incorrect to assume that the condition of the wetlands and detention ponds will not be different
at some point in the future. Only through continued care, maintenance and inspection can we be assured
that the function of the wetlands will be effective.
8.2 Maintenance Procedures
The wetlands and detention ponds shall be inspected a minimum of twice a year for the first five
years for evaluation of continued effectiveness by the designer. After the first five years, annual
inspections shall be performed. Inspections should be conducted with the as-built and pondscaping
plans in hand and should take specific note of species distribution,tsurvival, sediment accumulation,
water elevations, and condition of the wetlands outlet structure. Records shall be kept by the engineer
and owner so that the progressive development of the wetland system over time can be tracked.
2. When the storage area at the bottom of the forebay reaches 40% utilization, the detention ponds will
be cleaned out utilizing a track backhoe. Sediment spoil shall be applied to the spoil area designated
on the plans.
3. Piezometers shall be installed in the wetlands and monitored during the inspections to make sure that
continued high water table is present to ensure function of the wetlands.
4. Mowing - the maintenance access areas shall be mowed twice per year to prevent woody growth. All
remaining areas can be managed as wet meadow or forest.
Kersey [alley Landfill - Ahtl gation Plan
a ECS Project G-'787
I ugusl 20, 1999
9.0 SOIL AMENDMENT AND PREPARATION PROCEDURES
Topsoil materials from the impacted wetland area should be saved and stockpiled for respread
within the mitigation area. The weed seed content of the topsoil should be tested prior to
placement. Topsoil and other organic matter shall be incorporated into the subgrade soils of the
graded site by ripping and disking. This amended topsoil layer should be a minimum of 12
inches in thickness.
2. The pH level within the generalized root zone of plants to be established should be tested and
brought to within a range of 5.5 to 7.0.
3. Following preparation of the topsoil layer, a slow release nitrogen fertilizer (granulated) should
be uniformly spread and incorporated within the topsoil across the mitigation area, to achieve a
coverage of approximately 200 pounds per acre.
4. All substantial roots and other deleterious materials shall be removed from the topsoil prior to
application of fertilizer and/or planting.
5. Areas compacted by foot or vehicle traffic shall be retilled and aerated prior to planting.
8
[terser {alley Landfill - Mitigation Plan
ECS Project G-2 787
August 20, 1999
10.0 PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
Planting
The general specifications concerning planting procedures are as follows:
Planting shall occur during the active growing season, which will be defined as that period
between April 1 and September 30, or as determined by the appropriate landscape contractor
based on individual plant species type and availability.
The top of the plant rootball shall be set even with or slightly above the existing grade and then
covered with an additional 3"-4" of organic mulch.
No planting shall occur in frozen soil or when the ambient soil temperature is below 41 o F.
Plants stored at the site shall not remain unplanted for longer than three days after delivery. In
addition, the plants should be stored in a protective area upon arrival in order to shade them from
exposure to the sun and drying wind. Plants that cannot be planted immediately upon delivery
shall be kept well shaded, protected, and watered.
Rootballs not wrapped by readily biodegradable coverings should be carefully removed prior to
planting. In general, all plants shall be handled in a fashion that will minimize damage to roots
systems and stems.
6. No storage of herbicides or other agricultural chemicals shall be permitted near the plant storage
area.
Plants shall remain upright during transport/storage and all damaged plants shall be removed
from storage whereupon they may be used as mulch unless diseased.
S. Holes excavated for tree and shrub species shall have vertical sides and a flat bottom. The holes
excavated for the rootball should be a minimum of six inches greater than the diameter of the
rootball. The holes may be excavated either by hand shovel or power auger. Excess soil
generated from the excavation of the holes shall be disposed of randomly over the site.
The plants shall be set at the same depth that they were grown in and the trunk should be situated
nearly plumb. Trees and shrubs shall be staked as necessary to prevent them from overturning. If
the plants arrive in containers, the contractor should take care to avoid damage to the root systems
upon removal from the container.
10. Mix one part peatmoss or dehydrated cow manure (as specified) per four parts of native soil as
amendment to support the rootball. Additional slow-release fertilizer consisting of six percent
nitrogen, twenty percent phosphorus, and twenty percent potash should be applied as necessary to
the planted trees and shrubs.
11. All vegetation shall be watered the day after planting and thereafter as necessary to ensure
survival.
Kcrset, Val/cY Landfill - Mifigafion Plan
EC'S Projccl G-2787
Aamrs120, 1999
12. Trees should be planted in random patterns with the appropriate shrub species interspersed
between them. Trees should be planted with a minimum spacing of ten feet and a maximum
spacing of twenty feet. Trees will be planted as indicated in the schedule provided. Shrub species
should be planted with a minimum spacing of five feet and a maximum spacing of fifteen feet.
Shrubs will be planted as indicated in the vegetation schedule.
13. Emergents will be planted in the eastern fringe area at 24 inches on center in random patterns.
Planting details for emergent seedlings are also included on the attached plan. Emergent species
will not be planted within the tree and shrub zone since this vegetation will recolonize naturally
and then be shaded out as the forested wetland matures.
Materials
Wetlands vegetation shall consist of native species that are nursery grown in accordance with
current professional standards under environmental conditions similar to those expected to be
prevalent on the proposed mitigation site.
The plants provided by the contract nursery shall be sound, healthy, and vigorous. They shall be
free of disease, pests, eggs, or larva, and shall have a healthy, developed root system.
The specific plants selected for this mitigation project are indicated on the vegetation schedule
and shall be grown under contract specifically for this project.
4. Trees planted within the mitigation area shall be a minimum of one-year old and shall consist of
fast-growing species so that there is rapid canopy development and less exposure to extensive
attack by herbivores and disease.
The contractor retained for the mitigation effort should determine the source of the plants prior to
the commencement of the project. The nursery contractor for the supply of the wetland
vegetation must reserve the plant material for this project and assure the supply. Upon arrival at
the site, all plants shall be color-coded and labeled for their future identification.
Plant species may be substituted as required based on availability of nursery stock at time of
planting or upon approval by the environmental consultant or landscape contractor.
All replacements shall consist of plants of the same kind and size as originally planted or as
necessary to match surviving plants of the same planting group. All costs shall be borne by the
landscape contractor except for replacements resulting from loss or damage due to vandalism or
acts of neglect on the part of others, as may be determined by the environmental consultant or
landscape contractor.
All plant materials in transit to the site during delivery shall be covered to prevent drying out or
damage to the root system.
Container-grown stock shall have been grown within the container long enough for the root
system to have developed sufficiently to hold the surrounding soil in place. The size of each
rootball shall be commensurate with the overall size of the plant.
10
Kersey Valk, 'v Lamn ill - Mitigation Plan
ECS Project G-3787
A u gust 30. l 999
11.0 MAINTENANCE
Maintenance shall begin immediately after planting and shall continue until acceptance. Upon
completion and prior to acceptance, the landscape contractor shall remove from the site excess
soil and debris and any other damage resulting from planting operations.
Replace unsuccessful transplants or dead vegetation at the beginning of the second growing
season.
Tree protective devices consisting of wire or plastic mesh guards, or suitable repellants should be
used to prevent grazing or similar damage by herbivores (e.g. beavers). Mesh guards are usually
more expensive but offer lower maintenance costs. Repellant chemicals such as Ro-Pel or
MAGIC CIRCLE can be applied at regular intervals to the base of the tree and along the trunk.
As an alternative, it may be desirable to completely fence-in the mitigation area during the initial
stages of its development.
A written monitoring and management plan should be implemented to observe the progress of the
wetlands mitigation area and to determine whether the established success criteria have been
achieved during the first one to five years following completion of planting activities. The
success criteria will be considered as having been met if 85% of the proposed mitigation area has
been successfully graded to pond and/or saturate to within six to twelve inches of the surface with
sufficient frequency to support 80% of the reestablished vegetation following a period of one
year. A site visit should be conducted by the environmental consultant at least once a year over a
period of five years. During these visits observations of the condition, composition, density, and
wildlife utilization of the plant species present, and measurements and observations of the
groundwater levels and surface hydrologic conditions should be made in detail. A report should
then be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency detailing the observations made during
each of these site visits including problems encountered and corrective measures to be
implemented, if necessary.
The landscape contractor and/or nursery contracted to supply and/or plant the vegetation at the
site shall provide a written maintenance/replacement agreement that will be effective for a period
of one year following completion of planting. The maintenance shall include periodic watering,
weeding application of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides where appropriate.
6. The management of the mitigation area should be performed by a firm with expertise in the
stewardship of wetland systems.
11
Kersey Valley 1_anditll - Alifigatran Plan
ECS Project G-2787
Augnrst '0, 1999
12.0 PLANTING SCHEDULE
7nne 1 • been Pool
Species Quantity Size
Wild Celery 20 Tubers, cheesecloth sinkers
Zone 2A: Low Marsh
Species Quantity Size
Duck Potato 250 Containers or eat of
Pickerelweed 200 Containers or eat of
Arrow Arum 175 Containers or eat of
Wild Rice 120 Containers or peat pot
7nne '?R• Nioh Marsh
Species Quantity Size
Common 3 Square 300 Containers or peat of
Softstem bulrush 300 Containers or eat of
Lizards Tail 100 Containers or eat of
Sweet Flau 100 Containers or eat of
Rice Cutgrass 100 Containers or eat of
Sedge S pp. 100 Containers or eat of
7nne I• ghnreline
Species Quantity Size
Blueflas Iris 225 bulbs Container
Switchgrass over Red Fescue 100 lbs. per acre
Button Bush 6 Container
Black willow 12 1" Caliper container
7nne d• Rinnrian
Species Quantity Size
Tall fescue, wildlife mix 1001bs/acre H droseed
Button Bush 6 Container
Green Ash 6 1" B&B
Arrowood Viburnum 15 Container on embankments
Silky Dogwood 6 1" B&B
12
Kersey Galley landfill - Mitigation Platt
ECS Project G-2 78 7
August 20, 1999
o All plants shall be one year of age and grown under wet cultivation conditions.
o Planting patterns shall be random and mixed for different species.
o Plant locations will be established and staked prior to planting by environmental consultant.
o Rootballs shall be grown in peat with root systems unbound.
o A wet seed mix consisting of redtop and roughstalk bluegrass shall be applied beneath the tree
and shrub plantings.
o Emergent plants shall be provided in 2" containers. Trees and shrubs shall be provided in 2 to
3-gallon containers or wrapped in burlap.
o Bare root and ball and burlap plants should not be planted in the fall.
All plant material should be guaranteed by the contractor to be in a healthy and vigorous condition at the
beginning of the second growing season, following acceptance by the environmental consultant or
landscape contractor.
13
Hersey Vallee Landjrll - Mitigation Plan
ECS Project G-?787
August 20, 1999
13.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil
borings and field investigations and tests performed at locations as indicated on the Field Test Location
Diagram and other information referenced in this report. This report does not reflect any variations which
may occur between the borings. In the performance of the subsurface exploration, specific information is
obtained at specific locations at specific times. However, it is a well known fact that variations in soil and
rock conditions exist on most sites between boring locations and also such situations as groundwater
levels may vary from time to time. The nature and extent of variations may not become evident until the
course of construction. If variations then appear evident, it will become necessary for a reevaluation of the
recommendations for this report after performing on-site observations during the construction period and
noting characteristics and variations.
This report has been prepared in order to provide a basis on which the design plans and specifications
were prepared. The scope is limited to the specific project and locations described herein and our
description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects relative to the proposed
development, stormwater detention ponds, wetlands construction and hydrologic characteristics. In the
event that any change in the nature or location of the proposed construction outlined in this report or the
accompanying plans and specifications, we should be informed so that the changes can be reviewed and
the conclusions of this report modified or approved in writing by the design engineer. It is recommended
that all construction operations dealing with earthwork and construction of the proposed wetlands be
reviewed by an experienced engineer or his representative to provide information on which to base a
decision as to whether the design requirements are fulfilled in the actual construction. If you wish, we
would welcome the opportunity to provide field construction services for you during construction.
It is important to note that the condition of the wetland will depend on numerous and constantly changing
interior and exterior conditions, and is evolutionary in nature. It would be incorrect to assume that the
condition of the wetlands at the end of construction would continue to represent the condition of the
constructed wetlands at some point in the future. Unless we continue care and maintenance and close
inspection, there cannot be any chance that conditions harmful to the continued viability of the wetlands
could be detected.
14
Kersol Valley Landfill - Mitigation Plan
ECS Project G-2787
August 20, 1999
APPENDIX
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
FIGURES 1-4
15

PROJECT: FIGURE NO.
TITLE: JOB NO.
SCALE:
ENGINEERING CONSULTING
SERVICES, LTD. BY: DATE: APPROVED BY: DATE
CALCULATION SHEET /5?Ll ,

2iJ ?/oFF ?o L u ,mac ??2?-'-! v 2>f_' ,- J ta-?!p/._.c, i ? ?' J

PROJECT: FIGURE NO.
TITLE: JOB NO.
° r , ; _ Z73 %
A -1 If / f SCALE:
ENGINEERING CONSULTING
SERVICES, LTD. BY: DATE: APPROVED BY: DATE
CALCULATION SHEET / . -.?

2

r
T
7,1
-l f??"•! J ? ? .. ?F.la ?,-/, :%L'. ? b 2c??'i?%oo o 'O 2 /'i" -??'? -??i

I,
-:-- .66 zX 74 ?? ?ec > p-!.'?y?•- 'o-27
c? QK
-)?'I??r?! r I, r J / i^/ . (YJ!
r _
i
0
PROJECT: FIGURE NO.

D TITLE: JOB NO.
'7 z7S 7

SCALE:
ENGINEERING CONSULTING

SERVICES, LTD. BY: DATE: APPROVED BY: DATE
CALCULATION SHEET
7!
? x J J

14 C?/O /J/oD

/ n?? / 7 e J7 = 7 ?574
7/7/ 7
-152
?-
Mitchei-Grove - - ?r ? _ ) A ??. - 1' oo'
ch./ X
-CPn n9 4
Oati,C rwe _
-3 -2
-71
IN T
ez _ ?_ n' _ f
Jackson- ? 5 `? ? -? { ? _? - r ? _. ?- ?
J F ??
SOURCE:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC NIAP, HIGH
POINT EAST, NC QUADRANGLE,
DATED 1950 PHOTOREVISED 1952
1 loop, LTD
FIGURE I
SITE LOCATION NIAP
KERSEY VALLEY LANDFILL
HIGH POINT, NC
SCALE: I"= 2,000'
ENGINEERING
CONSULTING
SERVICES=
ECS PROJECT G-2787

LMA I
ENGINEERING CONSULTING
SERVICES, LTD.
CALCULATION SHEET
PROJECT: _
TITLE:
BY: DATE: I APPROVED BY:
4? 1 f'yi/

r ?r
Coy l%? c
IF
2 r - ----

cl
G,a : lTl L
FIGURE NO. 17--'r4
JOB NO.
Z7:3
SCALE:
DATE
L? I
I ? vy'
a rn
N 0
rn z
°° t\ t?
n o
a i
vl ? -_' 00
SE; v
c?H as J 0
r ca
mo? o
W
l \ /,
V Jv
lull
'1 kk u
I U-1
•
W, io
1 ,
1 I i,1 r
,1 ! 11 i ..•`, \ I 111 ?' , F I I , ??, _ _ \ _Y ? .\, ,\ ?
1 I, f 1 1 1 1` 1 I i I ; 1 ! III""" `` ,1'`1, i
I ' ' I 1 1 ' I ,. f , t I',1 1 ? ,\lI j If?l /Lr / ? `\.` 1\ .. ``\ 1 r?\\` \\ 1, `) \
?\ ; ?\ ,1 •\ \ \ I ,, i? /'?[) 1. \ \\ \• \ \\ ? I f' j / ? 111,
F-17,
, ? / /? L( ,1 ,'1tr' ,? 1 ' \ ? pl????????\\\?? ? ? ?? ? \ \ •t'r'1 t?!tl i ? ,', 1
11 1, ,1' ` il'? ..! 11r ,r/ / it /N ?t' `?1'??"11 ?•Ji? _ __ \.\`\\\\\ \,\\• \\\•?t` Il 1`L,?1'??1,
? il.;r ! r' , Ir'/' 1 ??1 • •. 1W) 1 1 I ?I 1 t - .? \ ,\ 1 It 1 ? ! i t /''"' ,'?\\ ? ???? ?r ( \
i?n
a / -\ 09 (1?
3y3 ]-
! 1 111',;1 1 18
,' ,/ / _ ' ,', •\, 1 1 I 1 1 , , I . ?.?.-$_.. `\ II I /i f I `1 ,! l ,?,y ;?./ i' / 1 ,, ` 1j i • 11' /. ,1 .,??? /
I ( / /- `. ' \\''?\?,\\'\?11 t\ 111 .II•? .. _ ,,\ ,•` 1,I I ?\?1}\11 i'Al?t/ ? '?? 1 ?? .?- -_./ ?.
VLL
1 \ _ _ 1 1 J r? ill 1! I?! !?IM'OI?lt / /'?%! / °?°? it
?(? ?; ?._. \ .' ?'` ,?, \ i i i I `) ' I 1 i ? , I j \ Il\•\ \, \1,'\1 , IISJ!'I I I ? ? ? I ? ,/, (` __ .J•'/Z
' '? %? "'\?I '1•''\`!11 I 1 `, 1 I ? I 1 ( /1 \\ ` t ,,11 ?j/, ri 'I !? I/•;' ? .'-...ai:: _,
/ ,,- out - .?•` 1, ',, ? ?, ? 1, ` 1, 11 `?? ? \`?\` 1\ ?\} '? ? ? 1' i ?(?," i 1 `) ?' , ? ?;?; ; ?,? ; ?:.
,/ /, T'• ??'`1 (''? I ? ?,1 1 ?? ' ; ,\ , I 1 I 1? J 1;( ?1;, ? '/ 'I ?I,? rlf 'i /
, ? •I,1lil,,? II,11 ' \ t , 1'1 I,; '// ,',r II, 1 !)?,/ //' /?
11 r / r' i '?? 06;x:\ •?.?`,???. \ ??' \ i I I I fl' 1 ;??,' ?1? t II I ' ? ?:_ 'I ;l.,l ' ??.r-"
It _. •. r i, !;, I. ,; I ?\\ \`!! 11 11•It\?I G?\r; _1 !r \,r i?;/ ,, /_.?
,
It,
•
1 1? 11 , / (? p% 1 t \ ` 1 I' i i ?\ 1 t l 11 'I h1 1 \ \ , / I ( v ! / =S,
1 i 1 J r \ ?• , ! i? , t / ? /? 't i i 1 ± I 11 1 1 ' ? ` i •! , 1 ' / ''
t;'f? i f r? f 1 009 .1011
?? ?\,"T-:•? , 1. ? ? I I ? r ? ' f t, \ I ?? 1 ! i'?/ / ,r I
?L/'rI / I Ilr 1 ? i' t ? -? ` ? •` '? { ? ,??\I •\ ,\` ? ! 1 I T( 1 ? 1 '1 ? ? I I (II / /' it / 1 f i i. ,'i 1 f/' ?'
(I':i ,I ; , \.. _- ? .i 1 ?`?\ ? f ? 1 •' 1 1y I I• ? 1 ?, '/ ? ? ill '!?'
?1 ?
!Ifll/% / 1f /I l/ ? 1 \?
.410
I 1 , ( / ? ?? , \ \ ` \ 1 - 1 1 I I l ? 11 1 1 \ , , I , 1 1 I ?, `
\ 1•?I:I -?d? "/?- 1 I\ ? I I' 1 , 1 ` \ ,t, \1' ?6l •? !, , ' I , i ' ? i I
// I 1 I W11
?.. ! ` i ! ;%I Ifr ! h / r ?y?l
/ ? ?''? /r'? /? ( i •'1 \ `,. '!` , / __ ?? ,`` -,_
,?-., / ? ) •'\ 1`I r, ,, ... 1?1 t \ ??''\'I (/ _%` !/;'/ ,I FIJI i
w?
tL >?
\vV r

-?mlm
m o
z o
u o
O
u ?
V
?' rll jiff'.
,
llI `??.
\III1i".? ;i
r%
I
IIr
t
r \'
Q
r
1111 1 , , ii'/ / /, `a \ ` \ ?\`, ? _ _ _-... i ' / / . _ . `_-J 1 i ` \? ? ? \\ \ '\`? • I / ? . - ' _
019 /*
1 r ? i , ?I \ \ \ ?\ \ ` ? ( ' - t\ (, ? \ _ ` `111 1 / \ \ I C
- - - - . ??' it - ? ? ? ?•?,? / j ? ,

0 \
1
\ 1
o;
,? 1 I

\
O <\"
- Gyp \1 ? 1 1 \

O??

1-2
o ti
W~
J Q
? i
m co
0 O
w?
YW ?
2
?I 1
c
CA3
W

N \-

? .1 "
G. N. RICHARDSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
N.C. DENR - Division of Water Quality
5700 - Other Direct Expenses

Application Fee
Checking Kersey Valley Landfill Wetlands Application

2/7/00
588ft
200.00
200.00