The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20211505 Ver 1_More Info Received_20211229December 28, 2021 Sue Homewood North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office 450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300 Winston Salem, NC 27105 Dear Ms. Homewood: Subject: 1/N N M I Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Request for Additional Information Hedrick Gravel & Sand CO -Lake Norman Quarry Expansion and Forney Creek Relocation DWR # 20211505 Lincoln County CEC Project 183-802 On behalf of Hedrick Industries, CEC would like to thank you for your December 13, 2021 letter in response to the proposed Hedrick Gravel & Sand CO -Lake Norman Quarry (LNQ) Mine expansion and Forney Creek relocation project in Lincoln County, North Carolina. Please find the Comment Response Matrix (CRM) provided below that lists and addresses each of the comments and concerns raised in your letter requesting additional information. If you have any follow up questions concerning the information within the CRM, please do not hesitate to reach out to me at # (410) 259-4745 or at kthomas@cecinc.com. Sincerely, '74/Iir-4/L Kevin Thomas, PWS & LSS (NC, SC & FL) Principal Attachments: Attachment 1 - StreamStats Report Attachment 2a - Grading Figures Area A Attachment 2b - Grading Figures Area B CC: Steve Kichefski & Krysta Stygar, USACE Asheville & Charlotte Regulatory Field Offices Alan Johnson, DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file 3701 Arco Corporate Drive. Suite 400 1 Charlotte. NC 28273 1 p: 980-237-0373 f: 980-237-0372 1 www.cecinc.com NC DEQ Comment Response Matrix Hedrick Gravel & Sand Co -Lake Norman Quarry Mine Expansion - Alternatives Analysis Hedrick Industries, Forney CK Relocation, Lincoln County, NC SAW-2020-00436 & DWR # 20211505 # Location Type of Comment Agency Comment Reviewer CEC Response Document Date Page, Section S, C, A 1 Alternatives Analysis 12/13 S The Division's review cannot be completed until the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issues a Public Notice for the project/application. If the USACE requests a response to any comments received as a result of the Public Notice, please provide the Division with a copy of your response to the USACE. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)] SH Official Public Notice posted by USACE on Dec 21. 2021. Expiration Date 1.19.22. 2 Alternatives Analysis 12/13 S Please provide the drainage area for Forney Creek at the downstream point of the proposed relocation. SH The current drainage area for Forney Creek at the downstream point of the proposed restoration is 9.27 square miles according to the USGS StreamStats database. Please find the Attachment 1 - StreamStats Report. 3 Alternatives Analysis 12/13 S The stream relocation plan notes the soils in the location of the proposed Forney Creek relocation and addresses concerns related to soil compaction from construction activities. The relocation of Forney Creek is proposed to occur by excavation into the existing landscape, in some locations excavation will occur up to 20 feet below the existing ground elevation. The Division has previously expressed significant concern regarding the suitability of the soil to support adequate vegetation at the proposed stream elevations. Please revise the relocation plan to specifically address this issue. SH Thank you for your comment, CEC requests clarity regarding the soil compaction comment/issue. CEC assumes this comment is in regard to soil fertility. The floodplain is comprised entirely of the Chewacla soil series (Fine -loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Oxyaquic Udifluvents). An alluvial floodplain soil classified as prime farmland, so soil fertility and chemistry are believed to be suitable for the proposed use. The areas outside the floodplain is comprised entirely of the Pacolet soil series (Fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kanhapludults). A residual soil also classified as prime farmland, so soil fertility and chemistry are believed to be suitable for the proposed use. Area A (as indicated in the attachment — Grading Plan Area A & B) is approximately 1.22 acres where an existing natural "nose" feature needs to be re -graded to meet the proposed floodplain and stream channel elevations. Area B is approximately 1.68 acres containing fill where the current bridge crossing is located and needs to be re -graded to meet the proposed floodplain and stream channel elevations. In order for the existing ground to meet proposed grade requirements, the proposed stream channel parameters will require approximately 3 to 5 feet of cut. Areas subject to excessive grading within the terrace and flood plain (example: Areas A & B) will be over - excavated and replaced with 1 to 2 feet of floodplain/onsite topsoil within the riparian zone where feasible. If not feasible, Hedrick will obtain soil samples on an acre basis and send them to the NC State Soil Fertility Lab for agronomic analysis. Soil sampling will be supervised by a NC Soil Scientist. If fertility deficiencies are detected a broadband fertilizer will be applied. Please find the attached Grading Figures. 4 Alternatives Analysis 12/13 S Section 9.0 Maintenance Plan indicates that it covers maintenance of the relocated stream reaches and all structures. Please revise the maintenance plan to address maintenance of the vegetated buffer during the monitoring period. SH Maintenance Plan has been revised to address maintenance of the vegetated buffer during the monitoring period. The following text has been added: Approximately 20 percent of the construction budget has been set aside for maintenance and repairs during the post construction 7 year monitoring period. 5 Alternatives Analysis 12/13 S Please provide the proposed temporary and permanent seed mixes for herbaceous vegetation within for all disturbed areas. SH Roundstone Southern Riparian Seed Mix will be used as the permanent mix. Temporary seed mixture will include 60 pounds per acre of oats and 30 pounds per acre of browntop NC DEQ Comment Response Matrix Hedrick Gravel & Sand Co -Lake Norman Quarry Mine Expansion - Alternatives Analysis Hedrick Industries, Forney CK Relocation, Lincoln County, NC SAW-2020-00436 & DWR # 20211505 # Location Type of Comment Agency Comment Reviewer CEC Response Document Date Page, Section S, C, A millet for summer planting. Seed mixture shall be 120 pounds per acre of rye for late winter/early spring planting. 6 Alternatives Analysis 12/13 S On Drawing 1, Conservation Easement, please clarify the difference between the proposed conservation easement boundary and the NCDEQ required 50' stream buffer. Why is the NCDEQ buffer area not included within the conservation easement boundary since a portion of the relocation and enhancement project are within that footprint? SH Under the Proposed Action, a culvert will be removed and replaced by a newly constructed bridge. This action (occurring within the floodplain and riparian area) is required to allow for the maintenance and repair of the newly aligned Forney Creek and associated riparian zone. CEC has proposed two buffers under the assumption that impacts to the Conservation Easement are not permitted. (*Please see rationale language noted below). Please provide clarification if variances within the Conservation Easement are permitted. CEC would like to ask the NCDEQ if the impacts (such maintenance and repair of the newly aligned Forney Creek and associated riparian zone) are permitted to occur within the 50 foot Conservation Easement buffer? If so, these buffers will be combined in Drawing 1. * Rationale: The Conservation Easement and the NC DEQ Buffer were kept separate, as the 50 foot Conservation Easement has a requirement that no impacts would occur within the boundaries of the easement whereas the NC DEQ buffer allows for variances. Hedrick cannot guarantee there will be no impacts around the bridge crossing, as this area will likely require maintenance and repair over time and is required for access to perform any potential future repair of the newly aligned Forney Creek and associated riparian zone. This will allow Hedrick to meet the NC DEQ's requirement for the mining buffer, however Hedrick will not be able to meet the Conservation Easement Buffer requirements. As such, Hedrick will end the Conservation Easement Buffer where requirements can be met; and begin the NC DEQ Buffer to encompass the area of the project that includes the bridge crossing and the Priority 2 restoration work. 7 Alternatives Analysis 12/13 S Please explain the proposed site protection instrument and how it will guarantee permanent site protection if the easement holder is the same entity as the landowner/mine operator. SH Hedrick will monitor and maintain the easement over the life of the mine. Once the final NC DEQ Approved Reclamation Plan is implemented (end of life of mine), a land trust such as the Catawba Land Conservancy or Lincoln County will be designated as the long-term steward of the site. (As stated in the Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan - Section11.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN, "The long-term protections of the site will continue to be enforced after monitoring has ended; however, no vegetation or hydrological management will occur since the sites are designed to naturally develop over time into a passive, self- sustaining stream system.") 8 Alternatives Analysis 12/13 S Please clarify what is meant by "active maintenance" in the Long Term Management Plan. Activities such as periodic easement inspections, sign maintenance and perimeter monitoring will be necessary in perpetuity and should be specified as part of the long term maintenance activities within the proposed plan. SH Hedrick to provide periodic easement inspections, sign maintenance, and perimeter monitoring for the life of mine. The long term steward will continue to provide aftercare. (Please also see above comment #7 response). To add additional rows, place cursor in the bottom right cell and hit «Tab». Comment Types: C=Critical; S= Substantive; A=Administrative (See definitions below) DEFINITIONS Critical — Comments identifying deficiencies that, if not addressed, would cause the document to be insufficient. Substantive — Comments identifying an item in the document that requires more information; and or/appears to be, or is potentially, incorrect, misleading, or confusing. Administrative — Comments identifying minor inconsistencies between different sections or errors in typography and grammar. Reviewers: Please provide your name, title, commercial phone number, email address, and date of comments • SH —Sue Homewood, Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office, Department of Environmental Quality, sue.homewood@ncdenr.gov StreamStats Report - Forney Creek Region ID: NC Workspace ID: NC20211221170713611000 Clicked Point (Latitude, Longitude): 35.43312, -81.02605 Time: 2021-12-21 12:07:34 -0500 183802 - taken at downstream point of proposed relocation. Basin Characteristics Parameter Code Parameter Description Value Unit DRNAREA Area that drains to a point on a stream 9.28 square miles PCTREG1 Percentage of drainage area located in Region 1 - Piedmont 100 percent / Ridge and Valley PCTREG2 Percentage of drainage area located in Region 2 - Blue Ridge 0 percent PCTREG3 Percentage of drainage area located in Region 3 - Sandhills 0 percent Parameter Code Parameter Description Value Unit PCTREG4 Percentage of drainage area located in Region 4 - Coastal 0 percent Plains PCTREG5 Percentage of drainage area located in Region 5 - Lower 0 percent Tifton Uplands LC06IMP Percentage of impervious area determined from NLCD 2006 5.88 percent impervious dataset BASINPERIM Perimeter of the drainage basin as defined in SIR 2004-5262 28.8 miles BSLDEM30FT Mean basin slope, based on slope percent grid 10.8 percent CSL10_85fm Change in elevation between points 10 and 85 percent of length along main channel to basin divide divided by length between points ft per mi 19.72 feet per mi ELEV Mean Basin Elevation 785 feet ELEVMAX Maximum basin elevation 920 feet 124H50Y Maximum 24-hour precipitation that occurs on average once 6.65 inches in 50 years LC01 BARE Percentage of area barren land, NLCD 2001 category 31 0.7 percent LCO1CRPHAY Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82, 14.6 percent from NLCD 2001 LCO1DEV Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2001 classes 21-24 16 percent LCO1FOREST Percentage of forest from NLCD 2001 classes 41-43 58.1 percent LCO1HERB Percentage of herbaceous upland from NLCD 2001 class 71 6.4 percent LC01IMP Percent imperviousness of basin area 2001 NLCD 4.01 percent LC01SHRUB Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2001 NLCD 3.2 percent LCO1WATER Percentage of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2001 0.2 percent LCO1WETLND Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD 2001 0.8 percent LC06BARE Percent of area covered by barren rock using 2006 NLCD 0.8 percent LC06DEV Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2006 classes 21-24 22.4 percent LC06FOREST Percentage of forest from NLCD 2006 classes 41-43 53.5 percent LC06GRASS Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using 7.3 percent 2006 NLCD LC06PLANT Percent of area in cultivation using 2006 NLCD 12.3 percent LC06SHRUB Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2006 NLCD 2.4 percent Parameter Code Parameter Description Value Unit LC06WATER Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2006 0.5 percent LC06WETLND Percent of area covered by wetland using 2006 NLCD 0.8 percent LC1 1 BARE Percentage of barren from NLCD 2011 class 31 0.9 percent LC1 1 CRPHAY Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82, 10.7 percent from NLCD 2011 LC1 1 DEV Percentage of developed (urban) land from NLCD 201 1 25.7 percent classes 21-24 LC1 1 FOREST Percentage of forest from NLCD 2011 classes 41-43 51 percent LC1 1 GRASS Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using 6.8 percent 2011 NLCD LC11IMP Average percentage of impervious area determined from 7.4 percent NLCD 2011 impervious dataset LC11SHRUB Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2011 NLCD 3.6 percent LC1 1 WATER Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2011 0.5 percent LC1 1 WETLND Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD 2011 0.8 percent LC92FOREST Percentage of forest from NLCD 1992 classes 41-43 84.6 percent LFPLENGTH Length of longest flow path 9.089 miles LU92BARE Percent of area covered by barren rock using 1992 NLCD 1.5 percent LU92DEV Percent of area covered by all densities of developed land 1.8 percent using 1992 NLCD LU92PLANT Percent of area in cultivation using 1992 NLCD 11.2 percent LU92WATER Percent of area covered by water using 1992 NLCD 0.2 percent LU92WETLN Percent of area covered by wetland using 1992 NLCD 0.6 percent MINBELEV Minimum basin elevation 547 feet OUTLETELEV Elevation of the stream outlet in feet above NAVD88 648 feet PRECIP Mean Annual Precipitation 46.2 inches PROTECTED Percent of area of protected Federal and State owned land 0 percent SSURGOA Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type A from SSURGO 0 percent SSURGOB Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type B from SSURGO 87.5 percent SSURGOC Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type C from SSURGO 11.4 percent SSURGOD Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type D from SSURGO 0.1 percent Peak -Flow Statistics Parameters [Peak Southeast US over 1 sqmi 2009 5158] Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit DRNAREA Drainage Area 9.28 square miles 1 9000 PCTREG1 Percent Area in Region 1 100 percent 0 100 PCTREG2 Percent Area in Region 2 0 percent 0 100 PCTREG3 Percent Area in Region 3 0 percent 0 100 PCTREG4 Percent Area in Region 4 0 percent 0 100 PCTREG5 Percent Area in Region 5 0 percent 0 100 Peak -Flow Statistics Flow Report [Peak Southeast US over 1 sqmi 2009 5158] PII: Prediction Interval -Lower, Plu: Prediction Interval -Upper, ASEp: Average Standard Error of Prediction, SE: Standard Error (other -- see report) Statistic Value Unit PII Plu ASEp 50-percent AEP flood 673 ft^3/s 388 1170 34.5 20-percent AEP flood 1190 ft^3/s 690 2050 34 1 0-percent AEP flood 1 570 ft^3/s 896 2750 35.1 4-percent AEP flood 2070 ft^3/s 1140 3760 37.5 2-percent AEP flood 2510 ft^3/s 1340 4700 39.6 1-percent AEP flood 2920 ft^3/s 1 51 0 5660 41.9 0.5-percent AEP flood 3310 ft^3/s 1650 6640 44.3 0.2-percent AEP flood 3930 ft^3/s 1870 8280 47.7 Peak -Flow Statistics Citations Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J.,2009, Magnitude and frequency of rural floods in the Southeastern United States, through 2006—Volume 2, North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5158, 111 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5158/) Urban Peak -Flow Statistics Parameters [Region 1 Piedmont Urban over 3 sqmi 2014 5030] Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit DRNAREA Drainage Area 9.28 square miles 3 436 Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit LCO6IMP Percent Impervious NLCD2006 5.88 percent 0 47.9 Urban Peak -Flow Statistics Flow Report [Region 1 Piedmont Urban over 3 sqmi 2014 5030] PII: Prediction Interval -Lower, Plu: Prediction Interval -Upper, ASEp: Average Standard Error of Prediction, SE: Standard Error (other -- see report) Statistic Value Unit PII Plu ASEp Urban 50-percent AEP flood 815 ft^3/s 425 1 560 34.4 Urban 20-Percent AEP flood 1380 ft^3/s 757 2520 31.4 Urban 10-percent AEP flood 1800 ft^3/s 1000 3230 30.7 Urban 4-percent AEP flood 2370 ft^3/s 1300 4330 31.4 Urban 2-percent AEP flood 2800 ft^3/s 1500 5210 32.4 Urban 1-percent AEP flood 3240 ft^3/s 1680 6240 34.2 Urban 0.5-percent AEP flood 3710 ft^3/s 1870 7380 35.8 Urban 0.2-percent AEP flood 4370 ft^3/s 2100 9090 38.7 Urban Peak -Flow Statistics Citations Feaster, T.D., Gotvald, A.J., and Weaver, J.C.,2014, Methods for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods for urban and small, rural streams in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, 2011 (ver. 1.1, March 2014): U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5030, 104 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5030/) USGS Data Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. USGS Software Disclaimer: This software has been approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although the software has been subjected to rigorous review, the USGS reserves the right to update the software as needed pursuant to further analysis and review. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the USGS or the U.S. Government as to the functionality of the software and related material nor shall the fact of release constitute any such warranty. Furthermore, the software is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use. USGS Product Names Disclaimer: Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Application Version: 4.6.2 StreamStats Services Version: 1.2.22 NSS Services Version: 2.1.2 «"-.sue•.— '• "-;'' r' f+: .'.`:�.�aca"=2 6 4 3 2 NO SUBMITTAL RECORD DATE DESCRIPTION l f� r \� \ ll� \\ /i // I 1 /l // /\ — iiii\ 4:ii"'rr' \ \ Eti k — -ti ,: ...... \ ... .... ..... .�:. : Via.. "ti. �• .tom � / `\ c� J r l /l i =lam\1�g 11 -, / \ c �11)111i)I 11 �- \\ \ \1 % i // /) i\\� / J -��/ / > (�\ 1 \ Off )))11 1 1 //�i� \�-�\�\�\\` III/� � NORTH `4 ,vim -,..- ,,0/�1 f/ l L PROPOSED HAUL ROAD - �-J �- � R A R A s— —�� -� ) FORNEY CREEK PROPOSED STREAM CENTERLINE ROCK CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE (TYP.) • A \ - :\\\\\\\\ \ \ \\� L/ J •—ti:x:r..y•r",...r:• •':::::"::�:'"..r-••~.,,,f . •'•��.-sue �.r.-=•-�--��rr'"`' .r � .. �•'•'�x..%'.�'-• — �. ..:art �-^r:-•s�:::aa:�.� �. � '` � �' .r.:: �� "r---fir'„":• vx-'.r.::e't�9:r' .r... �•'r xti:i • /r\ `��-�_-�\�� \�� \ / -- �� ) \ \'�� 665 665 / �i ice— ��/ �- \ \ 6 /��j�680�—��/ \ �ov�' / �/ -/ /-///�� c-E////%/ �� i> ��\ ' \ \_i �� \�( f��j/72') / // �// / /��-0�-��\\l 11\�`/�/��/��/�\// 1 } I 1 \\( \ II // l�li 11 I/)ICc L / // ///_�\ IIII � �—� �7 /( / %///r//� /� 1 \ � (Lc�� c / _� �1 0�� \\\\\\\ \ I /1 11 _ i/5/�/ //� /��--�� , \ \ / 6 C \ \ // / /(// (I/ / //// t \\o i�\\ \ TOE WOOD WITH REINFORCED EARTH AND LIVE BRUSH LAYERING (TYP) D2 �� \\\1111 a 111 f / / /1j l)(�\I\� ��`� I � i 1 �% \l//I/ I Iel 11 `emu III ri`1\ I / `'� / 1 1 l(((� \ \ II(/ l J 1 / I\\ll\ \ ��\�----/�// // Ir�JJ \ \ / l cs —�/ d //�\`_ ��\�—�`(///��%=�688��\\L��\\��- \\) %� �/ I ( / /f-fry i�/�i O /// J // 1\\\ ` \ \ \ —\�/ //// 1 �j / `\ I _ �— �j //��-\\\ 7‘01//,, r \\i/�ii/- b'\\S\��\ � 8i/ // 11\ \ �__J ��/ / ��- �) �� 1- •o\_�./ \I //� //AG j/ \\l)11 \ \ \� �� // 1j1/\ \ \\� 1i,��/i/�//�N— -.�/ \ l ,f \ �� =��ti /�« �� 1\ \\\\l1\\ 1 1 �\\\\/�)/� �s\��\�\�\1��/ /�l I l — / \ \/� --� �i/ (�\/( Ir 1 \�\\ —�l/ (� l i�� \ \\\\\\ /� \�J ° \�--/i/�lll!'�� _�—_ �J%i/! �,_ �\\�\��`�—=\i/�� / \\\\\ \) so^�\\\ / ter-- � � — 6 — --, �'- 1^ � \\ /•\•-�'�—- �` JJ 1 1�� ) 1 \\lll \\\\ l o / - /--�1 \ o ) (5+65.,� 1 I\\��\\r- / / l J? ) _ — /—\\\6sp \ `-�\ //( l \ SS I � `,/ I r�U i _ ^ J L ) `5,6, ~v - 1 00/ a........ y > d` �.rdtP,�gx ��r.� •yaT% � /� j%ice • \ r • - 680 • �� Il 111) I((� \ ) / 1 �// II III // //) \ ^``� O% (// i� `%�\ Cry / — - �, III)\I\ \\I () Sf J� a�� BOULDER VANE AND J HOOK (TYP.) D3 /` �1\ \ 111\ ��%�� :: c1: �`e /i I \ ( l/>) l _=—� (v/ � l� / \\ 1 \ \� 1 1 / �`� 6 1 \ �� s I sso:J/ /7:: .:: .:::. .. \ I / // rJ/ /i�i Il ( I l ///�/ t\ �`—� >�(� f-!—�)�/r / // / (\) ) \ `\\ i IIII I(\I I\� I\\ �I (Ilc ��\�� ss��'`�\ �� ', /��//l I — \ ) ��IIII�—/� 65 �ii/1:. ��///�/�II�I \ \/////� \ r�� 1//��Jl�/�o//�/ram/ \ / //1 / �L o'l' 1 )IJtl\ \`\\\\_-/ii��)) (( \\��l ��-`'• —j��/ (( /� t ( I L //��6i ii�)\\ /�/ �1!/// �L �—' I \\ \ I /r� I\�\\\�\\ J— \ \\\\��0. \\\\ lro / / J ��/ �� 0 /� :::=. .:. :.::l r / / \ — I 1 ( \ / /ii / \ 6� \ J I (ll PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 50 100 680 PVI STA = 14+04 ELEV = 659.43 675 670 -(PVI STA = 15+22 ELEV = 6! • PVI STA = 17+48 ELEV = 657. • (PVI STA = 23+41 ELEV = 655.78) 670 • 660 42 ELEV = 656.56)- (PVI STA = 12+60 ELEV = 654.77) (PVI STA = 12+99 ELEV = 656.56 (PVI STA = 13+66 ELEV = 655.80 'VI STA = 13+85 ELEV = 653.91) PVI STA = 13+90 ELEV = 653.83) (PVI STA = 14+04 ELEV = 654.55) EV = 653.49 , O 0O �.' • li EV = 653.49 ;; 0 645 (PVI STA = 15+30 ELEV = 652.36)- (PVI STA = 15+35 ELEV = 652.22 (PVI STA = 15+88 ELEV = 6! CD ca II II (PVI STA = 21+79 ELEV = 652.51 (PVI STA = 22+00 ELEV = 650.41) (PVI STA = 22+42 ELEV = 652.51 (PVI STA = 23+22 ELEV = 651.96) (PVI STA = 23+45 ELEV = 649.63) (PVI STA = 23+92 ELEV = 651.96) 645 640 0 La 0) VI STA = 18+25 EL (PVI STA = 18+60 ELEV = Lu co II 635 (if II _ II (PVI STA = 635 630 630 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 PROPOSED PROFILE HORIZONTAL VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET SCALE IN FEET 0 50 100 0 10 5X VERTICAL EXAGGERATION 20 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 01/13/2021 FOR CLIENT REVIEW 04/12/2021 FOR CLIENT REVIEW LEGEND EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS PROPOSED CUT (PROFILE) PROPOSED FILL (PROFILE) KEY MAP SCALE IN FEET 600 1200 r/77 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3701 Arco Corporate Drive • Suite 400 • Charlotte, NC 28273 HEDRICK INDUSTRIES FORNEY CREEK STREAM RELOCATION PLAN LAKE NORMAN QUARRY, STANLEY N.C. MDO CHECKED BY: DRAFT APPROVED BY: SEPTEMBER 2021 DWG SCALE: AS NOTED PROJECT NO: 8 7 6 5 4 FORNEY CREEK GRADING PLAN AND PROFILE 8 8 j// \\ 6 \ — 1,��—��-/ / / I(/ � i /�r '..,� // l PROPOSED \ I111I \ \ \ \\ \\\ \�/ 1 \ \\ \1 \ \ \ \ / / \ \1)11! 1 � 1 \ \ /// J t / \ ` / / 6 3 \) ( (/,—,)1/1/ JJJ /, I J'/ 1/////,/ (%' -V \ II 1\ ll \N\\�\��\` \\ 5 4 m• I ��\\D \�\ .�/ 1� —ce _--� —\�� \��= yi 1 ( \�\� I\ I ( / ( / III 1 I ��\ \\1 I 1 \ \ 1\\ \�\� • l t_,� I I ) � /%i—) ( \ .�\\\�� /\I I It\\ \ ` \\ �\\\\\`69-----� 0 ) )1\) C� I ROCK CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE (TYP.) LOG RIFFLE (TYP.) 61) q 1(11�1 �.IL��\(\\\\\\I`- I��1 \ \ \\ 1 I \... `\�....... _�//r/�� :, ��\\\\\�\\\\ \\\\ \\ < l\\ �// ( �> f I I / — �J' mil, / \ �� \\\ \\\\\�\\\\\\� \\\ ��/ \` jj!/ l (I // �/ _,__,_. ii sso�:,-„\\\1\1\\\�\\\\\\\\\\ ,, ��\\1 (// �/ /� l, ., ,ii:74, \ I \ 1 \\\\\ ROOT WAD (TYP.);//---,-Z*Z-_:,_ ----_-7---__,- ,,,../ V--------"--7/.. 4 __:...--_-__:--- _rig nrram..:41:76.74:..............\ ,2 \\ .;/\\\//\ i.: <, PROPOSED BRIDGE SPAN 61 , fir Q\\\\k")l 1 \ 1 ) () ( a PLAN SCALE IN FEET PROPOSED CROSSING — ter%%- %-,��/j j / / /i _ / /i/� 1---1:,1:>::: / / //�%/�—/i��// ) / / �/////r�//r////J�`\////� /ice J/�// it____::_iiiiiii:_yi:iii /////�ii—/ / r / ii/% /// //// //// / / //� �/ �ii / ri:-:.,,,---=-__-=',.,-_----;±—,:r;,f--_--7,: )-- 670 39 ELEV = 655.06) PVI STA = 26+55 ELEV = 654.03) ELEV = 653.28) n 670 665 PVI STA = 29+65 ELEV = 651.6C 3TA = 30+96 ELEV = 650.38 .:.:..*.�♦ i • V) ono mmo m v {PVI STA = 33+35 ELEV = 648.62) C 1- 1— PVI STA = 34+78 ELEV = 647.669 O I01 IO IUi 660 N �� -(PVI STA = 27+68 APPROX/MATE GROUND EX/.' SURFACE ♦�� ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ _ ♦♦� ♦♦ ♦♦i�i�♦�♦♦♦♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ 0 9♦%♦��♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ��•::��- �� 650 n-t- - - / - 10 1 PVI STA = 26+77 ELEV = 6,44 I —o.ss% ��i..v♦.. `♦Z� - _ ' _ .♦-♦-♦♦-- .. ♦��♦��♦♦��♦��♦♦♦♦♦ _ 0.85% ♦♦♦►��♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ -- - > i♦♦♦♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i�, a♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ N��_�_��♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ —0.73% / PROPOSED BANKF ♦�� ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ Attat ♦ 0.8% ♦♦♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ ��•••♦�♦�♦��vt 645 645 57 ELEV = 651.19 LEV = 648.97 ♦�� = 648.40 i�, ::♦ 29+67 ELEV = 648.00 I4 1.4% ♦♦♦♦♦ 0♦.♦:.♦�� 0% 4h, ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦t . ll obi PVI STA = 32+33 ELEV = 645.84 / II 1 1.1 % N 640 (PVI STA = 26+18 ELEV = (PVI STA = 27+75 ELEV = 647.29 (PVI STA = 27+80 ELEV = 647.32)- co II (PVI STA = 29+20 ELEV = 645.65)— (PVI STA = 30+38 ELEV = 647.02) (PVI STA = 30+60 ELEV = 644.87) (PVI STA = 30+99 ELEV = 646.82) (PVI STA = 31+72 ELEV = 646.04)— �, l N --� 640 PVI STA = 33+13 ELEV = 644.93 11 c DVI STA = 33+30 ELEV = 643.54 4 635 + N II a -PVI STA = 24+89 E + N II a w m + n (PVI STA = 28+96 EL (PVI STA = 33+58 ELEV = 6 II 635 630 II 630 625 (n 625 620 620 7 6 PROPOSED PROFILE HORIZONTAL VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET SCALE IN FEET 5 4 3 r/77 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3701 Arco Corporate Drive • Suite 400 • Charlotte, NC 28273 Ph: 980.237.0373 • Fax: 980.237.0372 www.cecinc.com HEDRICK INDUSTRIES FORNEY CREEK STREAM RELOCATION PLAN LAKE NORMAN QUARRY, STANLEY N.C. FORNEY CREEK GRADING PLAN AND PROFILE