20041621 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20040909

•
Williams/Matlock Mitigation Site
Unnamed Tributary to Goose Creek, Union County
Restoration Plan
Prepared for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STREAM MITIGATION PROGRAM
Transportation Improvement Project R-2123 AC, BB, CC

Joseph H. Mickey, Jr.
Staci S. Hining
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
Raleigh
August 2004

The Goose Creek watershed in Mecklenburg and Union counties represents one of two
• remaining North Carolina habitats of the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter I,asmigona
decorate, a freshwater mussel. As a result of concern for this species, the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP),
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) have designated the entire
Rocky River drainage, which includes Goose Creek, as a priority area for conservation and
protection. Because of this concern, when the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) proposed construction of I-485, US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), NCDWQ,
and USFWS permit conditions required that NCDOT mitigate for project impacts by restoring
degraded habitat in the Goose Creek watershed. The NCDOT entered into a stream mitigation
agreement in 1998 with the NCWRC to do the required stream mitigation. This plan is
submitted as partial fulfillment of the off-site stream mitigation agreement between NCDOT and
NCWRC for project R-2123 AC, BB, CC (I-485 outer loop). Under this agreement a total of
31941inear feet of stream mitigation. is required by the USAGE (permit 199504596) and
NCDWQ (permit 3049). This Priority I and enhancement plan (USAGE et al. 2003} documents
existing conditions, objectives of the project, and the proposed approach to stream restoration
along 1,064 linear feet of an unnamed, intermittent tributary to Goose Creek known as the
Williams/Matlock site, Union County (Figure 1).
Methods
Baseline conditions for the unnamed tributary to Goose Creek were determined through field
• investigations conducted during May and June 2004. Representative cross-sections and a
longitudinal profile were measured using standard stream survey techniques (Harrelson et al.
1994; Mickey and Hining 2003). Laser beacon survey equipment was used to collect cross-
section and longitudinal data. Substrate particle size distribution was determined using the
modified Wolman Pebble Count method (Rosgen 1996). Morphological data was entered into
the RIVERMorph (2003) program for analysis. The stream was classified using the Rosgen
(1.996) Level II classification system. Established stream mitigation restoration/enhancement
guidelines were utilized for this project (USAGE et al. 2003; Doll et al. 2003).
Area topographical maps were used to determine stream drainage area and land use. Soil
types were determined from NRCS soil maps (USDA 1992). Regional curve data were
determined from Piedmont North Carolina stream data (Clinton et al. 1999; Harman et al. 1999;
Doll et al. 2002).
Morphology
Existing Conditions
The unnamed, intermittent tributary has a drainage area of 0.6 mil. Land along this stream
contains bottomland hardwood forest, agricultural fields, and residential lots. Chewacla silt loam
(ChA) soils are located along the majority of the intermittent stream channel (USDA 1992).
These soils are very deep, nearly level (0 - 2% slopes)
•

• and are somewhat poorly drained. Badin channery silt loam (BaB, BaC) soils are located on 2%
- 8% (BaB) and 8% - 15% (BaC) slopes on moderately to well drained convex upland ridges that
are dissected by intermittent drainage ways (USDA 1992).
The unnamed tributary flows through a moderately sloping valley and a mature, second
growth bottomland hardwood forest interspersed with vernal pools (Figure 1). This valley is
classified as valley a type VIII: (Rosgen 1.996) that is identified by the presence of river terraces
and depositional floodplain landforms. The unnamed tributary's floodplain is mainly confined to
the stream channel walls due to down-cutting and over-widening of the channel. Trees in the
buffer zone consist mainly of ironwood Carpirzus caroliniana, black walnut Juglans zzigra,
sweetgum Li~uidambar styracifZua, sycamore Plantanus occiden~alis, boxelder Acer negcendo,
pine Pinus .rpp. , yellow poplar Liriodendron tulipzfera, black cherry Prunus serotina, and several
oak species C)uercus spp. One invasive exotic species, Chinese privet l,igustrunz sinense,
dominates portions of the riparian zone and impedes colonization by beneficial native species.
The longitudinal profile survey began at a stable section of the stream and proceeded
downstream for 782 feet to the confluence with Goose Creek (Figure 2). This stream appears to
have been channelized in the past, resulting in a sinuosity ratio of 1.15. Water surface slope is
1 % (0.01). Bankfull was determined using field indicators, primarily a scour line, and using
regional curve information for rural Piedmont streams (Harman et al. 1999). Bankfull was
difficult to determine because of the vertical, eroding stream banks. Channel dimensions were
determined with the use of two representative cross-sections (Figure 3.3, 3.4). Bankfull width is
10.4 ft, bankfull mean depth is 1.58 ft, and bankfull maximum depth is 1.91 ft (Appendix 1).
The entrenchment ratio is 1.34 and the width/depth ratio is 6.58 (Appendix 1). Medium gravel
(Ds~ = 12.61 mm) is the bed material in the riffle (Figure 4). Fine gravel (D5~ = 5.59 mm) is the
bar material (Figure 5). Data from two cross-sections (Figures 3.3, 3.4) indicates the stream
channel is a gully G/4 stream type. In G stream segments there is a large amount of depositional
material primarily composed of an unconsolidated, heterogeneous mixture of small gravel and
sand. Bank erasion and sediment rates are typically high as indicated by the substrate pebble
count result of 15% clay, 15% sand, and 56% small to medium gravel. Past channelization has
accelerated bank erosion and down-cutting. These types of activities are common in unstable G
channels. Riparian vegetation plays a marginal role in streambank stability at this site. At many
locations, the banks are vertical and contain little in the way of bank stabilizing vegetation
(Figure 3.3, 3.4, Appendix 4).
Reference Reach
Stable reference reach streams are difficult to find in the Goose Creek watershed, therefore,
reference data was used from Sal's Branch in Umstead State Park, Wake County (Appendix 1).
This stream has a drainage area of 0.4 mil and is classified as an E stream type. Dimensionless
ratios taken from this reference reach were used in the design of the current Priority I stream
restoration project. Also incorporated into the design were stable reference cross-sections from
the unnamed tributary (Figures 3.1, 3.2).
•
2

M~~ssels
• Critical habitat for the federally and state endangered Carolina heelsplitter is located in
Goose Creek downstream of the NC 218 bridge. This project is located approximately 0.4 mi
below the NC 218 bridge in the designated critical habitat area. Mussels have not been observed
in this small, intermittent tributary. However, approximately 0.2 mi above this site five mussel
species were found during July 2004 (Savidge 2004). These species are the eastern elliptio
Fslliptio complarzata (state significantly rare), variable spike Elliptio icterina, eastern creekshell
Villosa constr•icta, and Carolina creekshell l'illosa vaughniuna (state/federal species of concern)
and the introduced Asian clam Corbicz~la.fluminea,. The Carolina heelsplitter was not found at
this location.
Coraservatiort Easement
For Piedmont streams, a NCDWQ permit condition requires that the stream project have a 50
ft riparian corridor, both banks, placed in a conservation easement (CE) before construction can
take place. The CE survey has been completed for this project and negotiations are ongoing to
close this transaction with two landowners and the North Carolina Clean Water Management
Trust Fund. The 4.169 acres placed in the CE will provide permanent protection for the restored
stream channel (Appendix 2). A copy of the final CE survey and signed CE will be supplied to
NCDWQ and USACE upon completion of the as-built survey.
Site Improvements
• The objectives of this project are to enhance and stabilize 168 ft of streambank to eliminate
5.52 ft of existing stream channel and construct 896 ft of new E/4 channel type {Figure 6). The
new channel will re-connect the stream to its existing floodplain and increase sinuosity from 1.15
to 1.6 (RiverMorph 2003). New channel construction will allow for establishment of riparian
vegetation along the streambanks and enhancement of vernal pools. This 1,064 ft project is to be
constructed in an existing bottomland forest.
Streambarrk enhancement
Bank reshaping is planned along the right bank from stations 0+62 to 1+44 and along the left
bank from stations 1+85 to 2+30. Bank reshaping design will be based on cross-sections 0+12
and 1+78 (Figures 3.1, 3.2) and reference reach data (Appendix l). Stream structures (root wads,
rock/log vanes) will be used to maintain bank stability and provide in-stream habitat for aquatic
species.
Priority I Restoration
From station 2+30 to l 1+26, a new 896 ft Priority I: restoration channel will be constructed in
the dry and stabilized before the existing stream is diverted into it. Construction of a new
channel will increase sinuosity from 1.15 to 1.60. Approximately 552 ft of the existing channel
will be filled or converted to vernal pools. The new channel design incorporates the Sal's
• Branch reference reach characteristics (similar drainage area, proposed stream type, and cross-
3

sectional area). The designed riffle will have across-sectional area of 16.41 ft2, mean depth of
• l .43 ft, and average riffle slope will be 0.02 % (Figure 7.1, Appendix 1). The designed pool will
have across-sectional area of 37.68 ft2, mean depth of 3.30 ft (Figure 7.2, Appendix 1). Design
longitudinal profile and pattern for pool-to-pool spacing will average 58 ft (Figure 8, Appendix
1). Meander wavelength will average 43 ft (Figure 8.2, Appendix l ).
At station 9+91 the new channel will cross an existing ephemeral agricultural field drain
channel. The new channel will then parallel the field drain (Figure 3.5) and tie into the field
drain at station 10+77. The new channel will then be reconnected with Goose Creek using a
series of step-pools (Appendix 3.6) at station 11+26.
Proposed channel dimension and profile parameters are designed to ensure channel
competency and sediment transport. Shear stress was calculated using Shields curve to insure
that flows in the proposed new channel could move the D5~ bar particle size of 5.59 mm. The
estimated bankfull shear stress of 0.18 lb/ft2 is able to move a particle of 10.50.mm at a minimum
mean depth 1.20 ft (RNERMvrph 2003, Appendix 1).
Grading to create the new channel will accommodate the channel plan form, cross-sectional
and profile design dimensions (Figure 7, Appendix 3). Construction of the new channel will
improve channel-floodplain connectivity, complement the physical function of the channel
during flood events, and enhance riparian habitat along the new channel.
Excavated materials from. the new channel will be stockpiled and used to fill portions of the
. old channel (Appendix 4). There will not be enough onsite excavated soil to completely fill the
old channel; therefore, several vernal pools will be created in the old channel. In addition to
these vernal pools, several low depressions will be created or enhanced along the new channel
floodplain as vernal pools. Location of these vernal pools will be determined during
construction of the new channel. In some areas of the floodplain a low berm will be constructed
along the new channel to create the vernal pool.
Stream structures planned for this Priority I project include those that enhance in-stream
habitat and stability. Rock vanes, log vanes, and root wad structures (Appendix 3) will be used
to reduce the near bank stress and direct flows toward the center of the stream and maintain riffle
grade. These structures will also improve in-stream aquatic habitat and provide long-term bank
stability. In the last 75 ft of new channel, astep-pool complex (Appendix 3.5) will be
constructed to slowly drop the new channel thalweg and connect it with Goose Creek.
Flexible design will be used for the placement of log and/or rock vanes, rock weirs, and step-
pool structures. Flexible design allows for the placement of structures at appropriate locations
during construction. Root wads will be used on the outside of meanders (pools) and rock vanes
and rock weirs will be used to maintain stream grade and create in-stream habitat. Log vanes
will be used in conjunction with root wads and as individual log vane structures. In-stream
structures will be constructed according to standard guidelines (Appendix 3). Footer rocks will
be placed approximately 2 ft below the normal stream bottom. Rock, averaging approximately
250 - 500 pounds (2 to 4 ft3) in size will be used to construct the structures. Rock for vanes,
• weirs, and step-pools will be obtained from a local quarry. Root wads and logs will be collected
4

• from trees removed for construction access or new channel construction. Structures will be built
by a track-hoe with a thumb working from the top of the bank.
Riparian Improvements
New channel construction will reduce undercutting and allow riparian vegetation to become
established, resulting in increased bank stability (Appendix 3.1). After the new streambank has
been graded it will be reseeded with brown top millet or winter wheat/rye (1 lb per 1000 ft~.) and
with a NCWRC native all-purpose grass/wildflower seed mix at the rate of 10 lb per acre (Table
I ). Woody vegetation, including live stakes and rooted trees, will be planted along all disturbed
areas. Understory native woody species such as tag alder Alrnss serrulata, silky willow Salix
sericea, silky dogwood Cornzzs amomum, and elderberry Sambucus canaderzsis will be planted
along sloped streambanks. On the upper banks native trees such as red maple Acer rubz°zzm,
yellow poplar Liriodendron tulipifera, black cherry Pruzzus serotina, black walnut Jz~glans nigra,
white oak Quercus alba, and red oak Querc~zrs rubra that provide shade, bank stability and cover
and food for wildlife will be planted. Woody plantings will be at the rate of 320 stems per acre
as per DWQ guidelines (USAGE et al. 2003). The exotic invasive species, Chinese privet, will
be cut and stumps treated with a solution of glyphosate (North Carolina Botanical Garden 2001).
Woody debris (downed trees, logs, branches) created from onsite construction will be placed
in appropriate areas along the project corridor and inside the CE. Debris piles will be stacked in
irregular patterns throughout the site as wildlife nesting, shelter and feeding areas.
Mussels
It is unlikely that this unnamed intermittent tributary contains mussels. A meeting with
USFWS personnel on June 9, 2004 indicated that once they review this site plan, the USFWS
will probably have no concerns with construction at this site (M. Buncick and J_ Fridell, USFWS,
personal communication). A formal notice of concurrence will be issued once the USFWS has
reviewed the site plan. If mussels are found during construction, work will be halted and the
area searched for additional specimens. An attempt will be made to identify the mussels and
they will be relocated out of the project area.
Erosion Control
During construction, equipment will only access the stream when absolutely necessary. For
this project, it is anticipated that less than 0.5 - 0.75 acre of soil will be disturbed at any one
time. All track hoe work can be accomplished from the top of the bank. All construction
materials including rock, root wads, logs, and erosion control materials will be stockpiled at a
central location at the site. To limit disturbance of soils, all equipment will travel along
identified travel corridors. If necessary, stabilized construction entrances will be used to allow
construction equipment non-erosive access to and from the site. This area will allow soil to be
shed from. equipment wheels prior to entering the paved roadway.
Disturbance of soils will be limited to only what work can be accomplished and stabilized on
• a daily basis. Stockpiled soils or disturbed areas on steep slopes will have erosion control
5

fencing installed as needed. Once the banks are sloped, they will be fertilized, limed and hand
seeded. The surface of the sloped bank will be covered with excelsior erosion control matting
and anchored in place with wooden survey stakes and landscape staples. Disturbed areas on
level ground will be seeded and mulched with straw. Other sediment controls, such as silt fence,
will be used in areas where disturbed soils have access to flowing water. Riparian woodland
vegetation adjacent to the construction work. area will be identified by flagging and protected
from inadvertent construction impacts. Trees that need to be removed will be identified prior to
construction.
~S'pill Containment
All equipment supplied by the contractor must be in good working order and will not be
leaking any fluids that could contaminate the stream or property. In case of an accidental spill of
hazardous materials (hydraulic fluids, gas, oil) two Attack Pac emergency spill kits will be on
site during construction. Any spills of hazardous materials will be cleaned up immediately with
contaminated soils disposed of according to state regulations.
C'r~llural Resources
During several site visits no remnants (pottery pieces, flint chips, arrowheads) indicating past
Native American activity have been found. On July 22, 2004, the North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources (NCDCR) indicated that they had no record of historic resources that would
be affected by the project. Therefore, the NCDCR had no comment on the project as proposed.
• If, during construction, any items determined to be of historical. significance are found, work will
be halted and the NCDCR notified.
Monitoring
Once the project is complete an as-built survey will be conducted. Future monitoring
surveys can then be compared to the as-built survey to determine if the new channel is stable or
moving towards an unstable condition. Channel components monitored at this site will include
cross-sections, longitudinal profile, pebble counts, and vegetation survival counts/plots.
Monitoring will be conducted for five years after construction and will follow the 2003 "Stream
Mitigation Guidelines" for monitoring developed by the USACE, NCDWQ, NCWRC and US
Environmental Protection Agency. Biological monitoring is not required at this site.
Conclusion
Creation of a new meandering channel, installation of in-stream habitat structures, and an
improved riparian corridor will reduce channel erosion and the amount of sediment being
deposited into Goose Creek from this site. The Priority I project will create a stream that
resembles a more natural stream channel environment. Water quality will be improved through
reduced sedimentation. Aquatic and wildlife habitat will be improved with the return of a
functioning riparian corridor.
•
6

References
Clinton, D. R., G. D. Jennings, W. A. Harman, J. M. Patterson, L. O. Slate, and J. Williams.
1999. North Carolina reference stream channel morphology relationships. Pages 393-
400 irl Wildland Hydrology, Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association
Specialty Conference. Bozeman, Montana, ed. D. S. Olson and J. P. Potyondy. American
Water Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia.
Doll, B. A., G. L. Grabow, K. R. Hall, J. Jalley, W. A. Harman, G. D. Jennings, and D. E. Wise.
2003. Stream restoration: a natural channel design handbook. North Carolina Stream
Restoration Institute and North Carolina Sea Grant. Raleigh.
Doll, B. A., D. E. Wise, C. M. Buckner, S. D. Wilkerson, W. A. Harman, R. E. Smith, and J.
Spooner. 2002. Hydraulic geometric relationships for urban streams throughout the
Piedmont of North Carolina. Journal of American Water Resources Association, Vol. 38
(3):3:641-b51.
Harman, A. H., G. D. Jennings, J. M_ Patterson, D. R. Clinton, L. O. Slate, A. G. Jessup, J. R.
Everhart, and R. E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North
Carolina Streams. Pages 401-408 in Wildland Hydrology, Proceedings of the American
Water Resources Association Specialty Conference. Bozeman, Montana, ed. D. S. Olson
and J. P. Potyondy. American Water Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia.
Harrelson, C. C., J. P. Potyondy, and C. L. Rawlins. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an
illustrated guide to field technique. General Technical Report RM-245. U. S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Mickey, J. H. and S. S. Hining. 2003. Greene mitigation site, Goose Creek, Mecklenburg
County, enhancement plan. Prepared for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation stream mitigation program. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh.
North Carolina Botanical garden. 2001. Controlling invasive exotics in your yard, trees, shrubs,
herbs, vines. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
RIVERMorph Stream Restoration Software. 2003. RIVERMc~rph Applications. Louisville,
Kentucky.
Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books. Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
Savidge, T. W. 2004. Freshwater mussel survey for Kathleen Haigler mitigation property, TIPS
R-2123 and R-2420B, Union County, North Carolina. The Catena Group, Hillsborough,
North Carolina, 2004.
•
7

• USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), Natural Resources Conservation Service.
1992. Soil survey of Union County, North Carolina.
USAGE (United States Corps of Engineers), Wilmington District. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2003. Stream mitigation guidelines. Wilmington;
North Carolina.
•
~J

•
0
U
0
.~
a~
cn
.~
~.
~,
a~
>_
~_
-rs
a~
a~
U
as
0
C7
0
~,
•
a~
0
a~
.~
U
O
c~
cd
4-,
O
O
.~
a3
V
O
~ ~
O
~;
v O
N
N
n

`/

•
•
•
ai
aQ
.~
~,
~.
a~
-~
a~
.~
U
O
c~
cC
3
0
N
i-,
U
O
O
~'
c~
.~
.~
~.
-~
a~
0
a~
c~
0
~~
~o
~o
'., N
~ ~
bq ti
~~
~~
N ~
G
w ~.
~ LL'
~} m ~
~,
e ~ F'
I
* k
~ >-
r= .•i•.
4i :
t ,~ ~
~ ~
r` ~
i ~
a s! 1~ ~ ~,
~ u {
r ~=
r
r'
fr
~_
~ ~~ ~
,+..-
~ ~ ~
w ~
~;
o ~
o ~
~,,~.E I,It~I~~~~~~~
10

• F-c;trxE 3. Four cross-sections from an unnamed tributary to Goose Creek on the
Williams/Matlock site, Union County, June 2004 (bankfull measurements in feet).
o Ground Points • Bankfull t VtJater Surface
Indicators Points
t=thkf - 4_fx f3rx!<F- -- ~_A:e t`Y151!F- - 1S_fi
r
(J,1
~..~..~
Horizontal Distance ift:r
r~
U
•
0 P5
FIGURE 3.1. Riffle cross-section at station 4+21 used to classify the stream. This channel
segment will be eliminated by the Priority I restoration.

•
n
U
•
FIGi.1r~; 3. Continued.
12
FIGI~ 3.2. Riffle cross-section. at station b+79 used to classify the stream. "phis channel
segment will be eliminated by the :Priority 1 restoration.

•
•

FIGURE 3. Continued.
13
F1(iURE 3.3. Stable riffle cross-section at station 0+12 located above the proposed
Priority T channel.

•
•

Flclulu; 3. Continued.
14
rI(JURE 3.4. Jtable r~ttie cross-section at station 1+723 located above the proposed
Priority I channel.

•
•
•
F[c;[~r~ 3. Continued.
O Ground Points • Bankfiill Indicators T YYater Surface Points
10
_ 100 '"~
~ ~~
~ ~ ~ Drainm~e Jitch
N
W
Ne~c ch:nulel cussing ~ rrnal pool
95
9D
0 50 100 150 200
Horizontal Distance i~ft}
F[~u1~: 3.5. Cross-section at station 10+38 showing existing drainage ditch channel and
proposed new channel location.
15

r~
• ~
.~
a~
~_
:~
a~
.~
U ~
~ ~
U
N
~ Q
'~
cci ~
.. C2.
3~
~, ~~.
~~
~,
~~
o -~
~~
~o
~o
~~
~~
o~
~~
0
a~
.o
~~
~" o
-~ U
N ~
«i
~ ~
~_
O U
i-~i i-+
GCS
~~
~°
O N
U ~
_N ~
~ ti
~ >,
R, ~
.~ O
_, U
O
i.t~
r-,
c} ~ ~ ~
~-~^ ~ ~
~ U Qy
{6 O
ar o
~" ~ ~ ~
`~a.
~` ~~"
~_ _- ~
~ - - ?
=,--r _ ~_
_ - v
~_- -
-~~''",
li
~S
.I~lll~ ~lJ~~.l~~
~6

x
O
• U
«3
3
0
~.
N
O
O

O
cci
.~
'C
N
cd
.~
0
• ~
.~
~~~
i-y O
O
O N
U ~
_~ ~
~ ti
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ O
~U
a~ ~
> o
a,'~
~~
-b ~
~ '~
~,
~~
~ ~,
~ >
~~
a _~
~ri ~
-~
.~

4
L

~
~
Q
~. d
~

}
s
~
~

O

O
O

O
O ~.-.~

~~~
o N

h
~~

f f
}

f
~
`V
n
I
L
..
r

O f7 O O O O O O
© C~ 4Q t~ ti7 4f? ~ C+?
a~~~~ ~~~~~a~~ O
O O O
CV r-
17

•
:c
a~
.~
U
O
a~
+~
O
a~
a~
~.
U
a~
O
O
C`~
O
+-+
a~
~ ~
• ~~
?~ o
~ ~'
., ~
~,
~~
-~ ~.
~ o
~ .~
~ v
~w
0
r.~.. ~:
0 0
~., o
,.~ N
~ ~
cd
bIJ b~q
.~
~ ~~''
~ O
~ U
O ~
N ~
.~
_~ ~
bA
~~
~,
-~
• ~J
~~
.. ..1``
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
f
i
r
r
i
i
i
~r pp
~,
-f-
0
r ri,
r':

r,
r
X
f~
,!
.-- ;'.
N
2
~
q
$ _
O ~
~"
~ ,-.
/~
U 1 U ~ ~
_
ti O
'+-. rte,:, .~

^~' O ~ O N `~' O
O ~ ^+
cv "G ~
am
• V
' ~ ~ O
~ C
?
w a Q
.~
~° ~ a
a~ O
w h'~
¢ ~
w v
18

O ~ co
~ i~-
C/1
a ~ '~

• Fi<;I~ 7. Proposed channel riffle and pool cross-section designs for the unnamed
tributary to Goose Creek at the Williams/Matlock site, Yadkin River drainage, Union
~'ounty, June 2004 (bankfuil measurements in feet).
•
n Grountl Points s 6ankfull • Water Surtace
Indicators Points
4lh6<f = 11.1 Obkf = 3.~~ Obkf _ 37.7
105
C
a
y
v
w
95
0 0 103.4
Horizontal Distance {ftl
FIC,IJI~}-. 7.2. Design pool.
o Ground Points a 8ankfull ~ Water Surtace
Indicators Points
4Jhkf = 11.1 Ohkf = 1~5 Ohkf 16.4
t05
C
O
N
W
95
0.0 103.4
Hurizuntal Distance ±ft)
FtULTI2E 7.1. Design riffle.
19

• FIGURE 8. Proposed longitudinal profile and pattern design for one meander wavelength
t~~r the unnamed tributary to Goose Creek at the Wi(liams/Matlock site, Yadkin drainage,
t ~ nion County, June 2004.
•
105.
103.5
102.0 /' Banlduli
100.
.~_ 99.
4
~ 97.5
_~
~ 96.0
W
94.5
93.0
/ Thalweg
91.
90.0
0 24 48 72 96 120
Distance ft;t
FIVURE 8.1. Design longitudinal profile for one meander wavelength.
• FICi~ tRF. 8.2. Design pattern for one meander a~-avelength.
20

• TAB[,E l . North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's native seed mix used for
stream restoration and enhancement projects. 2001.
Percent of
min (°~o) Common Name Botanical name
10.00 Rice Cut Grass
10.00 Va Wild rve
1.0.00 Woolgrass
5.00 Sensetive Fern
5.00 Green Buln~sh
S.UO Hop Sedge
5.00 Soft Rush.
5.00 Softstem Bu(nish
5.00 Deerton~ue
5.00 Lesser Bur-reed
5.00 Eastern Gama~~rass
5.00 Elderberry
2.SU Many Leaved Buln~sll
2.50 Noddin; Bur-marigold
2.50 Squarestem Monkey Flotiver
2.50 Joe Pye Weed
2.50 Swamp Milkweed
2.50 Red Chokeberry
2.50 Silky Dogwood
x.50
2.50 Winterberry
Spicebush
2.50 Maple-Leaved viburnum
Total 100.00
Leersia orvzoides
]/~y111uS VIC~lI11CLIS
Scirpus cypemus
Qnoclea sensibilLis
Scirpus atrovirens
Carex lupilina
Juncus effuses
Scirpus va(idus
Panicum c(andestinum
Sparganium americanum
Tripascum actyloides
Sambucus canadensis
Scirpus polyphyllus
Bidens cernua
Mimulus rin~ens
Eupatorium fistulosa
Asclepias incarnata
Amnia arbutifolia
Comas amomuin
^e~ verticillata
Lindera benzoin
Viburnum acerifolium
•
21

. Appendix 1. Natural channel design data from Sal's Branch reference reach, the
existing unnamed tributary and the proposed new channel, Lemmond/Deberry site,
Union County, July 2004
•

Reference Exisitin Desi n
Survey Crew Dell/Telene~sk~1 Mieke /Hlnln
Sune~ Date 6/1/2001 3/4/2004
Stream Type E G E
Drainage Area (mi') 0.40 0.60 0.60
tiankfult ~~~;dd, rwbkft 10.70 10.40 11.43
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkt) 1.30 1.58 1.43
Baukfiill Maximum De ,th 1 Duris) 1.90 1.91 2.09
Widthillepth Ratio 8.23 6.58 7.99
Max Rit~le l:)epth Ratio (Dmax/Dbkf) 1.46 1.21 1.46
Ba»ktull Cross-SecticN~al Area (Abktl 13.80 16.38 16.41
Bankfull mean velcx;ity (Vbkt) 4.40 4.54 4.54
Baukfiill I)isehar<_~~ tQbkft 60.67 74.38 74.38
Width of Flocxi Prone Area (Wfpa) 100.00 13.93 106.87
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkfj 9.35 1.34 9.35
Min Meander Len nth (Lm) 35.00 22.70 38.16
Max Meander Len th (Lm) 43.00 175.11 47.00
Min MeauJer I_emth kaiio 1 Lm 1'~'hkfl 3.27 2.18 3.34
Max Meander Length Ratio (Lm!Wbkf) 4.02 16.84 4.11
Min Radius of Curvature (Rc) 11.00 6.47 12.00
Max Radius of Curvature (Rc) 21.00 54.63 14.00
Min Radius of Curvature Ratio (Re/Wbktj 1.03 0.62 1.05
Mas Radius of C»nahire Ratio IRc ~'l'hkfl 1.96 5.25 1.22
Min Belt Width (Wblt) 20A0 7.89 42.00
Ma. Belt ~~'idd~ tlw`blr+ 62.00 11.52 56.00
Min Meander Width Ratio (Wblt/Wbkf) 1.87 0.76 3.67
Mas Meander Width Ratio (WbItlWbkt) 5.79 1.11 1.6d
Sinuosity r h ~ 2.00 1.15 2.79
Valley Slope 0.01 0.01 0.01
A~ ~_. Slo k t ureasured t 0.01 0.01 0.002
Min Riffle Slope (Srii) 0.02 NA NA
Average Riftle Slope (Sri f) NA 0.02
Mas Kiftlr Slo ~e 1 Srifl 0.04 NA NA
Min Riffle Slope,,/Ave Slope (Srit£/Save) 3.20 NA NA
A~eri<,e Riffle Sloe (Srif Sa~el 0.00 NA 10.00
Max Riftle S1opelAve SIo}x: (Srif~/Save) 7.20 NA NA
Min Riftle Length Lrillle 3.00 12.00 NA
Average Riftle Length Lriflle 48.00 20.00
Max Riffle Length Lriffle 28.00 96.00 NA
Min .Riftle I_eneth Banlcti,l! Width 1 Lrif Wbkl) 0.28 1.15 NA
Average Riffle Lcrogth Length/Bankfull Width (Lrif./Wbk~ 0.00 4.62 1.75
Mas Kit11e 1_ensth Ii:mktull l~'idth tLrif Vl'bkf) 2.62 9.23 NA
22

•
•

Appendix 1. Continued.
Reference Exisitin Desi n
Pool Slope (S ool) 0.00 OAO 0.00
Pool Slo k Ratio i S xx~l Sac=, ~ 0.00 0.17 0.00
Min Pool Depth (Dpool) 2.80 1.96 NA
Average Pool Depth (Dpool) 2.66 3.30
Max Poo] Depth (Dpool) 3.20 3.1$ NA
Min Pool Depth Ratio (Dpcxrl/Dbkf) 2.15 1.24 NA
Acera_e Pcwl De >th Ratio (D xx~l Dhkf) 0.00 1.68 2.31
Max Pool Depth Ratio (Dpool!Dblcf) 2.46 2.01 NA
Pool Area to xxil ~ 24.00 NA 37.68
Pool Area Ratio (Apool/Abkfl 1.74 NA 3.30
Min Pool Length (Lpool) 21.00 6.00 NA
AceraQe Pcx~l Length !1_ xxil) 26.00 20.00
Max Pool Length (Lpool) 35.00 78.00 NA
Min Pool Lemth Ratio tL <x~l l~'hkf) 1.96 0.58 NA
Average Pool Length Ratio (Lpool/V/bkt) 0.00 2.50 1.75
Max Pool Length Ratio (Lpool/Wbkf) 3.27 7.50 NA
Pool width (Wpool) 10.70 NA 11.43
Pool Width Ratio (WpoolfWbkf) 1.00 NA 1.00
Min Pcx>I Pcx>t S ~acin; i ~- ~) 51.00 29.00 NA
Average Pool/Pool Spacing (p-p) 78.00 5$.00
Maz P«~I Pawl S ~acin, t ~- ~) 66.00 122.00 NA
Min Pool Spacing Ratio (p-p/Wbkf) 4.77 2.79 NA
Average Pool Spacing Ratio (p-plWbkf) 0.00 7.50 5.07
Max Pcx~l S ~acin~? Katio t ~- ~~'bk-ft 6.17 11.73 NA
Materials:
1. Particle Size Distribufi~xi of Ctumnet
dlc; a.62 0.62
~i3; 5.73 5.73
dso 12.61 12.61
ds4 58.37 58.37
d95 150.37 150.37
2. Particle Size Distribution of Bar
~uc~ 2.12 2.12
d35 4.45 4.45
d50 10.00 5.59 5.59
dsa 30.00 15.77 15.77
d95 25.52 25.52
Largest Srze at loe of Bar 70.00 70.00
Bankfull shear stress 0.67 0.18
Mutable particle size 30.00 10.50
23

•
•
•
Q
a
N
.i.n
•^
y~y
°14
V
i.~
~5~i
i/1
.~
.t:
~1
h
CV
i.+
in
U
Y4
C°°
~.
Q
a ' . - s r,el -. i z " --.--~ _p_~ ^n:a;; ? N]G"LLYIV '5KNfT:IM T~ ~ r ~ y ~ p
- yn .- : ua ~- ~J~ ,1~ 4 JD S LLdIdOad IH: }C raQLLBC,d Y ~ E ; 1 ._ I ~A! : {r-
uiJ~x~u~E~u~ '~~'d1~- ~ rt' ~ - sr~av ~4vlla;,:Iw a^~7t1#n~ ~ N~uv~t_s3e vrrie;s t : I t
OJ ~ 3 1:3111+~~.'~Y 11 o3:'OGd i
ay '4 „Ai
S - z~ ~ ~
4 ~ ~.1 _et i _ ~ _ ~ ,e CR nu
F _,. Y li' ~h. ~ ~'hJ c~... i
ti ~ `• 0 ~ °_
:, - :~ _
_ ~ ~ `~
*` , y ~ B ~ {
_ ..y S ~ ~ as ~1'°`. ~y~,Gp `4.
.~ `ms's,; ~ tr a ~_ 3 _
1~ ~ `s ` `W+sl,y
o Via` ~ ,i!i• '~ ) ;sic _ ~`° '-:, g":.®„.emu 11 .5
_ ~ * _ a ~~~
~~'R ~Y f L i ~ I
<. ~''`.' ~ ~ _ 111 ~ _ -t~
~ ? 7 ~ ~ ..
1
~ ~ _ •- a i ~
Z !F
sr;Y
/ g
/ _
- ~ ~ - V DsC "YYGL. e1
5..ya ~~+ 1 ~ 6r S ~ ~,
F
1 ltd?~~- v ~ Kt jy~p £ ~~a .. 4 ..
s ~ e
cn { v ~ +n' 3
ml t(` 7 ~ i I 9 pC 4
G J _~. ~~7+.~~~.~ ~ ~ i~ - ~ Y a 9 Yy ~ t ~
c{ cQi x ~~ 9 k2~y ~ '3 z ~ l
19~~ ~, .. _s .. .. __. .. ~.~ Y."_ ..
- C ~v ~ ,g + F~ Sy
~~ a 4s. C Y sEyaa i ~'~ ~ i .F ~~ ~ ~,~
-fie.., ~' ~CiL ~%~g `` ~~e°V G° FS~. '.
~a tr S~.x~Z r i 4~ h~~ I ~ _k Y ~~ 'x
s x_
b ~~ ~3~..-~ ~ rS~pe~r I ~~ ~ 1 :<
i E a## y~ 2 1 C sC~ ~~- ~ s
1 aoe ~ n .4F 9tr~3;~ o~Y°p. i iy ~ ~~~~Op i h
24

.-appendix 3. Bank grading and in-stream structures designs.
_-~ 3.1. Typical bank ,railing and reve~retation plan.
rr, _ Construct a bankhill bench
~~~v.~rrtrftt:r. and re-shape ba»ks on a I : I ~-
~'t1t:'ttrt/t/. r
`:ftrtttttttt, or ?:I slope.
~~ r{rttttttr :. ~ ,. .:. ~ ~ rr /rtit/fJ.
Banhfiill elevation ~ CUT'
Etisting bank
i ---- Proposed bai~}:
Plant Rooted Trees. 2-fi ft tall -________,.
Plant Live Stakes and/or native shrubs
Plant Hert~aceons Ve~~etation
-- ~ i,'

V Install fence if lire
stock are present at
the tirte tir long term
riparian protection
~5

Appendix 3. Continued
:-x.3.2. Typical cross-vane showing plan and cross-section views.
• NOTE: There should be no gaps between the rocks in the cross-
vane. Rock size should. range from 2 cu ft. to 4 cu ft.
•
•
1 /3 bottom width
PLAN VIF,W

Arm slope range 4 -
26

.appendix 3. Continued.
.-x.3.3. Typical rock vane structure showing plan and cross section views. NOTE: There should
• be no gaps between the rocks in the rock vane structure. The rock vane should have a 4 % to
l 2% slope from the top of bankfull or inner berm bench to streambed. Rock size should range
from 2 cu ft. to 4 cu ft. Arm length will vary depending on size of stream.
•
r~
LJ
PLAN VIEW
our
>le
~~~~
'° _ _ ..
27
c~1~' Bankfi~ll bench

i~
Appendix 3. Continued.
,x.3.4. Typical root wad structure showing plan and cross section views. NOTE:
Footer logs should be >8" diameter and installed below the streambed. Root wads
should be 8-14 ft long and >10" diameter. Large boulders should be placed in gaps
between root wads. Fill materials from the site should be placed behind the root wads
and boulders, covered with an erosion co . rol mat and seeded anal trees plant on
top of the bench. ~ (~ ~, ~ ~ j ti
j ~~
~.:--~ ,
•
I •
PLAN VIEW
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
28

Appendix 3. Continued.
A.3.5. Log Vane Structure showing plan and profile views
•

PLAN V1F.W

~~
`~
Bankfull Elevation
PRt)FILE VIEW
•
29

•

~..
N
.-,
U
~ O
~ ~
a
~ ~
o
U~
• U
M ~~
~ ~'
C
~ ~
Q M
"~
H
H
x
a
0
a
a
a
w
w
a
a
G
e.+
Q
O
w

•
•
•
appendix 4. Additional pictures of the unnamed tributary to Goose Creek on the
Williams/Mattock site, Yadkin River drainage, Union County, June 2004. These
channel segment will be eliminated by the Priority I restoration.
A.4.1. Looking downstream from station 4+10, May 2004.
A.4.2. Looking downstream from station 5+10, May 2004.
31