19931059 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20081024

HABITAT
ASSESSMENT AND
RESTORATION
PROGRAM, INC.
Ms. Amy Chapman
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Re: Stream Restoration Plan
Un-named Tributary to Richland Creek
Deep River Basin
LARCO Asphalt Plant
Old Jackson Lake Road
High Point, NC
p? 3`?o5?vC`,
9305-D Monroe Road
Charlotte, NC 28270
Office: 704-841-2841
Fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
www.habitatassessment.com
Employee Owned
October 21, 2008
p
OCT 2 4 2008
DENR -WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BR/ NCH
Dear Ms. Chapman;
Per Ms. Sue Homewood's request enclosed please find a copy of the restoration plan as it pertains
to the LARCO asphalt plant in High Point NC.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me a the office number above or
336.362.6776.
Respectfully submitted,
(&, t a&---
Karri Cecil Blackmon
President
HABITAT ANALYSIS • ENDANGERED PLANT STUDIES • STREAM RESTORATION • WETLAND MITIGATION • MONITORING
i %
Stream Restoration Plan
Un-named Tributary to Richland to Creek,
Deep River Basin
Larco Asphalt Plant
Old Jackson Lake Rd.
High Point, NC
7,09
- 24
aC
HABITAT
ASSESSMENT AND
RESTORATION
PROGRAM ANC.-

OCT 2 4 2008
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
1EL-kRP, Inc
9305D Monroe Rd Charlotte, NC 28270 [phone] FAX: [phone]
` A
October, 15`h, 2008
':*
s.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Restoration Project Goals 1
2. Site Location and Background Information 1
2.1 Topographic, physiographic, and watershed setting 2
2.2 Landuse in the watershed 2
2.3 Soils and Geology of the restoration and reference reach sites 2
3. Existing Conditions in Reach Proposed for Restoration 2
4. Reference Reach Information 3
5. NC Regime Data Analysis 4
6. Manning Equation-based Estimates of Bankfull Discharge 6
7. Reference Grainsize Analysis 6
8. Restoration Design 7
8.1 Restoration planform 7
8.2 Restoration dimension 7
8.3 Restoration profile 8
8.4 In-stream structures 8
8.5 Bank stabilization 8
8.6 Riparian bank and Buffer Planting Plan 9
9. Stability Assessment 9
10 . Monitoring and Contingency Plan 10
11 . References 11
Appendices
A. Photos of Hagan Stone Reference Reach Site
B. Grain Size and Pebble Count Information for Reference Reach Site
C. Tables of Survey Data
D. Miscellaneous Correspondence and Supporting Materials
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location, Topographic, and Watershed Map for Restoration Site
Figure 2. Aerial Photo and Landuse for Restoration Site and Watershed
Figure 3. Soils Map for Restoration Site and Watershed
Figure 4. Map and Stream Profile for Existing Conditions at Larco Plant Site
Figure 5a-b. Reference Reach Planform Maps
Figure 6. Reference Reach Dimensional Cross Section Information
Figure 7. Reference Reach Profile Information
Figure 8. Restoration Planform Design Sheet and Parameters
Figure 9. Restoration Cross Section Design Sheet and Parameters
Figure 10. Restoration Profile Design Sheet and Parameters
Figure 11. Restoration Planting Plan and Planting Tables
Figure 12a-d. Restoration In-Stream Detail Sheets
Figure 13. Shield's Criteria for Sediment Stability
Figure 14. Bed Shear Stress and Sediment Stability Curve (Shield Curve)
List of Tables
Table 1. North Carolina Regime Equation Data
Table 2. Morphologic Parameters for Reference and Restoration Sites
Table 3. Bankfull Discharge Calculations using Manning Eq.

1. Restoration Project Goals
The goals of the proposed stream restoration activities are to restore the original
morphologic, hydrologic and ecologic functions to approximately 380 linear feet of a
Rosgen B3 )/C3 stream reach in southeastern Guilford County along an un-named ls` order
perennial stream that drains to Richland Creek, the latter a tributary of the Deep River,
within the Deep River Basin of North Carolina. The proposed restoration work offsets
future anticipated impacts previously described in correspondence between the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality and LARCO (Major Watershed Variance, City of
High Point, Case # WSV07-01, see appendix D) and follows the provisions set forth in
these earlier communications to prepare a detailed stream plan that essentially followed
North Carolina Inter-Agency Guidelines for Stream Restoration. Anticipated impacts
include approximately 149 linear feet of intermittent stream and associated riparian
buffer upstream to the reach identified and detailed in this restoration plan.
2. Site Location and Background Information
The restoration reach is located within a open area of the LARCO Asphalt Plant off of
Old Jackson Lake Rd. (see Figure 1). The physical address is: 1330 Old Jackson Lake
Road (West side of the southern terminus of Old Jackson Lake Rd.). It is listed as
Guilford County Tax Parcel 94-7043-0-0948-00-007, 009, & 039. To drive to the
property from the Winston Salem area take 311 SE and take Exit 20 for KIVETT Dr (0.3
mi), turn right at E Kivett Dr/NC-1113, continue to follow E Kivett Dr for 2.3 mi. and
then turn slightly right toward Jackson Lake Rd 259 ft, then take a slight left at Jackson
Lake Rd in approx. 0.7 mi, turn right at Old Jackson Lake Rd, destination will be on the
right in approximately 223 ft. The restoration site is located in an older portion of the
Asphalt plant property adjacent to the southeast corner of the parcel where it adjoins
Richland Creek and lies under high transmission power lines and also parallels some
regional water and sewer infrastructure.
As described in the Oct. 2007 City of High Point Variance Application the "subject site is
developed with an asphalt plant, which includes stockpiles of concrete, gravel, and sand,
along with covered storage areas, conveyor belts, scales, silos, and offices. The bulk of
the activity related to the operation of the asphalt plant (i.e. mixing of aggregate and
loading of the trucks) occurs in the south-central portion of the site. Larco Construction
Company has operated the asphalt plant on the property since 1997, prior to the adoption
of the Randleman Rules".
p. 1 - HARP

2.1 Topographic, physiographic, and watershed setting.
Figure 1 also shows the 1:24,000 USGS topographic and hydrographic data for the
vicinity of the LARCO Asphalt Plant of Old Jackson Lake Road. On this map, the
watershed boundaries have been delineated for the restoration and sum to approximately
90 acres. This is very close in size to the upper of two (106) of the reference reaches
selected in nearby Guilford County to form the basis of a natural (Rosgen-type) design.
Both impacted and reference reach watersheds are located within headwater areas of the
Deep River Basin. The USGS maps indicate that the reach in question, for approximately
1000 feet or so upstream from the confluence with Richland Creek, is perennial, and this
is found to be consistent with site visits made to the property over the last 9 months.
2.2 Landuse in the watershed
Figure 2 shows an recent color aerial for the vicinity of the asphalt plant with the limits of
the watershed contributing to the restoration reach highlighted. While the watershed is
partially developed (primarily along the Bus 85 corridor) it remains predominantly
wooded and open with less that 10-15% estimated to be covered by compacted or
impervious materials. Thus, the runoff within the watershed is believed to still be more
analogous to North Carolina Piedmont Rural Regime conditions. This is relevant to
verifying the dimensions and discharges provided at the bankfull stage in the design, as
regime relationships are suggested to scale with impervious cover in North Carolina (see
discussion below).
2.3 Soils and Geology of the restoration and reference reach sites
Figure 3 shows the soil types that are found in restoration site watershed. A range of soil
types, common in southeast Guilford County, are found in this watershed. The watershed
is dominated by the Wilkes-Enon Association, that makes up only about 4% of Guilford
County. Enon Soils, predominately sandy loams with moderate to intermediate slopes
form upland and midslope areas within the watershed, and sand loams of the Wilkes Soils
with intermediate to steep slopes are reported from the valley bottoms that follow the
stream corridor. The reach to be restored has been disturbed by years of plant activity and
has the stream in sections of culvert. Overall, the soil types are derived from the
underlying meta-igneous and meta-sedimentary rocks composing interfoliated lenses and
irregular bodies within the Carolina Slate Belt. At depth many of the surficial sand loams
grade to more clay loam substrates (e.g. Wilkes Soils) and thus infiltration rates are lower
that one might predict based on permeabilities from surficial soil horizons.
3. Existing Conditions in the Reach Proposed for Restoration
Figure 4 shows a planform map prepared from a recent aerial and Guilford County
Topographic Map (2' contours) of the degraded reach that lies within SE portions of the
p. 2 - HARP

Asphalt Plant. The map shows the current alignment of the stream centerline as it passes
from the open area to the east in the wooded headwaters through two sections that are
enclosed in culverts (one plastic, one concrete). The current alignment is approximately
333 feet in length and has essentially a sinuosity of 1 (e.g. straight). Also on this figure
annotations have been added to provide the current elevations of the stream elevation at a
number of critical points to provide a stream profile from the open natural section above
the impacted area down to the confluence with Richland Creek. This allows us to
demonstrate a restoration that achieves historically significant recovery of the stream
original profile. The existing profile has been drawn and inserted on figure 4. On the
figure the sections found within the culverts have been highlighted. The figure clearly
identified those sections that are impacted by the current culvert, and the aerial indicates
those areas lacking an current vegetated buffer.
In summary, the 333 linear feet of channel that lies within this section of the Asphalt
Plant have a serverely degraded planform, dimension, and profile without significant
vegetative buffer and should be restored to morphologic conditions that can provide most
if not all of the original functions of the stream that was situated in this location prior to
the creation of the plant.
4. Reference Reach Information
To provide an appropriate design benchmark to restore natural and multi-functional
aquatic values to the perennial reach of stream shown on figure 4, a set of reference
design benchmark conditions needs to be developed using professional selection criteria
and survey methods. Over the course of approximately 3 weeks in August and
September of 2008 approximately 20 comparable watersheds in the upper Deep River
Basin were investigated in the nearby areas of Guilford and Davidson County for reaches
that had similar physical and landuse characteristics. In order to be used for a design, the
reach has to be of similar morphologic setting, with similar watershed size, and needed to
be in a natural setting with indications of long term stability with good habitat value.
This is very difficult in the Piedmont of North Carolina today after some 3-400 years of
human disturbance. From this search, only one watershed met our established criteria and
that one was a small mixed open and wooded watershed to the east in Southern Guilford
County situated mostly within the Hagan Stone City of Greensboro Park. This is park is
predominately a nature preserve and is only one of three sites currently listed on the
Guildford County list of significant natural habitat survey areas. To get there, take the
US 421 exit (exit 126) 6.8 miles south to Hagan-Stone Park Road. Turn right (west) and
go 2.3 miles to the park entrance at 5920 Hagan-Stone Park Road in Pleasant Garden.
The location, topography, watershed, and hydrology of this site is shown in figure 5a.
Over the course of two to three days, a complete set of design morphologic parameters
were collected for two reaches along the upper stream that feeds into the park from the
west. One reach has a contributing area of approximately 106 acres and the second,
further down and with a lower stream gradient, has a slightly larger contributing drainage
area of approximately 160 acres. In practice, the collection of two reaches in a reference
reach watershed with slightly different contributing watershed areas allows internal
verification of scaling relationships and also allows some extrapolation and interpolation
of parameters for design purposes with the impacted reach targeted for design has a
p. 3 - HARP
slightly different set of physical constraints than that seen in the reference reach
watershed.
The morphologic data collected to define the stream planform characteristics, from which
meander radii of curvature, meander belt width, meander wavelength, etc, are calculated,
are plotted in Figures 5b and 5c. Annotated on the figures are the estimates of the
planform-based design values.
The morphologic survey data collected for defining the dimensional attributes of the two
reference reaches are appended in tabular form in Appendix C. The data is also plotted in
Figures 6 along with a summary of the dimensional averages for each of the two reaches.
The morphologic survey data collected for defining the profile attributes of the two
reference reaches are appended in tabular form in Appendix C. The data is also plotted in
Figure 7 along with a summary of the profile parameters for each of the two reaches.
A compiled or integrated list of reference reach design or benchmark parameters are
integrated from the survey work in Table 3. It is important at this point to note that the
two stream are significantly different in stream grade, as well as watershed size. The
upper reference reach is a steeper transitional Rosgen B4/C4 reach with some select
attributes that could be characterized as either B or C. It is 20 to 30% bedrock based, 10-
15% riffle armor based, with and the remaining mixed woody sandy run and bar and
pools. The lower reach has a moderately sloped Rosgen C4 short cobble-based riffle
section and meander in its upper extents and then is mostly a transitional C5/E5 low
gradient run/pool reach in its lower extents. This type of transitional complexity is
common in headwater reaches with interplays of bedrock and old impoundments that
provide grade controls that form baselevel evolutionary control points that shift streams
through B to C to E evolutionary cycles.
5. North Carolina regime data analysis
A second method of determining the likely dominant (channel forming) discharges and
stable channel morphological dimensions in a given setting of the North Carolina
Piedmont and Mountains is to use "regime" relationships worked out by analysis of
streams that have good bankfull morphologic indicators as well as USGS gauging. This
analysis has been done for both Mountain and Piedmont streams in the North Carolina
Piedmont (Harmon et. at, 1999) and generated the following sets of relationships:
Urban Streams (this set is in meters and kmz):
Abkf= 3.11 AW 0.64
Qbkf = 5.44 AW 0''
Wbkf - 5.79 AW 0.32
Dbkf - 0.54 AW 0.32
Rural Streams (this set is in feet and mi):
Abkf = 66.57 AW "9
Qbkf = 18.31 AW 0.75
Wbkf = 11.89 AW 0.43
Abkf= 1.50 AW 1.32
p. 4 - HARP
In these equations,
A,, = the drainage basin contributing area
Abkf = cross section area of flow at the bankfull stage
Qbkf = discharge at the bankfull stage
Wbkf = width of the water surface at the bankfull stage
Dbkf = mean depth of flow at the bankfull stage
In a followup study to the urban stream analysis of Harmon et.al., 1999, Forsythe et al.,
2004 reanalyzed the urban bankfull relationships to watershed area for stream located in
the Charlotte metropolitan area. This latter study recorded stage and discharges directly at
sections with bankfull indicators rather than by extrapolation from USGS gaging station
cross sections. It also verified scaling laws within individual urban watersheds. The
second study verifies the earlier conclusion that urban watersheds have adjusted
(enlarged) geometries in the Piedmont of North Carolina, but indicates the earlier study
over estimated the adjustments. The modified set of urban relationships (in feet and mil)
is :
Abkf = 45.57 A,,,1.14
Qbkf = 169.55 A,,, 0.70
Wbkf = 21.53 A,,, 0.29
Dbkf= 2.11 A,,, 0.35
The stream drainage areas pertaining to this project are shown in Table 2. Both the rural
and urban estimates for Abkf, Qbkf, Wbkf, and Dbkf generated from the above equations are
listed in this table. First and foremost it can be see that the estimates from the regime
equations for the rural Piedmont of North Carolina are very close to those estimated by
morphologic survey criteria in the field assessments. This give us an external verification
that the reference reach selected is reasonable stable and in equilibrium with the North
Carolina Piedmont landscape under rural conditions. With regards to the urban regime
curves, it should be noted that the preponderance of the data used to generate the urban
curves was obtained from urban streams in Mecklenburg County due to the need for
historical USGS gage data. The values for bankfull discharges under rural and urban
conditions are dramatically different, begging an implied history of instability as the
creeks transition from rural to urban conditions within their watersheds. The differences
in channel dimensions that are required to carry the increased storm flow resulting from
urbanization of the watershed create challenges in restoration efforts. Stability under
current conditions and stability under future conditions potentially dictate different
channel pattern and dimensional attributes. Measures are typically adopted in the
restoration design to limit instability as the watershed undergoes future development. In
this particular case, which is discussed further under design below, a floodplain area is to
be constructed at the bankfull stage with a floodplain riparian wetland habitat that will act
p. 5 - HARP
to attenuate any increase flow should urbanization in the upper watershed increase either
frequency or stage of the bankfull event over time.
6. Manning's Equation based Estimation of Bankfull Discharge
The observations of bankfull indicators within the reference reach allow the Manning
Equation to be used to estimate the bankfull discharge associated with this
morphologically defined stage. The surveyed estimates of cross-sectional areas, wetted
perimeters, and channel slopes, along with estimated Manning's roughness coefficients,
allow an average discharge calculation for the reach to be determined using Manning's
Equation. The input parameters and calculated results are presented in Table 2. The
estimate of Manning's roughness coefficient is somewhat subjective and brings some
ambiguity into these calculations. A roughness coefficient value of .026 is adopted for
the tributaries based on the depth of bankfull flow with respect to diameter of channel
bed materials, the stable bed framework, and bed material sizes following concepts
summarized in Arcement and Schneider, 1984. This base value is then modified for other
resistance factors such as sinuosity, bank vegetation, and obstructions. To reflect
reasonable variation of these parameters within the studied stream reaches, two values of
roughness coefficient (.03 and .04) were used to calculate a range of discharge values.
The resulting discharge estimates are shown in Table 2 and show some interesting
variations from the estimates provided by the regime equations. The regime equations
are based on very crude averages of stream slopes as they vary in a physiographic
province as a function of watershed size. Most stream in the NC Piedmont study were
Rosgen C streams and as such were generally represented by stream with water slopes of
2% slopes or less. The upper Hagan Stone Park reference reach had slopes greater than
2% and the lower was significantly less that 2%, and thus the Manning estimates were
predictably greater and less than the discharges estimated by the regime curves. The
differences indicate the importance of checking hydraulic characteristics of a final design
'for site conditions before construction to insure that is has the conveyance required for
meeting bankfull expectations. This is discussed futhur under stability assessments.
7. Reference Grain Size Information
In order to understand the hydraulics that forms and maintains bed structure within the
channel, an analysis of the sizes of sediment present in the reference reach channels was
performed. For both the upper and lower reference reaches pebble/cobble counts were
undertaken in armored sections of the stream and at least three samples of subarmor
material was taken for sieve analysis. The pebble count infonnation and sieve analyses
are provided in the appendices (appendix B), and are summarized in Table 3. The
primary design attribute that arises from this work is two fold. First, one picks a general
sand type to `salt' the constructed new channel with immediately after construction to
provide continuity in the conveyance of sediment in the transport dynamics of the stream
p. 6 - HARP
system. Stream are conveyor belts of water and sediment, and without some sand in this
section of the stream, it would become potential erosive during the first few years as the
intra-stream sand reservoir areas became populated. This is particularly a problem in
upper watershed areas were streams can be dominated by erosion processes in general.
Second, most B and C stream in the North Carolina Piedmont have inflection areas that
have inflection to pool transition areas with rock drops, some with bedrock nick-points,
others with large lag stones. Lag stones are weathering and transport remnants too big to
roll or otherwise be transported down stream under any definable time scale. Steep
gradient riffle areas in headwater Piedmont streams commonly have a gradational mix of
bedrock, lag stones, log drops, slowly moving boulder and cobble armor, and mixed
gravel deposits in bed load and saltation transport. In stream restoration work, the 1000's
of years that it may take to evolve unique attributes of each bedrock nickpoint and
inflection are not available, thus we seek to provide artificial nickpoints, and riffle armor
that can provide reasonable analogous aquatic and morphologic function. The riffle
armor pebble data from the reference reach at Hagan Stone Park gives us a bench mark
for comparative design for the materials we can use to populate the riffle areas in the
restoration reach.
8. Restoration Design
There are three morphologic perspectives on the relocation/restoration design, and two
additional habitat and stability issues. The morphologic factors are: planform, dimension,
and longitudinal profile. These are separately discussed below, and illustrated in Figures
11, 12 and 13. The bed habitat is broken down into riffle and pool areas, which are
shown in pattern view on Figure 11, and in longitudinal profile in Figure 13. The sizes of
bed materials are listed in Table 1. The details for bank and riparian planting is shown in
Figure 15. The details for riffle/cross vane construction are shown in Figure 14. The
riparian planting is separately discussed below, as is the analysis for stability.
8.1 Relocation/restoration planform
Figure 8 shows a plan view of the proposed restoration. The restored creek will recover a
natural and stable radius of curvature, meander belt width and sinuosity by grading a new
channel approximately 380 feet in length with a series of bends defined by the average
design parameters listed in Table 3. Using reference reach conditions, the newly aligned
and restored reach is to be broken up into riffle and pool areas by a combination of
natural hydraulic action, and use of in stream structures (discussed below). The pattern
of meanders will stabilize pools at the apex of the meander bend, and cross vane or sill
structures at the heads or tails of riffle zones will stabilize pools in the areas between
meanders (see the detail shown in Figure 12a.). The new channel is basically modeled
after the upper reference reach at Hagan Stone Park.
8.2 Restoration dimension
p. 7 - HARP
Figure 9 shows two typical cross sections for meander and inflection areas of the
proposed new stream channel. Using the reference reach sections the bankfull areas as
well as bankfull width and depth ratios have been adjusted to promote hydraulic and
sediment transport continuity in the reach. The meander bends are restored to more
appropriate cross section areas that should limit rates of aggradation on the inner point
bars to values more in line with geologic rates of meander cut bank migration. The final
restoration reach will have similar bankfull cross section areas and bankfull average
depths as those that are typical for the reference reach areas. The stream will be graded
to an average slope. The riffle material will be emplaced to create the basic riffle and
pool water surfaces. Hydraulic action during the first year of flow will both excavate
meander pools along the outer channel perimeter in the meander bend areas, as well as
.deposit sand and gravel in inner meander bend areas to form the point bars. The inner
meander bend areas are purposely graded to low 4:1 slopes to provide space for the
growth of inner point bars, as well as to lower bed shear stresses in order to promote
sedimentation on the point bars.
8.3 Restoration profile
Figure 10 shows the proposed restored longitudinal profile with water and bed elevations.
The restoration reach ties into the up and down stream channels at their existing
elevations. Within the new alignment, the proposed changes in riffle and pool grades of
the bed are to be achieved by construction of riffle and riffle-cross vane structures. These
zones are founded with cobbles sized over the mobilization threshold diameter (discussed
under stability below). The restored profile uses the riffle and pool structure observed in
the reference reach survey data, summarized in Table 3. While initially the stream is
graded on a stair-step function with grade controls at each riffle, within the first two years
of monitoring, hydraulic action in meander pool bends with excavate the pools along the
outer 1/3 arc of the bend and build small sand point bars on the inner 1/3 of the meander
bends. Equilibrium is generally reached within 2 or 3 years following completion of
construction.
8.4 In stream bank and bed structures
Figures 12a - d show the in-stream details for structures to be placed along the stream
banks or bed of the stream. The rationale for these various elements are discussed in
separate sections for planting and bed stabilization below, but include: a) integrated
artificial riffle with or without head or tail rock vane and/or sill, b) isolated vane
schematic, c) bank planting schematic, and d) hybrid rock sill riffle armor structure.
8.5 Bank stabilization
The banks are to be established as shown in the attached figures for cross sections and
bank stabilization (Figures 9 and 12c). Banks are to be 1.5:1 or lower. The base of the
slopes in areas susceptible to erosion (e.g. outer banks on meander bends) are to be lined
p. 8 - HARP
with 7 lbs/ft coconut fiber logs staked according to the directions of the manufacturer.
Erosion control matting is to be place on all slopes that are cut or filled. Plastic
containment mesh should be avoided on erosion control matting as it is known to entrap
and kill small animals. Any soils not judged to be appropriate for plant establishment is
to be amended prior to matting. Temporary herbaceous cover is to be planted in the
matted areas with a riparian seed mix appropriate to the season of the work for proper
germination and temporary stabilization. Then either potted plants or live stakes are to be
used to establish woody riparian species along the banks to provide the root density and
depth required to inhibit bank erosion. Should woody plants not be planted until the fall
or winter season following channel grading, additional herbaceous cover may be needed
to assure bank stability during the following spring and summer. Bank stabilization is
thus achieved by a combination of factors including: bed stabilization (inhibiting
undercutting of banks), use of toe protection in the early years of bank replanting (coir
fiber logs), vigorous root structure within the bank, and velocity reduction at the
water/bank interface (produced by the frictional resistance of woody vegetation growing
out into the channel cross section area).
8.6 Riparian bank & buffer planting
Figure 11 outlines the planting plan for the stream restoration components of Larco project
site. The plan includes a list of the types of tree and shrub species that will be used to
vegetate the buffer surrounding the project as well as the vegetation that will be used to
stabilize the slopes of the new stream banks.
Due a) to the existence of the asphalt plant operations on one side of the stream, b)
dominance of the overhead high transmission lines which limit the extent of mature
hardwoods to be established on the site, and c) value of establishing a low lying wetland
area for habitat aquatic function, a planting plan has been devised that has four elements
as laid out in Figure 11.
First, along the stream corridor, a series of riparian stream bank shrub species have been
selected to quickly establish stability and habitat along the stream corridor. These can
largely be planted by live stakes. These new stream banks will be covered with matting,
seeded with a temporary grass seed mixture and then live staked using native material.
This covering will extend at least 1 feet beyond the top of bank. The live stakes will be
planted on 18 - 24' centers, starting from the top of the coir fiber log to the top of bank.
Second, on the plant side of the stream we have a area that is low lying where a floodplain
bench at the bankfull stage is to be cut to provide attenuation that can provide increased
stability and aquatic value and water quality. The area is to be used as an aquatic wetland
habitat and a list of native plants have been selected to establish these wetlands.
Third, in the primary upland areas that dominant the southern portions of the tract under
the high power lines there is a need to use native scrub shrub species that meet power line
p. 9 - HARP
maximum height limitations to avoid intensive cycles of herbicide or other management
activity. A list of native species have been carefully selected to meet this criteria.
Finally, in the eastern portions of the conservation area, a bottomland hardwood habitat is
to be established that will extend the existing wooded habitat in the upper portions of the
catchment and provide a continuous stream corridor from the headwater conservation
buffer areas down to the confluence with Richland Creek.
9. Stability Assessment
Stability of the restored reach is achieved by three interdependent approaches. First, slope
and dimensions are set at values that are consistent along the restoration, and yield bed
shear stresses (see Table 3) that will provide transport continuity from upstream to down
stream areas. In this way neither erosion nor aggradation of the bed is to be expected.
Second, the reach has a series of grade control structures to prevent the bed from eroding
into underlying alluvial deposits. Lastly, bank toe support and woody vegetation are
designed to promote velocity reductions as well as increase erosional resistance to stream
flows. The mobility threshold for clasts in the channel can be approximated by the
relationship: Bankfull Bed Shear Stress (Newtons/m2) = incipient diameter (cm) (based
on Newbury and Gaboury, 1993; although they used tractive force). The Bankfull Bed
Shear Stress at the bankfull stage is 240.8 N/m2. This means that the D84 riffle crest
material should be at least 29 cm in diameter (-1.5 x mobility threshold diameters at
floodprone stage (see D85:Table 3, Riffle Armor).
10. Monitoring and Contingency Plans
The proposed verification and monitoring for this stream restoration is recommended to
be:
1) preparation and submittal of as-built document providing constructed pattern,
dimension and profile sheets that also show the location of all in stream
structures, and recommended photo stations, (photo stations are to be set up for
up and down stream tie in points, and each meander bend, and a photo should be
provided looking both up and down stream at each station);
2) field checks with archiving of photo documentation of creek conditions during
first year of flow following completion of planting program after each
significant storm (.5 inches of rainfall), or alternatively on a bi-monthly
schedule; and
3) Surveys of longitudinal profile and 3 representative cross sections annually for
the first 5 years of performance.
Should monitoring reveal problems either in the channel, banks, or riparian buffer areas,
the monitoring agent is to inform property owner/manager of the problem. Property
owner/manager is to seek appropriate professional advise for remedial action and
implement corrective actions as soon as is practical, but the corrective actions under no
p. 10 -HARP
circumstances should be undertaken more than 1 year following initial notice of the
problem. Should a corrective action be undertaken in the 5t" year, or for a problem
arising during the 5t" year, the monitoring program is to be extended to provide
verification of successful corrective actions for at least one bankfull event following
corrective actions.
11. References
Arcement, G.J., Jr., and V.R. Schneider, 1984, Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness
Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains, FHWA-TS-204 or USGS Water
Supply Paper 2339.
Doll, Barbara, D.E. Wise-Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S.D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harmon, R.E.
Smith, R.E. 2000. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams throughout
the Piedmont of North Carolina, in NCSU Course Notes: N.C. Stream Restoration
Institute, River Course, Raleigh, NC.
Forsythe, R., et al. Regime and Design Issues for Urban Piedmont Streams, 2004 Stream
Restoration Conference, June 22-23, 2004, Winston-Salem, NC.
(http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/proZnc,rams/extension/wqg/sri.').
Goldsmith, R., Milton, D. J., and Horton, J. W., Jr., Geologic Map of the Charlotte 1 ° x
2° Quadrangle, North Carolina and South Carolina, Misc. Inv. Series, Map I-1251-E,
USGS, Washington, DC.
Harmon, et. al., 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. In: AWRA Wildland Hydrology Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J. P.
Potyondy eds., AWRA Summer Symposium, Bozeman, Mt, pp. 401-408.
Newbury, R. W., and Gaboury, M N, 1993, Stream Analysis and Fish Habitat Design, a
Field Manual, Newbury Hydraulics, Manitoba, 262 p.
Rosgen, D.L., 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers,
Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel
Incision.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D.L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers, Catena 22 (1994): 169-199.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1980. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina. Natural Resource Conservation Service.
p. 11 -HARP
Figures
p. 12 - HARP
TOP ! map printed on 09/29/08 from "North Carolina, tpo" and "Untitled tpg"
79057,000' W WGS84 791156,000' f
z
c?
0
Imo.
Ln
0
LO
M
79057,000' W 'S GS64 79°56,040' W
MN TN 1 MILE
NO FEEI 0O il.lTTBS
Printed from TOPO! @2001 National Geographic Holdir s (wvw.topo.com.)
z
O
<D
0
Ln
0
Ln
ty)
,HAEiT,?T
l I Larco Asphalt Plant Stream Figure 1. Watershed and Topography
Asa resmr:.NITANj1,
I p
,o,L Restoration Mitigation for Site Area for UT to Richland Creek, July 2008
Project High Point, NC
?? ` + $ f ti wr It { 7A'3 # * .r ?Y r
41
??e`?i? ? y?°°-; . ? wJi •,?wr? f rl J ?.`°? arl tt a , a
r
9
m It 8
?? gg??ypg+ 0# ` t 7F {{s7 a r 3
St"r`e?
S. ,
a } t,
Scale 1 : 8341
0 500 1000 1500 2000 feet
Larco Asphalt Plant Stream Figure 2. Aerial/o_anduse for
a sE r rvT ,rac Restoration Mitigation
Site Area for UT to Richland i Oct., 2008
Project Creek, High Point, PVC
R plt-,=tctaisnfr, ntse Is srm r; ptx.•z vnt ,:L,pra ...
AI,('__3ypnn? - rnh, lu-,rs - to !t..,xrnrY :dnFn .
CcB-Ural .wasW" Iv;tm,. _c+ . F+•rcx of lulw•:+._. _..
s,'cL'-j'^.•tr[3 .?sari•.; Soar?s, s; h: 14 ?w•r: rnt .>lopr€ ........
C:`7}-?Cmcil .•t:mdc-• !unm. IIt ran 1"• lirrern[ .-:inpry ..
t"'az,^.-Cecil :amd;; cia:? Ba:un,. lu r; p..•rrent elol a•v
Cr.4_2-C•rc8 :vu.d;; cIx, kx0r- •> (o lti ia•mr-nt
aio;w•, rr<wkel .......................
CsY-t.'cr 9-l rF,an lam! ctwny:rs. to in psr•rcrnt
..tuyae..
Ch-Ch 'eh, .Cln<1C loam.. ... ... ....... ._..
t, n a , na a 1,:z 2 1 ant t.+ 11 ya V nt vlnpe•-, ..
C s? (<.n•.naas t•!:rr L-m, t w U.r rxa..•rnt. >bn....
CaII t ..'ran- mUrh)u[ t 'e I m(dr?..: to IU
p, n:ent A, P?s
Ecll-EnCan f s sr .+-rrwb, 1 :.rtn t !x r.. nt i rrr+
k:nE: F.nun linr cxnd,, Ir•a ,,. a r.. I n r: eve[ + xa
f, E -f:,tcm 'fir :=undr E arn, Ir, to ti< ,-,r?n•rnc .?
..... ......................
1-:aB !s, E?nue tr lunm. _' va si nrrc ni ...opra,
-Aol ..
111 !'WI•tk=i)i. 3{V}ar•r.,
Gn.), a'1d" lu.arn, •.i t,
........ ...........................................
caD -Cwun cla; imam. lu !at•rcrat Apra,
E 1• -run :. +np,r r. ;zalL L. .... .._... .........
F v'-P 8non L'rt-,.n !an 1 a m>_7•r:., c, ;ni In rcr •nr
•e?'rcrn: ?.,Im•s .
Si:-t'.-li,ri?•rs :eusd; iasm. N tr: 10
i-1•hFY-Ii?'srrsa :a.+ntrlr£redk :;nrrh.- 'urirrac, n tc G
r-r. et:Y a1up.,a ... .....? ..... .. ...... ..... _..
1r1E--!r. ?:!r.{I (rm- :;aswl} va,nm, ,1 ¢.a ! 5irxirnL ?.aSuyv<
:17:s13 57 rlawr a.rtxiy a..wur. tee ^7 pr-nc ?rayrti .
,H:M1 H'xh.r;n umF,: m! :,:3 [ca 7U tx rYrnY. .tl[x?+e•w....
17_rl? -llydi ?m::+ami•: lr afar, 1tl trs 1? ye•F•rnF y9epae•-i..
N.si•: -ll:a 1lrx:n ::uesi+: Inset, ].? .-a, ?Yi Ix•n•rnt .«r.yw;...
H•?1?='-37a,]iziJ: :-Inv truarn- en:: percent ?.Io?»o;,
"m 1M7 .................
M,C2--NUd'ia,n da,- 1--.6 b, tt! Iw•rerist. JuprA
ar?nlyd ....... _ . ..... . ............. .. ._ _.......,.
11, !. v.!'- Mali e>n On-, Itua:m. 10 ::•, 1', PrMl lc 411 -+,
_.. _... .,. ... _._...
C'nAt-d ....................
WF:2. -W.Iir..m by I-u'a. I., 2G ?n !wrernt ..A,4,e,a
?•ns•lrri . ........... ....._ _......_. ........ ..............
?7d li.a l'msn Iv r alr? ,aural
Iblt•F. 37.ulnxuc. t, a.+.. I.aazei „ingl<:a, _. [ !ii lyrrx•rx[t
41h1'3;-:W,?aettrnh artt =an I a n Isx[m ru 1;
p r -nt :+l,ap+e>,. <,?x1a r
,171iE - bl+ea[:,r ?rs.arr}( :con 5° c [u , r.,.rm, s! ire tii
lit, B-NI"data-nb.",-i:;rFan I.snsl :?uniplr<. S''o 10
Yo13--4'arrr sza;wl•; lcam. S to i? y;rrv:rnt ?Lq:?r>r........-
V:d:'--'?:u[or :varatt.- luau. , ba Its ta•ri•rnt -Ihiyn>:.. ...
4'<s C;- v urvee :.ar),in Si..m, ?u to . -> !?vrc?cu[ ?-:ol?rn.
't'ear -9':nror-t_ rPsus Lod •.,,m3tlr •,. 3 to 113 :z•esxe
K73 a'v oad!;. .-:it luauu
N'ia' -'Vi?.a• auad.: 1•.,:,m,.!7 ;r. to ,::t>r>`t•nt Auprn._...
wdtaa•, <=m,.l: le=arn, ;W." V, prrt-rnt :dq -...
N`4L,- fi51?rte. .:.n:l.r lo:-, L."v to :.7 t>,•re-j 4't-e .

ASSESSA ?sy le i
I
-I?
?t :T cj Ivl'i
;;}
i

?x, crl,! I, _? Larco Asphalt Plant Stream Figure 3. Soils Map for Site
Restoration Mitigation Area, UT to Richland Creek, Sept., 2008
_-? Project High Point, PVC
_ .._.n. Mae
000 Feet
O ?
O
O
N
Q.
Y
d
I ?
I N
u
( ? o ch w c0 c
r
?>> 65
m T
c02 aL+
V ?
2.0 D
55? m N
N tp
U
o c
ce) I?
-C 2
i '7 ` ? «J C p
C, 0
CL M
? Q o
,/? N N O O O
(4) U04-n
i
r, O Tz
M u to O
zI[a: ?L
79"45.000' W
I
I
I
z
D
0
0
0 `
MN
diJ 4
? 4
WGS64 79044.000' W
09

rassFss,mv,jT v? Larco Asphalt Plant Stream f=igure 5a. Location, Topography,
y ?. Hydrology and Watershed Area for Oct. 2008
R_sT a,artc« y Restoration Mitigation
3 Hagan Stone P)ar4c Ref. Reaches,
Project Guilford Co, NC
79045.000' W GS84 79044.000' W
TN D 5 1 `tllt
19S
X0 FEE I U ' &T T
Printed from. TOPO! @2001 Natiorol Geographic Holdings f urluw.to>oo.cont)
0
co
c
i;
d
3
0
J
w J
ES
C

d O
a?
/
N ? a ?
?
M
p
Q N
N ? C
, N
Co
d
t iL

5 Vf O 0
O
.1
j/ ' N d '
C fA
7
O V

? U m
? m C
c

SK
I

- - g/ StifL Ci
f-J

` O
72

uKi L
O L
p
U a
d N L
L
?
? O

0 0
p L.
a
0 0 `°
fu _o
(4) }

K, 0I
L
co
p
O
-j 10
N
•\
?
y X
p ?.
y
d
_ a L O

\ 11 7
In L
\l\ 4>-

C v
}
C >
_ _ O
t
- ,
O {n

E a 5v o

} y o in
LC) to
N
V

10 S
0
i X- }
0

l } (A)3
„sue ; y
i CnZ m
I N J} w
,

? L L
' O
J 7

I N a a
? ? O 7 CC C
? G N

-r'
M
7
a.alM

M
\

d
N
?. O
p N
N ? I
N O r U ?_

O L
i
O
U
?
? O O
% O L
CL
'a

0
0
% N
n

f
f. , ?
Y I ? L
CJ d
? U
J ?
>
? O
Q a > o
CM
5
+ c aQ
?, c = } ^tio

r CO co

U

N N
Q p1 N t II
.?a
d
N C
d vl O O? d } +S-
M \y. i d1
cc 0 3
v II ? o ?,
.a. --' } C II d d
V3
O1
d>.
ca
N J } V- L. L.
O
..»..
' >v
`
' w N
J 'A
y O 7 C c
b
,,,
fi i

l i
O
:3 d d
_E d N
o j
__ I I
L
N I

3
J I
I

r?
i?
I
a
'
i
9
O
0
fi
0 9
Q VI
0
:i
0
n
9
m
o?
O
C
R

n'

r.

N O
m
c
O
O J
vN
0
U
m
4
m
N
N
0
`m
°o N
c
C
u
O
O U
Q N
0
U
0
m
C
0
O
IA
a
o
10
C
c 2
m •y
O O O m m O O ? ? S S J O O O S S m w'
J ? J W
(}a8}) u011en813 (}aa;) uogeASl3 (}aa}) uQq-813

'
v0 W ul O N N T T co
L O O O O O 0 0 0 0
m >
Q
r
?
`a
Y? .+ M O rr o LM
a
a
a

C ?
0
at
5 o vi ,a
a a o w a
'0 N m N .^
1 N N N 1•Ql N
O9
Z

Y v 'i M ut y h S ?D M l0
C ?"1 •D a V1 a ul ul ul N
t0

Y L W W C? N N co .r .+ o+
a c
?
Ln
r,
'D
'D
0
'D
•c
'D
m
3 ? i I
ar ?
C
U
N W
Y ti N M a .y N M 0
U1 In (n h > N U1 N >
2 2 = S Q S S S Q
0
c
V
=Q
M
I CD
'0
N
C•1 c
E
L
ce >
3
C
? o
V
cn
^`• z
W `
x 3
a V
0 0
V 3
U
0
v
v

I ?

?I
I
u?
fl l
I

I
4
W `y
C
0
N
C
O
u1
V)
N
U
°v
m
o c
M o
Cl)
0
O
V
A
i

III
i
?m
C
m
M
C
O_
Lr>
0)
N
U
0
a
C
0
c
c
m ?.
m
v
clo ay
°- c
N
u3
N
U
N
O
A
L
O
A
m
m

I
'D
r
fi
n

W
h
v
o?
N
0
Y

u

Ill ?
_I
7
.J
d
O
c m U
C N
N ,G ! LL
O
y -?
N
o =
U I ?.f I
f
o
Q
I
?I
m I q
o c I 2 C
F t) Ci 4
N ? ? in ? r I
w u x
o
N
I
i
O
w
Y ?
Q s
u? O u) O p N O ?A O C = O f?
r O O 0 O O O S O O O T m J O O O O O
?(}aa;) uoi}enal3 J (1-1) u04ene13
?(}aal) uoi}enal3 I
(}aa}) uowao
O
O
LO
O
0
v
E
L
?s
IL
0
a
S
v
a
oC
..
C,
Ln N
n
M
rv
O
O
v
M
n
O
a?
o
0
?
r
?
O

i
=
L
v
m
a

3

J o
M
o 0
o
O °
?a
co rv
o
Q m
ry
N
0 rn
M
O
?
O

w

a L

0
E

m
a
c

+m+
a

w
O
rn
a
to
v
a L
r
c
?
a

C9
a
o
'?
a
w
y
c

c
a
a
0
a

c
a
o
o
a
a

a r
a
D

0
a

e
w
J_
LL
O
=
Qa
w J
cl? z
_Z
W
z
O
0
O
Cl)
w
O
O J
N O
QM
wa
J
O
Oa
z
O
J

O
0 0 co O O O O O co It
O O O 0)
r
(;Bel) uol1enal3
00
0
0
N
a)
00
U
O rn
s ?
U
cu ?
N 4-
Q
N ?
U i
C m
di E
4 --
CU
(n
a? .3
i
i
I
?Z
M
M 0
aU
co
N
N O O
a cn ?
C) a c0
N m
f0
c
O N
N
c
C) °
co
.r
N
V ?
O w
C
Z r
1 U
l ~ ?.
o <
O
I
I
r9
o I 'I ?
O O O 0 6i co
(?aa;) uai;anel3

O N
to f?
r l0
O O N O O O o N a0
•t V
N co
O O
N m

E
m
m
m
m
m 43

U
{
OI
' m v .p
m o m
N Oa
C J
w
m m
Z
? ?
m
0-
'k
9
c a
a'' (n
U

m
a ,

v

>

??
m
a
m

- m
d
- ? t
a
o c
o
a m
E t

o s.
o ,to
o
o rn
m m m
m m
V
01

I

m ,77
SC

C

C m

Q X
'O
O _
£

b T
m
N

d
O a
m

m
C

m
C

m
C

m
O
z m
co m
in > m
g O
LL G
w m > C
in
0? > m

g m

g m

g

O
u
O
L
V
U_
}
p?
W
s
u
N
L
Q
Q
O
U
d
v-
H
d
L
T
I ? y
w 7
N
J
0 ,6C
O
I?

`
•

? j .

Y !

? f 4?2

J

/
I
Z

H
J
Go

U-1
N

z
Q
U

z
I
O Y
N m
Q1 C6
C 'C
C Q
I
?I
A
O =
7
E
C
? O
N CO
Co-O0 O
• O
?m3
1

Fi(,1
N
? ?r4
LO
U? r
Lf7
O ,^
T Y/ ?If?
O'1 I r I?
O
T I?
j
L.` *.'
I
l
J
W
2
LU
0
z
0 0
u c
L s
N
L L
t
} } N
-
d
d L i
r1 4-
N ? L
4- d C
r
I
C C
0
0 a
u -aa
d
v
z O V
w, N d
V rn N
LLI J L
J
u
V
`F- O
L j
C
V
cy }

Cif
}
t
O
i
d
0 0
?v
CL
d ?
t
Z
1
co
0
N
Q.
I N
I ?
0 -
c
O
Z
(n L
(0 U c
OL 'D Q
U ma
c -t
L
MIT
3
O
?c
C
N oO
1
4 O
Q L
j
O 4}
L
J
0
ii
fi
4 UI 'a1 V
a c. m rt
i
(4) UOIJeA913
O
O
LO
O
O
C
O
N c
m N
`t O
CL o.
co
0
N
? II
1 w ??
n.
m i
oz
j = Z
j C0 c
C
J 0
C U a
I N? ? I
I ? ?I
F
O?
I ? I
i
? I
j
II
E
III ?
4
cu
2) 1
.+' 4.
u li
4-1 C'?I
O ?
M
Q O
O ? I
N
r-
I J -i
j
I
j
I
i
d!e ?)
c
41
S .Q
i7 Sri Vl ry
?L iti W
I

o

N

d

?
_

O
yy d
c
c `u
c
c
O ?
o
0 w
?I
c g

d B
o
° '?
0
° ?

c g
0
N T u 3 a u .: ? uu

f

I y
W y
N

N
U_ x x F f F- F h- N N

Z

E
Ty

°
5

c
= a
f

E

;
aC `m

u
L
y
c
d
I
?
3

E

?

g
u
a'
o

S
d
cg rc > r'- v
i a ? ° a it x

C
E
Z
u
?

? ,:
'S o
''?
C
C
c

a
E
a

?

?
y
r
?`
? S
?
°
"
ti
e
of W ?1 ? U Q '¢ I ? U
c
C
O
i
x
v
LAW W
U N fV N N [V
N
q? C ? C OI O

i

=

y?y
x
a
yy
S
a
a`+
S
a
`a
S
a
`a
x
a
d
x
a
`w
S
o ?
2
c
N L
2
z
N a
I2
c
N a
>
Z
N ?

z
N

E

N c

N
d
o

E

C

c

;
w
E
C
;

E
7
E

0

0

_j

.1 c

g
0 a4c

m 'E

S O

a'

m

4 me

i
0

a

°?

n
IM

3
r
'C a

c ? a E ° C a? _c

N ? vJ 0. ?, C
C
C
IL
c
0
O
It
i O
H
J
N
d
W
-S 5
O aS
0 I%
0
x
S {O M m v V v
U
N

in
7
a

s

in 4

?1

a tl

ui

a

a

a

w
E
LL ay
2 e
S .e
S .e
S e
S e
2 e
I Z eO1
2 e
2
S

R

? N 3
W

E

y

? y
O b
4 CCCC Y p
? C N

Ji lit
? U ? ? Oki C

? OD M M M M
N
V Y Y Y Y
y 9? 9 b 99
? 4 j > 7 7
7
.?
N J Jy J J
W `
a = a a
E E 2 EA 2
?° N N Tl a a
o ? O
Z 3
Qc 4 ? ?
k q 9 ? C
E Y .. a
U ~ W N > Y?I
c
s
c Z e
b .? N S
aq
CJ N ?, U h ? ?/J

M
l

0 `a 1
Conventional Rock Vane
(staggered footer and header stones laid in
over nonwoven filter fabric, spaces chinked
with smaller boulders and cobbles, located at
upstream end of point bar)
-10
Rock Vane - Rock Sill
1 (staggered footer and header stones laid in
over nonwoven filter fabric, spaces chinked
with smaller boulders and cobbles, located at
J upstream end of point bar)
( Riffle Bed Armor
(Rounded River Aggregate
D50 = immobility threshold,
D84 1.5 x mobility threshold) I
Riffle Crest- Rock Sill
"Artificial Nick Point"
(staggered footer and header stones laid in
over nonwoven filter fabric, spaces chinked
with smaller boulders and cobbles)
BANKFULL WIDTH _
TOE OF BANK
Note:
The combined use of rock structures indicated in
thisschematic is shown as a general guide. Not all struc-
tures are likely necessary in all meander and riffle areas.
Meander bends with lower degrees of arc may be stabi-
lized with less vanes or with alternative measures such as
brush mattresses, rootwads or combinations thereof. See
accompanying typical schematics for individual structures.
."„
p o o l
USS21 Landfill Permitting June 2006
Figure 12a, General Riffle and Outer
--' and Mitigation Project
?:''t Davie Park Site Meander Bend Stabilization Scheme HDR# 09177-12850-018 'I
%
PLAN VIEW: ROCK VANE
20 °- 30 -
\\ % I
flaw
boulders for ` yes Typically
added stability Y4 to 1/3
stream
width
scour
pool
----- -
SECTION VIEW: ROCK VANE end of vane should be secured
in bank at bankfull height bankfull
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
tip of vane at or near
- binvert normal baseflow
law
v
- - - - -- - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - -
7? 7.
r
i C
PROFILE VIEW: STRAIGITr VANE x,11
ban
3%- to ------------------------
0 slope flow lines
-,, `r
L \_ rr
scour pool

1 or 2 tiers of
footer rocks
?• US521 Landfill Permitting I Figure 12b- Schematic Detail July 2008
and Mitigation Project for Rock Vane, Plan, Section
Davie Park Site and Profile Views !. HDR# 1 1 505-001-01 8
A TOP OF BANK

1 CCNTAINE.R!ZED

i AND RARE-ROOT MATERIALS
T P ,
- - LIVE 'TAKES

a
?
f i
Ik*

E ++ TOE OF PANK
517
SPECIFIC EZAdIIl1Cc S?I?Ei ?lEF
1. STREAMBANK GRADING
2, SOIL SURFACE ROUGHENING

I 1 SEEDING OF GRASS COVER CROP
:
-4WAM FLOW WTTH SPECIFIED SEED MIX

t
? a, INSTALLATION OF EROSION CONTROL MATERIAL.
-1110' A ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATCNS
5. TOP PROTECTION INSTALLATION
ELA& v iew 5. UVE-STAKING
CONTAINERIZED J, CONTAINERIZED AND BARE--RCOT SEFOUNG
AND BARE-ROOT INSTALLATION
MATERIALS AT
TOP CF ;i -PE ...,
t--APPROVED SPECIES OF L.RtE-
SA
BURY A MINIMU
OF 5- (TY' .) KES. WITH 2 LEAF SCARS
M I
j OR NODES AVOVE GROUND
PN
EXISTING
itSHED GRADE CHANNEL

i
W
EROSION CONTROL MATFRAL ON BOTTOM
i
ro
ti
I
L
?
__._i
i
ti f r TOE PROTECTION
(COiR FIBER LDG,
i
j SOIL SOCK) I
NORM&
WATER LEVEL
r 1
`?
M-ANT SPACING BASED ON
TYPE OF VfOETATICIN ?
1/2 LOG 0
,AND EiTF CGNOIT!CNS f

X f
l
S?C71Q
DETAIL N A-A
NOT TO SCALE
m=.,.= ' USS21 Landfill Permittin ! Ju1y2008
9 Figure 12c. Schematic Detail
1111 1
:?• a and Mitigation Project for Rock Vane, Plan, Section
n- 1 Davie Park Site and Profile Views HDR# 11505-001-018
PLAN VIEW
Bankfull Stage
1. PLAN: build riffle to extend across base of
stream with largest diameter boulders at crest
line and reduce sizes progressively down-
stream. Crest has boulders sized 1 to 1.5
times maximum size transportable with flood
prone stage event. Riffle crest has similar
sized footers to cohesive saprolite or bedrock
underlaid wtih geotextile fabric.
2. PROFILE: construct downstream face of
riffle atapproximately 20:1 and upstream face
at approximately 4:1 slope. Slope should be
adjusted to meet design riffle:pool ratio, and
riffle slopes.
3. CROSS-SECTION: V-shaped crest cut down
towardscenter of channel.
4. SURFACE: space large surface rocks 20
to 30 cm apart on the downstream face of the
riffle to form low fish passage channels.
5. BANKS: extend riffle side slopes up bank
to levels equal to height of coir fiber logs, and
then extend crest back with rock emplaced
within banks at 20 to 30'angle from bank, and
with a rise angle of 2-7' (as is seen in the
cross vane structures).
US521 Landfill Permitting ! Figure 12d. Schematic Detail July 2008
M M Caroq w
and Mitigation Project for Riffle & Grade Dontroll Sill; -
ttc .. !, Davie Park Site Plan, Profile & SectionViews HDR# 11505-001-018
PROFILE
Flow _.
Approx. 4:1 slope
Riffle Crest
Aprox. 20:1 slope
SECTION
Bankfull Stage
.01 l 1 10 100
1000
?13cm
10,
100
110
E
3 10
E
a
w
E
W
C
D
z 1
v
.1
.001 .01 .1 1 10 100
TC . CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS (lbsJsy. (t.}
1
I
i
H4BITAT Larco Asphalt Plant Stream Figure 13. Shield Curve with
tASSESSNENT AND
Restoration Mitigation Range of Conditions for UT to Rich- Oct. 2008
rsT?e.a T l? ?,,
Project i land Ck. Restoration Reach

I , I

I I
, I I
I ? ? I
? I ? i
I
I ? I
? rt i
1
1 ?
'' i
? ?
? I i
I
I
I I i
i
1 I
I I I ? i ; f' , ? I i

i I ? I f i I? to ? I I I I

i
I

' I ? I I I I I li i t I
I' ? I I. ? i? ? ? II ~ i I
I ? 1 I, I I I ? , r ? l i I

I I

?
I?

d et

I

I
o
?

I
i

? I

!I
I
'
I''

( ?

i
EM 11104-1418
31 Oct 94
Example of allowable vWmfty-depth dots for granular matsdtals.
From USACOE 1994 Appendix A and B.
Range of estimated velocities; channel bankfull storm plotted on the Mean Velocity
vs Bed Material Size (D 50) chart from the USACOE 1994 guide to stream stabilization.
HABITAT i Larco Asphalt Plant Stream I
AssE55wEr,r Aimo, Figure 14. Velocity Sediment
Restoration Mitigation Oct. 2008
IRESTORATION
10 It. . I _ i Stability Curves
Wrxccaarn -- - ?U` 'd Prniprt I I

0 0 0

v

Y Lr)
LI) U-)
Lr)
CO 3 U? v

a ? w
? -o
rn 3

? - °
°-
E 0 0 0
(D N H
O d
X Q
E
to

Y
m
v O E O O O
? LL U
7
0' C
Y ?n
? I?
? 00
N
O
U
N
N
d
X Q
M

?
W ? m co

LL

v m 07
L
Y CO
M ?'
V1 ?
N
d ?

7 ? N f? 61
Y
E ? ? M
O
? O O
OD

s
m
Lr?
in
OR
? '? ? CD M

w 3
p ? O N
O c E v C
N
m
iv n d co
Y 3 Y N M ? ?
N O O m m
c LL N ? O
O
O
C Y
O
W

1n
M

O
C
lp O
•y
? .? ? vl I?
N

X Q
in O
y 7 N
*
O E m j- c n
Ln U-)
C
O Y CO m
N Q0
U E

X Q

C lC Y O O O

oa

C Q m O O
C E O

D Q y
? N U
c
o c
? a
c
N N ca
C U c U u
R Z ?Z
N ? C = C
N p p a
u
v U u
U

O O to Q
U
U ? O

D o E Q
a a
N
c
O
`a
3
U
U
Cad
G
N
ce.
C:
O
E
N
C
N
C
N
R
3
fC
C
O
N
V
O
Z
r
l0
w
N
a
N
w
U
a
<
N
C
C
L
a+ ?
d ?
L
d
a
ix
t
w N
Y O w
C C ..
W
my
n
7
w
Y
C N
f0 V
Co
X Q
Y y
r L
ma
co III I N
N ?
N O
O O
O O
m m
O O
O O
?t 7
O O
O O
m
O
O
M
O
O
V
O
O
7
N f? V7
M f? M
O ? O
O O O
m O m
O C O
N a. C9
O
Q ? O
N ? N
[r V1
O
O O
N ?
N ?
4) C
C C L
X 70 O
C `
O O 07
C C
U C
a) C C
C ?
C R ? d
U ? E
O 00 O E
L Q) ? a> N
U m m
2 E
4 ?E'E')
L7
O au Q 'p
m m ? c
m
U U
O U D O
J < < dU

LU
C

U ?
o
N L
m

C
(d
c
R

x

)
U

W

U C
01
a)
p
C
W C
m
N ? w
? O
Table 3. Estimates of Fluvial Morphologic Parameters - Reference Reach and Design Benchmark

Parameter Hagan Stone Park Upper
Ref. Reach Hagan Stone Park Lower
Ref. Reach
Larco UT to Richland Ck.
Watershed Area (sq. miles) 0.17 0.25 0.15
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.2 6.9 6.2
Bankfull Area (sq. feet) 4.7 5.6 4.7
Ave. Bankfull Depth (feet) 0.6 0.8 0.6
Max. Depth (feet) 1.0 1.4 1.0
Flood Prone Width (feet) 27.4 28.9 27.4
Entrenchment Ratio 4.42 4.19 4.42
Width/Depth Ratio 10.3 8.6 10.3
Valley Slope (feet/feet) 0.032 0.005 0.022
Average Water Slope (feet/feet) 0.026 0.004 0.019
Sinuosity 1.22 1.14 1.15
Riffle/Pool Ratio 1.00 0.39 1.00
Riffle Slope 0.070 0.026 0.040
Pool Slope 0.005 0.000 0.005
Ave. Riffle Spacing (feet) 14.80 22.80 14- 15
Riffle Substrate D50 (mm) 1.40 0.93 .9-1.5
Riffle Armour D50 (mm) 103.00 110.00 200.00
Riffle Armour D84 (mm) 190.00 200.00 285.00
Bulk Stream Bed D50 (mm) 1.40 0.93 1.40
Meander Radius of Curvature (ft) 22.7 25.5 22.7
Meander Wave Length (ft) 48 51 48
Meander Belt Width (ft) 24 26 24
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) ` 23.83 1 1.41 20.27
Bankfull Est. Mean Velocity (ft/sec) 5.07 _ 2.04 4.31
Bankfull Bed Shear Stress (Newtons/sq
M) 421.48 219.17 240.84
Maximum Diameter for Bankfull
Sediment Movement (cm) 43.01 22.36 24.58
Bankfull Bed Tractive Force (lb/sq ft) 9.17 4.77 5.24
Rosgen Class " B/C C/E B/C
O, estimated using Manning Eq. Assuming Manning Coef. _.035
- - "' Rosgen & Silvey, 1998
Appendix A
Reference Reach Photo Journal
p. 14 - HARP

Hagan Stone Park - Lower Reference Reach, Typical Cobble-based Riffle Inflection Zone
Hagan Stone Park -Upper Reference Reach, Typical /Meander Bend Zone with Interspersed Short Riffles
"7?"' ?•?• ? ?• ?? ?rr?• •????• ?•^•?• •??•••?• , rr".u. rv?cul?ucl -U1 L-I WI III i[ 11 CVZIPGI-MeU J(IUI-I KIIf IeS
Appendix B
Grain Size Data For Reference Reaches
p. 1 - HARP
a 00
0
0
N
U
O O 0
O
O
C
W N CO L
0 U
J ? ?= m
o? O
Op E (E6 U
u p ^ N
N
c N € N ' ?,
a? a
m € c O O
m Ln m
N i m. O (D
D W O Y
o E ? ?? o
1 Y
Z co
U)
Y a? Co
a
U
?.?', M U 1 Z
C L
C
N {'.. N 4? O
f6 L
p T M
O
Q g O 1 .Z
> o LO U
in + O in Q O
N v
v _ d
m o E M c
O ro N O
_ _a J 4? '+
Z = N N c6
O
Q E E ? N
C\j
0
00
J
r
?o y
O O O O O O O O O O O f
O m O n I'D Ln d' M N _ .f
1-4
si
;r
ue4i jaug amial mno al ¢ ITY a.

00
O
O
N
U
O O
O
O

C
? a) (Q
N O)
W N N U

J -00 C: L:
col
L
S i ? a+ ? C
u
U
I
P
O

?

E

c :3 N
L

5

V ? ?
L

^
cn Q m O
CL 0
W
O O C
E O O
U ?0 LL N
Z N m O o
Y a) )
a O r,
a w

U U
? M Z
c

U L
o
v-

N

E
4, O
C
d
? E
C (
6 Q
O
• T
i C
0)
s 0.

j o € Lr)
L 0) U

Y
' O V1 O

V) L
Q
E 0E
ca o U ca C
ro N N O
"
J N to
a ; `'y cn O
Q E a) V)
(n i Ilk ? U
- N Q'
t

0

W
U

O
VI ? ? ? Y

J

O s
0 C) 0 O 0 O CD O O O O
0
.-1 -
ue
4 r?
i jau E /
7
g GT ?
1??.G?y
jn E ` f{y
i.L![ :
) %

i
OD
O
0
U
0
O O
O ?
O
s *-I (0
CL

0
U?U
00
O
ro 0 u
E f?
N
Z C) 1 n
C W L
N O

? r

00
a L

W
V
N LL
Q Q

? to
N

V 4-1
C ++
L

N

E
CQ
d C

Q) O
O
CL
Q w
E
a
_ O -C m
Q 0) C

Q OV 3 O O L
C () > ni L E O
0 i In
Q Q) J
v

U UO
(6 d Q ? ?

Z
El
N .-i
.

Q _

v

N

? 1
C

Q 00
W

O ^ l
YI ?
i v

-Ln 00 c '
J s
ti S

i ,--I
O
O
O O
C O
O O
N k O
o u O
l O
V- O
M O
N 1
-4 O

ueu i jau t; an rieln wn:) %
00
O
O
N
U
Q
O O
O
O Y
•H `
W .,
Q 7 U 3
J O ca O
co
O U
U?
m E C??
Z o ^ 0 fA a
U NI ? N?O
O O? ?
x 2^, Q
W
? W
? 0 O _
fn J
? W a
LL
O
d' Q
a) O'
N lh (n
W N
W p f ++ ?
M oa U
? Q N E a C .O
O O
O .F, L
J ? i 0 ? fE d
Q- ? C
L 0 O
ca + a Q
o a O L
O O O LA
N N _ N
C ? o ? V N
a E CL
j N
Q
U
Q E ' N
N
j
E
Q W r. .,
p z
Ln 00
ti Q ,d
O
FLTJ I
00 0 00 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 O O
1-4
ueyl aauil aAilelnwn:) %
Appendix C
Tables of Survey Data
p. 16 - HARP
Q
a
z
0
Cl)
Z
'Q
V
Q
C
O
U
_4-
QS
LU
Iz 4t
J)f _
Lu .s
0?
U)
fA
O
U
CO
O
Q
U)

N I
C i
N I
^a)
W ^a^),
?
0 co m
i
N O O
N a) a)
O O V/
Z . `/ S Y ui W
U U
0 0
.Y c c c c
co ca cu m
LL
co
=
m
CD
m
-
m

o o 3: o O
fJ J o cu o o m o z
?- - ?- m I- I- I- m I- W

}
(D LO LO 0
m
> o6 0O 00
? v o 0
r 0
r 0
r
W

~ U

d O O O
W - ci 6

W

O O LO [ LC) N CA ICt CO M LO r CO CA Il- t7 0 M LO 'T 0 r I- 'T
o Z- M C`•s U,) qt O O r O M Il- LO d' Ln M lf) N LO II- LO r M
, CO
CU N co r r r r r r c o) 00 Cb co CA 0 0 0 0 r N C N
O v 0
r C)
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r 0
r r
r r
r r r r r r
O W r r r r r
m
L I- O r-- N ? U) O LC) N N I- ? LO I- N I- N O 1-
U ?- M O 00 r M I- 0 N r r M M N M r M * 0 M
q CO 0) O m O N q- Lt7 * Co q• co 'T C \I, ' O co M
Cn
LL
N
w d LO CO I- r- CO O LO LO LO M co M

_ •? O
= W r
L.^
U i`-
C ;?.
t

U)
m
w

Q it O LO O 't (fl I? ? r- 'T M O LO t` O U-) O LC) O

rl D r r CV N N (N M M m m M 'd q- U-) LC) CO
;_ N N
m
LL
N
N
LC)
C
O
LO
U)
co
C
7
.m
C
O
J
C
O
U
(U
U)
N
O
O
U
0
(0
CA
r
I I
O
O
_O
O
O
L
D
E
N
Q
HAGAN-STONE PARK
UPPER REACH
Longitudinal Profile
ITS. RDF
3-Sep-08

STA BS(+)

(feet) (inch) HI

(feet) FS(-)

(feet) (inch) Bed/Ground
Elevation
(feet) WATER DEPTH

(feet) (inch) Water
Elevation
(feet)
Notes/Comments

y 1 y
#2
4
9./l
` 4.?
M0. X00 (?
VIVOODEN F007 BRIDGE
0 10 0.87 94.69 3.00 94.94 Bottom of Riffle
19 9 9.37 94.98 3.00 95.23 Top of Riffle
26 10 0.50 94.72 6.00 95.22 Pool
33 9 7.75 95.11 2.50 95.32 Bottom of Riffle
45 9 5.12 95.33 1.50 95.46 Top of Riffle
48 9 9.50 94.97 6.00 95.47 Below Lo
49 8 10.37 95.90 0.00 95.90 Top of Lo
55 9 3.75 95.45 5.00 95.86 Pooi
62 8 11.50 95.80 1.00 95.89 Bottom of Riffle
84 7 11.87 96.77 1.50 96.90 To of Riffle
116 8 0.00 96.76 3.00 97.01 Bottom of Riffle
124 7 4.00 97.43 0.00 97.43 To of Riffle
135 7 4.25 97.41 1.00 97.49 Bottom of Riffle
145 6 10.00 97.93 0.00 97.93 Top of Riffle
156 7 5.87 97.27 8.00 97.94 Pool
162 7 0.87 97.69 3.00 97.94 Bottom of Riffle
170 6 4.75 98.36 0.00 98.36 To of Riffle
171 97.94 5.00 98.36 Pool
175 6 4.50 98.39 0.00 98.39 Bottom of Riffle
TP # 2 8 ' 06.88 5 x.12 98.75 Top of Rack
220 5 6.62 101.32 1.00 101.41 Top of Riffle
258 5 11.12 100.95 7.00 101.53 Pool
262 5 8.50 101.17 4.00 101.50 Bottom of Riffle
280 4 8.25 102.19 1.00 102.27 Top of Riffle
302 4 7.25 102.27 1.00 102.35 Bottom of Riffle
Tr 4 3 1 4.87' 4.35 3 11,12 102.95 Top of Rock
311 . 10 7.87 103.70 0.00 103.70 To of Riffle
318 10 6.00 103.85 0.50 103.90 Bottom of Riffle
328 10 0.62 104.30 0.00 104.30 To of Riffle
334 10 4.12 104.01 3.50 104.30 Bottom of Riffle
341 9 0.87 105.28 0.00 105.28 To of Riffle
356 104.94 105.28 Bottom of Riffle
372 8 6.62 105.80 0.00 105.80 Top of Riffle
391 8 5.75 105.88 1.70 106.02 Run
406 7 10.25 106.50 1.00 106.58 Top of Riffle
414 8 0.12 106.34 3.20 106.61 Pool, Bottom of Riffle
427 7 4.37 106.99 2.00 107.16 Top of Riffle
440 7 7.50 106.73 6.00 107.23 Pool
445 7 4.12 107.01 3.00 107.26 Bottom of Riffle
452 6 7.87 107.70 1.00 107.78 Top of Riffle
458 6 9.37 107.57 3.00 107.82 Bottom of Riffle
472 6 4.37 107.99 1.00 108.07 Top of Riffle
479 107.99 108.07 Bottom of Riffle
484 6 2.75 108.13 0.00 108.13 Top of Riffle
507 6 2.62 108.14 0.00 108.14 Bottom of Riffle
523 5 11.50 108.40 2.00 108.56 Top of Riffle
TP#4 7 77?z 115.02 6 uC 108 ?_?

MY
?1IY
a
IL
W
O
H
N
rZ
V
a
^L,
W
w M
Q
w o
d U
?
CL N
O
U
00
O
a?

c
m

E
O
U
? U

O
Z i L

{ice ? ryW?
m ,V
?
?
?
?
i.d..
m MN
m
?_
w
v
- ry
?
m

O 3
Y O
N O
N N 0
N 3
O
-
l,
0 O m O
o "6 cm .c cm
"O c
M O
O Z
U H m u
Jj w w m I W
C
L O
m w U')
CA CD
CD m
m
M > (D
2 (fl
O CO
O) (4
CA
W
2

~ c o o
U 0 0 0
W O d O
?

N
I..L.
w

C
?
:n 0 Q N Ln N M M O O N U') M m LO N 04
p= +.
L (
a)
W
rn
rn
w
q
N
0
m
m
o
[A
N
m O
a 0 6 0 6 6 6 6 CSC) I- r? 6 6 (0 co a) 0 0 0 O
w O O O M m O m O O m m m m m O O O O O
a) E-3
r-
m
L N O N O O I? O LC) N N O O O N N LO N O
U m Lo LC) M O I-- co O O 0 0 0
? r- X 0 0 r- m 00 M I? O ? O N cl' ? ? O O

LL
N
N LO V LO Lf) 0 LO CD r- r- w w w 0 0 "T "T " d'
CD
_ +r O

U Lq
C e-

co

^` V
I

O O
r- LO O
N V
N CD
N 00
N CA N
O N
M M
M Co
M m O In O

Cn
M, N
M
M
Cl)
M M
co
00
CA
c
O
U)
c
0
3
t?
c
O
J
O
U
N
U)
O
U
r
I I
O
LO
O
O
E
O
4"3
E
N
Q
Y
Q
a
z
0
Q
= M
Wo
? U
W N
W (n
O
O0
J U
00
0
a
a?
N

c

E N
E cv
O ?
)
cn O
N
Z W
W

L
^
W
in
Y
C: Y
c Y
C: ?, `oO
N tB fd ? m m N m
LL m m m
0
o
'0
'0
0
O 0 0 w N O Y Y
C? O O O L -0 -O N O N Z
i- F- F- F- F- W W M F- CO W

O CO L
N - .r
O
O O O
?
W
2
~ U O O O
a
C
W O
d
O

W

C C
3 O V ? CO LO O Cfl LO rn 00 M - O 0 LO 00 0 OD N Cfl rn
O = +-
L
N N 00 CO CO 00 - O) CO r-
0) CO Il -
l O 00 Cfl N 00 N
>
? ?-
o M
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o ?-
O 0
O 0
O 0
O
? 0
o 0
O 0'
O? .
o .
o .
o .
o N
O N
O M
O
- - - - - -

m 7 1

L
N
LO
M
LO
1-
0
N
ti i
In
N
0
0
0
0
N
U CO ti r M N Cfl co I? 00 ? co ? ? 0 Lo r- co
c) I- 0 0 0 0 r` d- CO 0 0 V 00 ,:r m CA I q- U7 OD oO M I" N
i
I
U-
O
U
U
I
)
LO
LO
LO
I
I
I
M
M
N
? M ) U7 LO U) ) LO n 0 CO O U ,
i
I t T T
N
2 tt?

L :C)
U N

C i

co
N
4-
<
" Lo LO LO LO (Y)

~
O
CO O U7 O N ti CD N M N O N L,) O U) O
- N N M m N Op p M "T q d LO LO Cfl
N N N N co
? i
U7
CA
c
O
2
U)
Tv
C
3
.O1
C
O
J
ca
C
O
U
a)
Cn
u7
O
O
U
0
M
CA
r
I I
O
CO
O
O
E
O
4-
E
N
Q
Y
Q
a
z
0
'Q
V
Q
N
c
_(D
WN
Q? :*
of c
LU .2
U
O?
J (n
v7
O
U
00
O
L
a)
U)
ch
C
a)

E
O
U

m
0
z
L
`
Y ^
? ?
VS ? W M
L`L W W W
O 4-
O W
O
0 0
O
O
U
a) c6
F- H I- W W co W
L O (N O O O
a),r- M M M N
a)
> w
O
r
r
O
r
O O
?
W
2
~
U a O O O O
c
W
o
co
r-
o

W

'a

:3 O v O M 0 0 f- I-T M N O V f- 'IT O V 00
O zz
N ^ LD -q- LO LO N O O M ? ? N r- CO V r- O O
j
N ?- ? IT 14, M M N N O Qj 6 O N N co Cl)
aJ O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0

CD j ,
L N O N I,- I- U-) LO CD 0 N O I? N N
'
U CO LO CO M M N f? r- O M co
O . ' O M r-_ (fl N C) M Lo C) O CO CO
i
C?
LL
O V' V ?T V LO LO C4 00 00 00 00 ti co CD Lo Lo V

Lo I

m
?
r-

U P--
C

Cn
m

a - M
k
O
LO O LO O M LO (C) M O N to 00
I O LO O
N N r? N M IM M M d ',T LO
_ I N
? I
N
't
N
C
O
C
7
O
C
O
J
N
C
O
U
m
U)
U
U
O
U
0
00
d'
r
O
Ln
O
O
E
O
w
Y
7
N
a
Y
ce
Q
CL
z
0
U)
'a
V
a
2
C
O
U
c
W
w .2
CL U
IL a)
Z) m
cn
O
U
CC)
O
a
a?
U)

c
0)

E
O
U E
jd
J L
O

Z
LU
Cs _

Y

)
?

)
L

rr Y
m c
m `
m M
> m
M

O o 0 0 0) 0
? N N N 0
cr a co 0)
LL F- co w w F- w w
c
` O N
O m O
r

w
2
~
U
a O O O
w
CD
o
0

w
}

c
c
O O O N M O O O V Lo N ? M M Lo W O V O N
N a w 1? 0 m N O V O ti r- w O M M N O 1

? 0 0) O O O CA 00 f? CO CO CO ti O O O O O O
? N ? d? O O O O O d? 0? O O O O 0? O O O O
w
m
L N LO LO 1` O N O O O r- Lo 0 Il- N ~ O
U O t- N OO CO O , LO O O w rZ o m o C? Lo
N M 00 - co O cM N O M 1' O co O O

LL
0)
O
w Lo Lo L0 LO Lo CO 1- 00 00 00 ? O to to Lo L0 L0

CJ i

2 ? ?
I
C7

C r

m
N ?
L

O
LC) O to O N E 'q M O N Lo
'
CO O Lo O Ln
/j
.1 CV I (V N N N N M M M
, IT «) Lo
?
co
N
00
C
O
U)
m
C_
7
. aT
C
O
J
(0
C
O
C)
U
N
U)
U
N
O
U
ti
N
N
11
Lo
Lo
O
O
E
O
7
N
Q
HAGAN-STONE PARK
LOWER REACH
Longitudinal Profile
JTS. RDF
2-Sep-08

STA BS(+)

(feet) (inch) HI

(feet) FS(-)

(feet) (inch) Bed/Ground
Elevation
(feet) WATER DEPTH

(feet) (inch) Water
Elevation
(feet)
Notes/Comments

TBM 3.62 Q5.30 100.00 TOP OF STAKE
0 5 11.00 99.39 1.50 99.51 Run
16 5 11.75 99.32 3.00 99.57 Run
27 5 10.25 99.45 2.50 99.66 Run
39 5 9.50 99.51 2.50 99.72 Run
48 5 9.25 99.53 2.50 99.74 Top of Run
52 6 1.37 99.19 7.00 99.77 Pool
59 5 6.75 99.74 0.00 99.74 To of Pool
64 5 3.75 99.99 0.00 99.99 Top of Riffle
71 6 4.62 98.92 13.70 100.06 Pool
82 5 4.87 99.90 2.00 100.06 Bottom of Riffle
86 5 3.12 100.04 0.50 100.08 To of Riffle
91 5 8.12 99.63 6.00 100.13 Pool
107 5 4.75 99.91 2.50 100.11 Bottom of Riffle
111 5 1.75 100.16 0.00 100.16 To of Riffle
128 5 9.37 99.52 7.50 100.15 Pool
138 5 5.00 99.89 2.70 100.11 Bottom of Riffle
143 5 1.62 100.17 0.00 100.17 Top of Riffle
157 5 9.12 99.54 7.50 100.17 Pool
160 5 3.37 100.02 1.20 100.12 Bottom of Riffle
TP # i 5 4 108 ' 1 3 6.75 101.74 TOP OF STAKE
173 7 11.12 100.19 1.50 100.31 Top of Riffle
192 8 9.75 99.30 1 0.00 100.30 Pool
229 8 0.75 100.05 3.00 100.30 Bottom of Riffle
239 7 8.75 100.39 1.70 100.53 To of Riffle

TP # 1 7 11.37 109.69 101 74 TOP OF STAKE
244 9 7.12 100.09 5.00 100.51
249.2 9 4.25 100.33 2.00 100.50 Bottom of Riffle
268.5 8 2.37 101.49 0.00 101.49 To of Riffle, To of Lo
295 9 2.87 100.45 12.00 101.45 Pool
306 100.45 101.45 Bottom of Riffle

Y
Q
a
w
O
Q
Q
L
2 co
v?
W N
c
W .2
d a)
U)
O
U
co
O
a
m
M

c
a)
`
E ) a)
E
0

i o O
a) a)
0
0)
cn

z
11-1
Ile w w
r
0 O
i-
Y
Y
Y
co a) c:
m c
m C:
m
CO 00 = in
U U Y 0 3 o Y o
m

c
o c
m a)
° a)
0 c
c
w
l w F- ? o
O M O M
a) .?
Q) N •- N
cu ca
> 06 06 06
O
? O
r O
r
W

C) C) 0
? U c o o
u.l c o n o
?
N
LJ..
ill

=; O LO 0 w 0 M O I-- I- O M N M (0 O 'T O O O O t-
o% M N q 0 0 0 to N I- N 0 N 'g 0 0 0 [- I- [-
a)
> a) N X ? - r- • O O O 00 O O M M 0 N
B O O - - - - ?- O O O O O O O
N Ill r a- r r r ?-
m
LO I- O N O N LO r LO Ln ? 0 LO L O N N O O
U z- N 00 O O ?- fZ m N N Lo I` o m 6 5

i CO a0 0 V ?- ao 0 m M 0 N N N (A

LL
N
a) (D V V V V co (fl CO I- O 'IT IT ?f V V M
N

2 N

U 14

m i
i
I
]

I- k
O
Lo 0 0 0 ) (D CO
I- N
w T
'
m -
1
O O Lo
N 0 Lo 0

(n
C-
a ?- N N N
N
N
(N
M
M M
M t7 v 0 to Co

r--
0
Cn
C
O
co
U)
(d
C
O
C
O
J
(0
C
O
U
Q)
(n
to
O
U
0
C`
N
N
11
O
Cfl
O
O
E
O
N
Q
Appendix D
Miscellaneous Information
p. 17 - HARP
t
CITY OF HIGH POINT
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT (Case # WSV07-01)
MAJOR WATERSHED VARIANCE
October 1, 2007
Applicant: Owner:
Larco Construction Company Sloan Construction Company, Inc.
Request: A major watershed variance is being requested for proposed disturbance of an
existing intermittent stream buffer as classified by the Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality. The buffer disturbance exceeds 5 percent of the stream; therefore,
local and state (Environmental Management Commission review is re uired.
Site hiformation
Location 1330 Old Jackson Lake Road (West side of
the southern terminus of Old Jackson Lake
Rd.). Guilford County Tax Parcel 94-7043-0-
0948-00-007, 009, & 039.
Site Acreage Approximately 33.3 acres
Current Land Use Asphalt Plant
Land Use Plan Designation Light Industrial
Recreation / Open Space
Overlay Districts Randleman Lake General Watershed Area (GWA)
Deep River 1 Sub-basin
Background:
The subject site is developed with an asphalt plant, which includes stockpiles of concrete,
gravel, and sand, along with covered storage areas, conveyor belts, scales, silos, and offices.
The bulk of the activity related to the operation of the asphalt plant (i.e. mixing of aggregate
and loading of the trucks) occurs in the south-central portion of the site. Larco Construction
Company has operated the asphalt plant on the property since 1997, prior to the adoption of
the Randleman Rules.
0
The area used to access the stockpiles and mix the aggregates is graveled. The existing
impervious surface area, which includes the graveled and stockpile areas, is 9.423 acres (28.31
percent). Also, a pair of high voltage electric transmission lines impact the site. One line
currently crosses the center of the site in an east/west direction (High Point Electric Utility
has a 172-foot wide utility easement, of which approximately 136 feet is void of any woody
vegetation). The second line is a Duke Power line which runs along the southwestern portion
of the site and has a 200-foot wide utility easement, of which approximately 170 feet is void
of any woody vegetation.
The topography of the site falls generally in a north to south direction towards Richland
Creek. The northwestern third of the property is heavily wooded and contains slopes in
excess of 15 percent (especially near perennial and intermittent streams that feed into
Richland Creek).
Larco has proposed an expansion of its operation, which includes relocating the plant area to
the north central area of the site. The net increase of impervious surface area (ISA) is 2.299
acres which is a 9.63 percent increase (The total site area of 33.285 acres minus the existing
ISA of 9.423 acres equals 23.862 acres of pervious area at the time of adoption of the
Randleman Rules; 2.299 acres is 9.63 percent of 23.862 acres). An increase in the ISA of less
than 12 percent is considered low density development. Low density development requires
the treatment of the first - inch of stormwater runoff from the additional ISA (2.299 acres)
and that the stream buffers for perennial streams be a minimum of 50 feet as measured from
the top of bank on each side of the stream.
Description of Request:
The applicant is requesting a major watershed variance for the elimination of an intermittent
stream buffer (See Sheet 1 - Variance Request Watershed Map attached). The required
stream buffer width for the segment is 50 feet (measured from top of bank on each side of the
stream). The proposed expansion and associated maneuvering areas result in the disturbance
of 0.43 acres (18,730 sq. ft.) of intermittent stream buffer area along 149 linear feet of the
classified stream. In order to construct the proposed expansion, the applicant proposes to
remove the stream and eliminate the buffer. Removal of the 50-foot wide undisturbed
riparian stream buffer requires approval by the High Point City Council and the Water
Quality Committee of the Environmental Management Commission (EMC).
The area within the protected riparian stream buffer proposed for disturbance contains no
more than 25 percent woody vegetation because the area is heavily impacted by existing
overhead utility lines and a sanitary sewer line (See photos #I and #2). The stream proposed
for disturbance has a contributing drainage basin area of 2.701 acres, of which approximately
2.242 acres is on the development site. The drainage basin area off-site is mostly paved and
presently used as a truck maneuvering area within the MGM Transport facility directly
north of the site (See Sheet 2 - Predevelopment Stream Delineation). The drainage basin area
on-site is currently being graded as part of an approved development plan. The proposed
.,,?,.:r„?HUn ?..o.,.., +.,i,?o...r ,?,.,. ..:ro•?«, tx.o,,,,.+.,,?,.,m_ni ,a,,,.
•
ISA within the drainage area and the proposed stream disturbance area, if approved, will be
diverted to the proposed retention pond and released towards an existing perennial stream in
the western portion of the site (See Sheet 3 - Post Development Stream Delineation Map).
To off-set the proposed stream impact the applicant is proposing to restore approximately
310 linear feet of an existing perennial stream that is currently piped. The 36" pipe would be
removed and new vegetation would be established on each side of the stream for a distance of
50 feet from the newly established stream bank. The 50-foot riparian stream buffer will be
recorded on a plat at the Guilford County Register of Deeds, establishing the protected
riparian buffer. The re-vegetated area totals approximately 33,000 sq. ft. Additional re-
vegetation will occur within the proposed Richland Creek 100-foot stream buffer when the
existing asphalt plant is moved along with the associated offices (currently mobile trailers
located north and east of the existing asphalt plant). The re-vegetation of an area in excess of
33,000 sq. ft. will off-set the proposed disturbance of 18,730 sq. ft. in the protected riparian
buffer.
Required Findings of Fact:
To approve a major variance to the standards and restrictions of Chapter 7, Article A
(Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) of the City Development Ordinance, City Council
is required to make the following findings of fact: 1) There are practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships that would result from carrying out the strict letter of the Ordinance;
2) The spirit of the Ordinance is preserved; 3) Public safety and welfare is assured and the
granting of the variance will do substantial justice.
To address these requirements the applicant's submittal states the following conclusions. 1)
The new plant must be fully operational before the old plant can be shut down. Certain
components of the current plant are located in the floodplain and would therefore present
considerable concern in rebuilding at the present location. It is therefore necessary to relocate
to another area of the property. The proposed location shown is most feasible. 2) The
downstream water quality will not be degraded. The existing stream, as well as its buffers, is
degraded and substandard at the present time. The removal of an existing pipe and re-
vegetation of its buffers will improve the overall stream quality on this site (see Photos #3 -
#5). 3) The granting of the requested variance assures the public's safety and welfare through
restoration measures to the existing perennial stream downstream and its buffers.
Analysis:
The existing location of the asphalt plant on the site as well as some of the other components
makes it difficult for expansion to occur. There are floodplain issues that would require
special permits, and further disturbance of the southern portion of the site along Richland
Creek is not desirable from a water quality standpoint. This presents a practical difficulty to

0 .0
the applicant, since it is the company's desire to expand and improve its facility. There is
adequate land area within the current site to relocate most of the components further away
from Richland Creek which is an environmental plus, but in doing so it will be necessary to
disturb the upper reaches of an intermittent stream with a small contributing drainage area. In
return for allowing this disturbance, the applicant has proposed to restore over 300 linear feet
of a perennial tributary to Richland Creek by removing piping and regrading and replanting
stream banks and buffer area. This restoration is over twice the footage of stream being
disturbed, which is intermittent and has a much smaller drainage area associated with it. In
addition, the applicant will be re-vegetating some area along Richland Creek, which should
further help improve treatment of site runoff and hence water quality.
In short, staff believes that the relocation of the asphalt plant facilities away from Richland
Creek and out of the floodplain, the restoration of the perennial tributary to a more natural
state, and restoring vegetation to the buffer area along Richland Creek, in return for
disturbance of 149 feet of intermittent stream buffer is a trade-off that definitely favors water
quality and the local environment.
Watershed Review Committee Recommendation:
The City's Watershed Review Committee (WRC) has reviewed the proposal. The WRC
supports the arguments and evidence presented by the applicant to allow the removal of the
stream buffers for a length of 149 feet.
Staff's findings are based on the belief that the applicant's proposal provides for stream
restoration and water quality treatment in excess of what the Development Ordinance
requires. This is achieved by proposing a wet retention pond design that treats the first inch
of stormwater runoff (an additional half-inch above what is required) from existing and
proposed impervious surface areas; and a 33,000 square foot area currently not subjected to
buffer requirements shall be restored and platted as a stream buffer area. Additional areas
that have encroachments into the Richland Creek stream buffer will also be re-vegetated and
platted providing a net gain in vegetated protected stream buffers. Staff also finds that the
applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the existing stream buffer provides limited water
quality treatment. The proposed development, through quality design and restoration, would
improve the water quality leaving the site.
The staff recommendation of approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The issuance of the applicable 404/401 permits.
2. Stream restoration plans shall be approved by the Division of Water Quality and the
Technical Review Committee (TRC). Re-vegetated areas outside of the stream
restoration area shall be approved by TRC.
3. Obtain applicable flood plain development permits prior to commencing construction
activity to remove the 36" pipe containing the perennial stream in the flood zone area.
4. Revise the watershed development plan prior to disturbance within the buffer area.

# 4
5. Record a plat/map depicting the newly established and additional stream buffers at the
Guilford County Register of Deeds.
Attachments'. Location Map
2003 Aerial
Photos of the existing site (Numbered 1-5)
Applicant's Variance Request and Findings of Fact
Sheets 1-3 (illustrations supporting the Findings of Fact)

?u .? .
"b a??r •?
,
r-IA-- r -- a,,,.
1
Photo #2 - Looking west across the headwaters of the intermittent stream. The proposed filling/disturbance of the
buffer terminates approximately at the existing sanitary sewer manhole shown in the center-right of the photo.
Hrm ,..o F..i,ro.._r
1
.,,-;-A UTN.- -..- e-ld- T -- ?.,. A--

°?- _
1 01
X At-
Photo 44 - Panning to the cast from Photo to shoe the exiting asphalt plant and vegetation present in the
background along Richland Creek. This entire operation will be removed from this location. Only stockpiles of
materials will remain in this area of the site
e A
.Ae
.
.: F
e }

j K # ". N'k?yr??*+ a ?,?y' qty FntTy''
" to
? Wt
%
rq .a
*11
s. 16nv
Photo #> - Existing perennial stream that will be restored on the site.
removed and 50' stream buffers established on each side of the stream.
NO-
_M r

? •d«M1 ? ?' .pt; t