20051110 Ver 1_Stream Restoration Plan_20050622

Richland Creek
Stream Restoration Plan 0s 11 10
Town of Wake Forest
Wake County, North Carolina
Under a grant from the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund
Recrwbn
!o\
•
rEducaWn
vQ •
1951 • ?y
•fi
Prepared By:
A? KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
K C I Raleigh, NC 27609
June 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ..............................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................1
1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................1
1.4 Qualifications .......................................................................................................................3
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................3
2.1 Watershed ............................................................................................................................3
General Description ...............................................................................................................3
Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................4
Natural Communities ............................................................................................................4
Land Use ...............................................................................................................................7
2.2 Restoration Site ....................................................................................................................7
Site Description .....................................................................................................................7
Bankfull Verification .............................................................................................................7
Existing Stream Characteristics .............................................................................................8
Stability Assessment ..............................................................................................................8
Constraints .............................................................................................................................9
3.0 REFERENCE REACH ANALYSIS ..................................................................................9
3.1 Richland Creek Above Section 1 Reach (RCASIR) .........................................................9
3.2 Unnamed Tributary to Lake Wheeler (UTLW) ...............................................................11
4.0 NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN ......................................................................................11
4.1 Design Methodology ............................................................................................................11
4.2 Richland Creels Restoration Design ...................................................................................11
4.3 Riparian Buffers ..................................................................................................................15
5.0 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ................................................................................................15
6.0 FLOODING ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................16
7.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..............................................................................16
7.1 Stream Monitoring ............................................................................................... 18
...............
7.2 Vegetation Monitoring ........................................................................................................18
8.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Watershed Boundary ......................................................................................................5
Figure 3. Watershed Soils ...............................................................................................................6
Figure 4. Richland Creek Above Section 1 Reach (RCASIR) .....................................................10
Figure 5. Unnamed Tributary to Lake Wheeler (UTLW) ...........................................................12
Figure 6. Priority Levels of Incised River Restoration ................................................................14
Figure 7. River State Diagram .......................................................................................................17
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Morphological Design Criteria ........................................................................................13
APPENDICES
1. Richland Creek Hydrograph (June - October 2004)
2. Site Photograph Documentation
3. Restoration Design Plan Set
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Wake Forest (TWF) has contracted KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A. (KCI)
to provide professional assessment and design services on two separate reaches (Sections 1 and 2)
of Richland Creek in Wake Forest, Wake County, North Carolina. The project has been funded
by a grant from the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust fund (CWMTF). The
following restoration plan was prepared as a comprehensive design document to facilitate the
permitting of the proposed project.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed stream restoration is part of a stream/riparian buffer preservation and greenway
project along the portion of Richland Creek that extends from the Franklin/Wake County Line
(County Line) to Durham Road (NC 98) (Figure 1. Vicinity Map). As a component of this
project, two sections of degraded channel are being restored. Section 1 is comprised of 650 linear
feet (LF) of degraded channel (542 LF restoration) that begins approximately 2,700 feet
downstream of the County Line. Section 2 includes the 1,900 LF reach (1,875 LF restoration)
immediately upstream of the Stadium Drive Bridge.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of the Richland Creek Stream Restoration Project are:
¦ Improve water quality and reduce land and riparian vegetation loss resulting from lateral
erosion and bed degradation;
¦ Restore a stable channel morphology that is capable of moving the flows and sediment
provided by its watershed;
¦ Improve aquatic habitat; and,
¦ Provide educational opportunities (to be directed through TWF).
1.3 Methodology
An assessment of Richland Creek was initiated by obtaining available site and watershed data in
order to define the current and anticipated conditions in which the restored stream/system would
need to function. This information included but was not limited to soils and geologic mapping,
hydraulic and hydrologic (H&H) reports, floodplain mapping, land use/land cover mapping,
regional hydraulic geometry data, and historic aerial photography.
Data was collected following the methods prescribed in Applied River Morphology (Rosgen,
1996). As part of this assessment (Level III), existing morphologic characteristics were measured
and used to classify the channel and make predictions about the condition and behavior of the
stream. Observed bankfull indicators were identified and surveyed in section and in profile. An
estimate of the bankfull discharge was calculated based on bankfull stage, channel roughness, and
bed slope using the Manning Equation. Field determinations were correlated with regional
hydraulic geometry data and were calibrated using the River Analysis System (HEC-RAS)
developed by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE).
Sediment transport characteristics of the existing stream were evaluated by collecting and
analyzing bed and bar materials and by installing and monitoring scour chains to evaluate depth
of scour and volume of deposition. This sediment data was later used to validate the proposed
design for transport competence and capacity.
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
•
i
i
i
•
•
•
i
•
i
•
•
•
i
•
i
Wake County, North Carolina
(\ t/? r
sx-
y? U' j
It y'h.. r
v, f 1
!Zlt
. ` / l l +' ?. j t > - < L j? rt'" t l ?,' 1) {j3 `. ?.I \, ''f+?,?•r? t ! 1 r t'T l t t r :.1l-.i
't-'"7a`: `-?.3 ' •s ^I 3a ;-??: 't,4r i I i:.
17
`//S :.fr ..F1 ?, ?,tY I?`.,/?t i- .\ ? •4Y.e?a `? ! tiJ.?l lii
? ? ;k•r^? ? j r1>• a ?X `r ) ??/ 1? - ?' Iv 4 f ? 1 r ! G ?r !+ .
'Y Cr.,rI! _ ,? . v t ,? y / .? ,•"F+t i ,? r r Y 'f
/ 4,
c -dill ? I : "` ` f ? .• '\ 1. Y ? s '/ Y 1? t t?L t
''. ) l ..
//?r,r?: _J? f -+"} `',1a!?!I i f +p h-( f { ) 1 •' tilts w, nt
r, `??_ ? IP _ rte; it t ?•f :_ s• t{ -- ^?:,' °?
'' '.'?.j,,,i !`'i t1L-: I'- it l ( ?r `•4F' . I ` ?.,,,,+ .
r l , [ ifS,
? t k d •
r,/ SY'? I'll r, y4 ?lC a> > 1 I +
-ol
Y i Ct JIrS 1 //4 (/ J
r4
S, J1 1"il (tt ?t?`511?\ ??\ 7l Af "! l 7y r(ry? s ??? _
i1Kj,? l'\ 111. `'•' ? 1? ?'?'-? I ?` r?<< f ? rG ?" '".?:,? ". ` `%.,c..?? r.1? , r. ?`,
prf1 y?7j/y- i / y t I
?h???}y"*Y1tf-L('-'., J{? r??? t ?. 'u ti It,C? -?:TriL'•?'` '?*'?'SF'?-?•?-4 ,`'.
? Iffr ??1oSt \?J'?./ ? tp/(C ?- . ?-r:?yt,? ? c-°L- `\ ?f`C ? , q` ?ti ?i.:"'.
1-1 S ! f?: J't J j,s '"j'. 4 ? t .i . ?r - ?. ui 1_ l• '? 14j .
??+ea7'>t•`'_ i1 +/I 11r??• l+J .+.`4. k'"1 ??? its, _; I.?\" ? f?4fi S,*(^ J"/} ?,
SdM 't ?•' r
l" 14f itl? j1 / ?+c ??,./,.•? .s'-s"}"L .?,r f" ' I /?? ?l I t , t --V ?Ll ( "l?--f
I P* _8
r ??} f T-•^r;. is`t?''ti'?rr Y -. ?.? J/ E Y?••l i \1 ;,fit
ti~ ?y,/,'?? , 'fin' .1 ? 'S Il .a?Y`µ. .?i:.? / ? 7 1 J? ? "` k?; t ?,,'-- kl *••G?
`:~ d•.?f ?J?_r-??\????1 ?-?JR??T ,`\l-P .\':?°Lr ~( ;?/k.?.*?...iw?....- IS, yrlf?I(1..?,???Y
cl/-,.
r
?tkA3
r"C` r

n
`l '':-:r"1 /?1 , ?rl `,_`S: `C 5 ?( ?''1 try). r. /,s) S.< <•r t r:?. ?` 4?'s? ?? y ' !. 1'! , ,?, '?''i'?,il"? -
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
N Section 1 - Station 10+00 to 15+42
N Section 2 - Station 60+00 to 78+75
r-n
3000 0 3000 Feet
Somme: USGSTopogrophlod Quad'mgler (GrUsom, Wake Forest Rok-liG FranUim n)
Monitoring of surface water fluctuations was undertaken to understand the hydrologic response of
the watershed and to verify the proposed design discharges. Two (2) surface water-monitoring
gauges, one (1) barometric logger (required for gauge calibration), and one (1) rain gauge were
used to perform this monitoring. Five months of continuous recordings (June through October)
were utilized in this study. In-situ gauging with a Doppler velocity meter was used to calibrate
the discharge estimates from these instruments.
Two reference ecosystems with similar hydrogeomorphic parameters as the project site were
identified and surveyed. The reference sites were used to define the morphological parameters
(dimensionless ratios) that provide the basis (design criteria) for the restoration of Richland
Creek. Additionally, design criteria were developed to address utilities and other issues
(construction access) that could affect the proposed restoration.
Stream restoration design plans were developed based upon the approved design criteria. These
plans are presented on the project base mapping and depict the location, extent, and nature of the
proposed modifications, including the proposed stream planform, typical cross-sections, and typical
details for in-stream and bank stabilization structures/techniques.
1.4 Qualifications
Qualifications for the primary specialists are provided as follows:
Specialist: Gary M. Mryncza, Professional Hydrologist (P.H. - 1605)
Education: MS, Water Resources, University of Birmingham (U.K.)
BS, Natural Science, Towson University
Experience: KCI, 1996 to present
Specialist: Brian Hayes, Professional Geologist (P.G. - 1018)
Education: BS, Geology, North Carolina State University
Experience: KCI, 2004 to present
Environmental Services, Inc. & NCDOT, 1995 to 2004
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Watershed
General Description
Richland Creek is situated within the northeastern portion of the Piedmont physiographic
province, which is typified by rolling topography with broad ridges, sharply indented stream
valleys, and narrow, low-gradient floodplains. The Richland Creek watershed (USGS 14-digit
Hydrologic Unit 03020201070060) is located within sub-basin 03-04-02 of the Neuse River
Basin. The headwaters of the Richland Creek form to the west and south of Youngsville, North
Carolina. The watershed extends south-southwest to a point approximately 1.5 miles downstream
of the Falls Reservoir Dam where Richland Creek joins the Neuse River.
3

a The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) has classified Richland Creek, from its
• headwaters to its confluence with the Neuse River, as well as all tributaries, as Class C nutrient
- sensitive waters (NSW). NCDWQ has further assigned these streams a water quality use support
rating of "support-threatened" with increasing watershed development and non-point source
- pollution as identified causes of probable impairment.
The portion of Richland Creek evaluated as part of this project is located between the
• Franklin/Wake County Line and Stadium Drive in Wake Forest, North Carolina. Capital
Boulevard (US 1) roughly bounds the watershed to the west and the Seaboard Coast Railroad
Line bounds it to the east (Figure 2. Watershed Boundary). The topographic relief within the
project reach is approximately 25 feet, ranging from approximately 282 feet above mean sea level
(AMSL) at the upstream limits of Section I to 257 feet AMSL at the downstream limits at the
Stadium Drive Bridge.
Geology and Soils
- The Richland Creek Restoration Site lies within the Northern Outer Piedmont Ecoregion
(Piedmont). This region is composed of mostly gneiss and schist rock intruded by granitic plutons
and veneered with saprolite. At the eastern boundary, the Fall Line is a broad transition zone
where Piedmont rocks occur on the same landscape with Coastal Plain sediments. Some areas
near this boundary have meta-volcanic and meta-sedimentary rocks.
i
- The project area is part of the Cecil soil association. The Cecil association occurs on gently
sloping to steep, deep, well-drained soils that have a subsoil of firm red clay; derived mostly from
. gneiss and schist. Soils that make up the rest of the association are mainly the Appling, Madison,
- Wedowee, Enon, Wilkes, Chewacla, Congaree, Wehadkee and Bibb.
- The Soil Survey of Wake County (USDA, 1970) has classified the soils underlying the majority
of the site within the floodplain as Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded and
• the surrounding upland areas as Cecil sandy loam, 10- 15 percent slopes (Figure 3. Soils).
- Wehadkee soils were field mapped as inclusions in wetter areas. Preliminary verification of the
soils in the study area was conducted based on field profile descriptions and the Wake County
Soil Survey.
- Natural Communities
A field survey was conducted to identify and document the dominant plant communities in the
project area. Several distinct community mosaics were recognized, and complete species lists
with dominance were compiled. These lists were utilized to best fit the communities described in
- the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale & Weakley, 1990).
Natural communities in the study area include Piedmont Levee Forest and Piedmont Bottomland
Forest. Piedmont Levee Forests are prevalent along the active levee position of Richland Creek.
• Woody species of the canopy include Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash), Platanus occidentalis
(sycamore), Betula nigra (river birch), Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet gum), Acer negundo
(boxelder), and Juglans nigra (black walnut). Species in the overstory dominate those in the
. understory.
The Piedmont Bottomland Forest, a PFOIA wetland type, is the natural community to the east of
• Richland Creek that occurs along perennial tributaries to Richland Creek. These bottomland
forests are located between the levees of Richland Creek and the major wetland areas that have
4
i
•
•
i
•
•
Wake County, North Carolina y
)V ??J
li
. . 1! .' JCS
11A ti;? ri
Net t
7
r/? ./ C-?1 d L ` t 1
?, kY %?r ...9• (' ?\ t ? f Ir \- ' `?. \ l?, ? IY ?) r ?. ? r f ?11? ??'
v n.??l '` -`1 . t ' t t 11 v •.l r• •? 1 C?, r t r '?a-' I.
. yfJ j`,.. -a. .^ ? t' ?,1 ?' l k 1 r ?.1 ? , ?i. d . `• yr 1 . ,? +? r ?.It ? .
!/ `? ? ? ~ . f is 1 ?'?1 r f ? ` ? ? , t?. ,jI1;J> ? ? . ,1 { ;4 , ? I
?,Y •-'?. •_.v. S?.,?: s ?11j1? 7 •: ?f ??11 1?,t. n
0?V?
t J
Sim'. ? ?f +t 7' ?, le-. ?' .? t ?' 1'11Nti?svillPY t Ft'?,s t fit,
• f. 1 ilk;\?-/?1;-.i?1'-)'?s`?,?y,. jr....... ?,i ; ,.•. ?i-?, Y ?f?' ?:, i?
?Yi / ?. ? 1 C?, 1 )~ia r.f! . l-'.. 1' .7 - •6? 1 `"r'?- 'YC ,St
r f? /rte / V t +C?..?r?_ -'.`?/t r; ? yT' t''?W->:
1.?f?`/?S! .?y%+?-{?1I1\ja(?, y>.-?D.Iy''•sa 'r %i M1>E- j'?'v i' ?:. Fi- t
? ?,?,.: ?t 1 ,,1 (i-7 , ??Il.-<t?.s^?t•.K?-ems- , ?,.:.
Lti?+r,)-?\1 t i J 7,l1?'\? fr, ?'t 1/ rSJ'`'"}rYr:. '`y"•_ ,t 1. 1,.;•
{!z ?tafr/??Ittil?\ iJ . ??1 ?? f ( I av'p p
1 ? i
I?J i 11% t ?-.'? ,llyt+- 't r tom'. ?- C l'* ? J Ibr/ ?e?? D 1
7 } tl •U"y a ?> ?1 ,'
7
:`} ? ?' ? iv1 r µ 3 f ; ? ? ' ,'"..?/ r, t i- /' 1 i /f+ • t] a `•• .
I f , {a''t r/ / a ./? f? 1 \ r m\ r !' . } IS'
? .i ?Yt ({? ?I" ft sv?. r 7 1 e .??• /+ '°?' 2 a) / t `C? '' >, ti ,•.'?
t
??"?'• ) } r frh ?^? ??l?i, i.,-+cy •1•? ,\p i)Y?. It' t><y? _ Ji 1`q ? ?., ?-
t'om'- p. •,=,, ti, r ,.?''r-' 1 .r.,?f1.4? '_
? t, _ - ?r ? ,'?,•! ` (15?t Y? _'- f?) J r X91 ?•'-?J v?t? ?i4? '<,1 ? ! ;
,?r -_f1 r 1740. .? t ? /r`?, f`• i /) r/ ? -????.
.?-. J (. < ?'--' r1t \t in 4 \t1 4 ' J< 1 ttry (
rAJl_5"'i/,,
t ?. )t S1/< I -r i` a ?r• 1 ''7? f . ;'. k ? r / t
..._.3- ..?i: t' '.a1?, ?,??'-?lSe>F;:t. .?'i"??'t?11?1 ?S'.t lil?\-?ii4`?:--=?!f/J.''"?i?.it 'L '_?.%'-!•_.
r?• N
Figure 2. Watershed Boundary
Watershed Boundary
f
N Restoration Section 1
Q
Restoration Section 2 3000 0 3000 Feet
Source: USGSTopographkal Quadralrgles (Grissom, Wake For-- Rol-dle, FrankUnlo?O
- been identified along the eastern boundary of the study area. The canopy is dominated by
Liriodendron tulipifera (tulip tree), sweet gum, Ulmus Americana (American elm), Celtis
• laevigata, (sugarberry), green ash and Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) and the understory consists
primarily of Carpinus caroliniana (musclewood) and Ilex opaca (American holly).
- Land Use
Current land use in the contributing watershed consists of forest, cropland/pasture, and areas of
• suburban development. Historically, the area has been predominantly rural. However,
development pressures in the area are significant. According to 2000 US Census figures, the
l
ti
f
h
T
popu
a
on o
t
e
own of Wake Forest more than doubled in the preceding decade (NCSDC,
. 2001). Recent growth in the watershed has included considerable commercial and residential
development with associated road networks and utilities infrastructure. The increased impervious
land cover and modified drainage patterns have altered both the intensity and
. timing/concentration of runoff in localized areas. The watershed is exhibiting the effects of this
increased urbanization, including the loss of riparian habitat, the alteration of the stable stream
morphology, localized bank erosion, the degradation of water quality, and the loss of aquatic
. habitat. Further, the potential for continued development is high.
2.2 Restoration Site
Site Description

Section 1 is a 650-foot reach (542 LF restoration) located adjacent to a picnic/fitness trail that
begins approximately 2,700 feet downstream of the County Line. The left bank height
. approaches five feet and severe erosion is prevalent throughout this reach. Several large trees
w have fallen into the channel creating obstructions to flow and fitness trail-related structures are
also being compromised.

Section 2 is an incised reach with high, unstable banks in most areas. Channel degradation has
disrupted the proper utilization of the floodplain and accelerated rates of bank erosion are
prominent. A sanitary sewer line parallels the left side of the stream/riparian belt width
throughout the section and encroaches to within 30 feet of the left top-of-bank. Likewise, a
housing development occupies the right floodplain position throughout the section, with buildings
. and parking areas located as close as 20 feet from the top-of-bank. Continued bank erosion could
potentially threaten these structures.
S Bankfull Verification
The standard methodology used in natural channel design is based on the ability to select the
. appropriate bankfull discharge and generate the corresponding bankfull hydraulic geometry from
a stable reference system(s). Thus, the determination of bankfull stage is the most critical
f
h
component o
t
e natural channel design (NCD) process.

Bankfull can be defined as "the stage at which channel maintenance is most effective
that is
the
,
,
discharge at which moving sediment, forming or removing bars, forming or changing bends and
meanders, and generally doing work that results in the average morphologic characteristics of the
channels," (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Several characteristics that commonly indicate the
S bankfull stage include: incipient point of flooding, breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, highest
. depositional features (i.e. point bars), and highest scour line. The identification of bankfull stage,

s 7

•

•
•

• in general, let alone in a degraded system can be problematic. Therefore, verification measures
b
must
e taken to ensure the correct identification of the bankfull stage.
•
The three methods used to verify bankfull stage at Richland Creek were regional hydraulic
• geometry relationships (regional curves), a pressure transducer / data logger combination gauge
• that monitored actual water level in Richland Creek throughout the study period, and a
hydrology/hydraulics model to evaluate flow and sediment transport.
•
• Regional curves are typically utilized in ungauged areas to approximate bankfull discharge, area,
width, and depth as a function of drainage area based on inter-related variables from other similar
• streams in the same hydrophysiographic province. Regional curves and corresponding equations
• from "Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams" (Harman et al.,
1999) were used to approximate bankfull in the project reach. Based on the regional curves
a
• ,
bankfull discharge and cross-sectional area of 310 ft3A and 69 ft2 would be anticipated in Section
• 1. Section 2 would discharge 370 ft3/s through 82 ft2 based on a drainage area of 7.2 square
miles.
•
• Stream stage data (water levels) were collected in Section 2. Data was collected for five months
(June through October) and water levels were correlated to an estimated discharge using a rating
• curve generated for the gauged section. Three significant flow events occurred during the

• monitoring period. On August 30`x', Richland Creek in the vicinity of the gauge was discharging
3
t'
x
approximately 309 ft
/s. Augus
ugust 13`
' and June 8"' experienced flows exceeding 185 and 155 ft /s,
respectively. The stage data collected during this period is useful in supporting/validating the
- bankfull identification from field indicators. Refer to Appendix I for a summary of the collected
hydrology data.
•
. Information from the regional curves and from the hydrologic monitoring was used in
conjunction with the Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS)
. software to refine the bankfull determinations. The model allows for analysis of one-dimensional
(1-D) steady state flow by solving for the energy equation. The approximate discharges
calculated using the Manning open channel flow equation were run through the modeled reaches.
. The outputs corresponded well with the field indicators and allowed for minor adjustments to the
. bankfull "call" and to the subsequent calculations of the existing morphological variables.
. Existing Stream Characteristics
A Rosgen Level III assessment of Richland Creek was conducted in May-July 2004.
. Representative channel cross-sections were surveyed at four locations in Richland Creek (two in
each of the two sections). Summary data from the existing conditions survey is included in the
h
l
i
l
morp
o
og
ca
design criteria table (Table 1) presented later in this document. Photo-
documentation is included in Appendix 2.
Stability Assessment

The Rosgen Level III assessment is also referred to as the "stream state or condition," stage in the
hierarchy of river inventory (Rosgen, 1996). This technique assesses the stability of streams by
. investigating various parameters such as channel dimension and pattern (W/D511e compared with
W/Drcference; Meander Width Ratio), lateral stability (BEHI), vertical stability (Bank Height Ratio)
,
sediment supply and transport, and evolution scenario.

i 8

The stability assessment illustrated that the channel condition varies locally in Richland Creek
with some reaches experiencing significant disturbance and others moving towards a state of
dynamic equilibrium. Section 1 is experiencing active bank erosion throughout the reach. Bank
height ratios ranging from 13 to 1.7 indicate unstable bed conditions. The BEHI rated as high
with the scores increasing in the near bank region adjacent to the gazebo in the lower portion of
the reach. Section 1 appears to be in Stage IV of the channel evolution model (CEM) presented
by Simon (1989). Stage IV indicates that the channel is experiencing bed degradation and
widening processes as a function of the channel's instability.
Section 2 is also experiencing lateral bank erosion for extended reaches. The channel is in the
process of enlarging and expanding its belt width in an effort to restore its natural pattern and
achieve a state of equilibrium. Several beaver dams have altered the condition of Richland Creek
in this section; flattening the slope upstream and inducing scour downstream. These obstructions
have also created minor blockages that are influencing the bank stability in the adjacent areas.
Overall, many of the stability related issues that are commonly associated with suburban
development and a changing hydrologic regime have been documented throughout the Section 2
reach.
Constraints
The following are a list of documented constraints that were considered in the development of a
restoration strategy for Richland Creek in Wake Forest:
¦ Presence of a subsurface sewer line that runs parallel and adjacent to the east bank of
Richland Creek for the entire length of the Section 2 reach. This line is associated with a 25-
foot wide maintained easement corridor.
¦ Presence of the Stadium Drive bridge at the downstream limits of Section 2.
¦ A vegetated corridor limits access to perform the stream restoration without mechanized
clearing.
¦ An exercise course occupies the area to the east of Section 1 (efforts to minimize
encroachment into this area have been considered).
3.0 REFERENCE REACH ANALYSIS
A reference reach is a channel with a stable dimension, pattern, and profile within a particular
geomorphic and hydrologic setting. The reference reach is used to develop dimensionless
morphological ratios (based on bankfull stage) that can be extrapolated to disturbed/unstable
streams to restore a stream of the same type and disposition as the reference stream (Rosgen,
1998).
3.1 Richland Creek Above Section 1 Reach (RCASIR)
An upstream reach of Richland Creek located on the west side of the Town of Wake Forest was
selected to serve as a reference reach for the restoration of Sections 1 & 2. Richland Creek flows
south from its headwaters in Franklin County towards its confluence with the Neuse River
(Figure 4). It drains approximately 4.8 square miles of low-density residential, agriculture, and
forested lands.
This selection was based on: location in the same hydrophysiographic province, same valley
morphology, and similar sediment regime as the project reaches. The valley slope is similar to
9
. 1?
Wake County, North Carolina
C
t
?. t
R -
I 1.11
7
8

All
Wake County
Figure 4. Reference Reach - Richland Creek Above Section 1 Reach
?1e. ?Qr?e Q Richland Creek Above Section 1 Reach
f
. p ?
¢rrl, 41000 0 1000 Feet
Smane: USGSTopographkd Qua&-gl- (Grissom. Fradd-n)
that in Section 1 and 2 (0.45% compared to 0.5% and 035% respectively). The sediment
distribution is somewhat coarser than the project reaches (d5o: 7.1 millimeters compared to 4.3
and 4.7 mm; d84: 15 mm compared to I 1 mm and 8 mm), however it is representative of the
materials moving through the Richland Creek system. Location in the same drainage (upstream)
makes RCASIR the most suitable candidate for evaluation of a stable/stabilizing channel under
the same conditions that influence the project reaches.
Approximately 400 linear feet of Richland Creek were surveyed in August 2004. This reach of
Richland Creek was classified as a "C4" channel type.
3.2 Unnamed Tributary to Lake Wheeler (UTLW)
UTLW is a third order stream located on the south side of Raleigh that flows southward into Lake
Wheeler (Figure 5). It drains approximately 0.3 square miles of predominantly low-density
residential land use with the remaining land consisting primarily of forest.
The selection of this reach was based on: location in the same hydrophysiographic province,
similar valley type, and similar sediment regime as the project reaches. The valley slope is
slightly steeper than the restoration reaches (0.6% compared to 0.5% and 035%) and the
sediment distribution is coarser with a median grain size of. 16 millimeters. Local topography is
characterized by rolling hills, which is consistent with land forms found at Richland Creek and
throughout the Piedmont province and the reference reach and project sites are both located in the
Raleigh Belt. UTLW was surveyed to provide supplemental information to facilitate the design
of Richland Creek.
Approximately 250 linear feet of the UTLW were surveyed in August 2004. UTLW was
classified a "C4" channel type. Summary data from the UTLW reference reach survey are
included in the morphological criteria table (Table 1).
4.0 NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN
4.1 Design Methodology
Different scenarios require different approaches with respect to stream restoration design in
degraded systems. In "A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers (Rosgen,
1997)," four priority levels of restoration are described with accompanying explanations of
channel type conversion and the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Refer to Figure
6.
4.2 Richland Creek Restoration Design
The restoration of Richland Creek is based on Priority Level 2 and Priority Level 4 approaches.
The design proposes constructing a meandering channel at the existing grade with a new
floodplain at a lower elevation. Bank stabilization using natural materials, vegetation, and
boulders will be performed following the grading of these reaches. Refer to Appendix 3
(Restoration Design Plan Set) for the proposed channel pattern and profiles.
The design bankfull stage will equal the floodplain elevation of the new channel (bank height
ratio = 1.0). The channel dimensions reflect slightly wider and shallower cross-sections, as the
11
P
•
i
•
•
Wake County, North Carolinas • 4 • C? }f ?-
? '• .
Z"T
Overflow.
J? oo
J?...,, "•`.. ?,' ?'t?,4'? rc? wa v EiFV X82 ; `-??--

V IV
Wake County
Figure 5. Reference Reach -Unnamed Tributary to Lake Wheeler
?t?orpg Unnamed Tributary to Lake Wheeler
f
Q
2000 0 2000 Feet
¢rrlr
Sowce: USGSTopWaphica!Quadrangle-Lake ihwkr
Table 1. Morphological Design Criteria, Richland Creek Stream Restoration
Existing Existing` Richland UT to Lake Proposed Proposed
CLASSIFICATION Channel Channel Creek Wheeler Channel Channel
DATA Section 1 Section 2 Above Section 1 Section 2
Section 1
Rosgen Stream Type C/E4 Inc. E4 C4 C4 C4 C4
Drainage Area (aq mi) 5.6 7.2 4.8 0.3 5.6 7.2
Bankfull Width (W an) (ft) 26-28 25 28-32 12.3-13.5 28.5 32
Bankfull Mean Depth (de,r) (ft) 2.4-2.5 31 2.3-2.4 1.0-1.1 2.3 2.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional area
(Aaf)(sf)
64'87
78
67-75
13-14
65
80
Width/depth Ratio (Wades,) 10.6-11.52 8.1 11.7-13.9 .11.2-13.5 12-13 12-13
Maximum Depth (d,, ) (ft) 3.54.2 4.1 3.75 1.6.1.8 3.7 4.0
Width of flood prone area
(t'vro•) (ft)
>100*
>100*
>100*
>5W
>100
>100
Entrenchment Ratio (ER) >3.0* >3.0* > 3.0* >3.0* >3.0 >3.0
Water Surface Slope (S) (ft/ft) 0.0045 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.0043 0.003
Sinuosity (stream
len th/valle len th K
11
1.0-1A
1.1
1.2
1.15
1.15
DIMENSION DATA =
Pool Depth ft 2.8 3.1 2.9 1.2-1.3 2.8 3.0
Riffle Depth ft 2.4-2.5 3.1 2.3-2.4 1.0-1.1 2.3 2.5
Pool Width ft 28 27 26-35 10.5-12.0 31.4 35
Riffle Width ft 26-28 25 28-32 12.3-13.5 28.5 32
Pool XS Area sf 70 80 70-75 14-15 78 95
Riffle XS Area sf 64-67 78 67-75 13-14 65 80
Pool de th/mean riffle depth 1.1-1.2 1.0 1.2-1.3 1.1-1.3 1.2 1.2
Pool width/riffle width 1.0.1.1 1.1 0.9-1.1 0.8-1.0 1.1 1.1
Pool area/riffle area 1.0.1.1 1.0 0.9.1.1 1.0.1.2 1.2 1.2
Max of de th/dy 1.9-2.0 1.6 1.9-2.0 2.0-2.4 2.2(5.1) 2.2(5.5)
Low bank height/max bankfull
depth 1.3-1.7 1.3 1.0-1.2 1.0.1.2
1.0
1.0
Mean Bankfull Velocity (V)
(fps) 4.7-4.9 4.6 3.6-5.0 3.0 4.9 5.0
Bankfull Discharge O cfs) 310.320 360 260.270 3542 320 400
PATTERN DATA-.
Meander length (ft) 72-237 97-165** 110-200 33-74 143-285 160.320
Radius of curvature Rd ft 30-120 30-60** 30-70 17-20 57-86 64-96
Belt width W ft 110 220 300 50 200 225
Meander width ratio wb/Wb 3.9-4.2 8.8 9.3-103 3.7-4.1 7.0 7.0
Radius of curvature/bankfull
width 1 1-4 3 12-2.4 1.0.2.5 1.3-1.6
2.0-3.0
2.0.3.0
Meander lengthlbankfull
width 2.6-8.5 3.9-6.6 3.5-7.1 2.4-6.0
5.0-10.0
5.0.10.0
PROFILE DATA
Valle sloe 0.005 0.0035 0.0045 0.006 0.005 0.0035
Average water surface sloe 0.0045 0.003 0.004 0.005 DoO43 0.003
Riffle sloe 0.007-0.015 0.006 0.005-0.009 0.006-0.02 0.005-0.012 0.004-0.009
Pool sloe 0.000-0.001 0.000-0.002 0.000-0.0025 0.000-0.001 0.000.0.0012 0.000-0.001
Pool to pool spacing 63-93 21-69 25-90 15-84 29-177 23-200
Pool length 11-28 10-33 5-25 9-20 29-57 32-64
Riffle slope/avg water surface
slope 1.6-3.3. 2.0 1.3-2.3 1.24.0 1.2-3.0 1.2.3.0
Pool slope/avg water surface
slope 0,0-0.2 0.0.0.7 0.0.0.6 0.0-0,2 0.0-0.3 0.0.0.3
Run slope/avg water surface
slope 0.9-1.6 0.7-1.5 0.7-1.2 0.5-07 0.5-1.2 0.5.1.2
Run de th/d 1.0-1.1 1.0-1.1 1.0-1.1 1.0-1.1 1.1 1.1
Pool len th/bankfull width 0.4-1.1 0.4-1.3 0.2-0.9 0.7-1.6 1.0-2.0 1.0.2.0
Pool to pool spacing/bankfull
width
2.3-3.6
0.8-2.8
0.8-3.0
1.1-6.2
10.-6.2
1.0-6.2
* Approximations based upon limited morphological survey
** Pattern measurements are representative of the 500 ft immediately upstream of Stadium Dr. only (the remainder of the section
has been altered and does not exhibit natural characteristics).
Figure 6_ Prinritv I.evels of InriCPrl River RPCtnratinn
DESCRIPTION METHODS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
PRIORITY 1
Convert G and/or F stream Re-establish channel on Re-establislment of 1) Floodplain re-
types to C or E at previous previous floodplain using floodplain and stable establishment could cause
elevation with floodplain. relic channel or construction channel: flood damage to urban,
of new ban kfull discharge 1) reduces bank height and agricultural, and industrial
channel. Design new streambank erosion, development.
channel for dimension, 2) reduces land loss, 2) Downstream end of
pattern, and profile 3) raises water table, project could require grade
characteristic of stable form. 4) decreases sediment, control from new to previous
Fill in existing incised 5) improves aquatic and channel to prevent head-
channel or with terrestrial habitats, cutting.
discontinuous oxbow lakes 6) improves land
level with new floodplain productivity, and
elevation. 7) improves aesthetics.
PRIORITY 2
Convert F and/or G stream If belt width provides for the 1) Decreases bank height and 1) Does not raise water table
types to C or E. minimum meander width streambank erosion, back to previous elevation.
Re-establishment of ratio for C or E stream types, 2) Allows for riparian 2) Shear stress and velocity
floodplain at existing level or construct channel in bed of vegetation to help stabilize higher during flood due to
higher, but not at original existing channel, convert banks, narrower floodplain.
level. existing bed to new 3) Establishes floodplain to 3) Upper banks need to be
floodplain. If belt width is help take stress off of sloped and stabilized to
too narrow, excavate channel during flood, reduce erosion during flood.
streambank lialls. End-haul 4) Improves aquatic habitat,
material or place in 5) Prevents wide-scale
streambed to raise bed flooding of original land
elevation and create new surface,
floodplain in the deposition. 6) Reduces sediment,
7) Downstream grade
transition for grade control is
easier.
PRIORITY 3
Convert to a new stream type Excavation of channel to 1) Reduces the amount of 1) High cost of materials for
without an active floodplain, change stream type involves land needed to return the bed and streambank
but containing a floodprone establishing proper river to a stable form. stabilization.
area. Convert G to B stream dimension, pattern, and 2) Developments next to 2) Does not create the
type, or F to Be. profile. To convert a G to B river need not be relocated diversity of aquatic habitat.
stream involves an increase due to flooding potential. 3) Does not raise water table
in width/depth and 3) Decreases flood stage for to previous levels.
cntrenchment ratio, shaping same magnitude flood.
upper slopes and stabilizing 4) Improves aquatic habitat.
both bed and banks. A
conversion from F to Bc
stream type involves a
decrease in width/depth ratio
and an increase in
entrenchment ratio.
PRIORITY 4
Stabilize channel in place. A long list of stabilization 1) Excavation volumes are 1) High cost for stabilization.
materials and methods have reduced. 2) High risk due to excessive
been used to decrease 2) Land needed for shear stress and velocity.
streambed and streambank restoration is minimal. 3) Limited aquatic habitat
erosion, including concrete, depending on nature of
gabions, boulders, and stabilization methods used.
bioengineering methods.
................?b.,.y .. , n vwu.v. Nuv?ugwal nPJJIV u w AUbLUIOLIVIi U1111GISCU 1CIVerS ,
• width-depth ratio increases from 8 - 11.5 to 12 - 13. The proposed bankfull widths are 28.5 and
32 feet respectively (Section 1 & 2) and the mean / maximum depths are 2.3 / 3.7 and 2.5 / 4.0
. feet (Appendix 3 - Details: Typical Cross-Sections). The range of dimensionless ratios for
meander length (5.0 - 10.0) and radius of curvature (2.0 - 3.0) have been marginally increased
resulting in longer meander lengths and higher meander radii of curvature. This shift is necessary
. to accommodate for the absence of immediate mature vegetation to stabilize stream banks. The
re-establishment of a riffle-pool sequence and appropriate pool spacing with respect to the
channel pattern have been addressed in the profiling of the design channel (Appendix 3). Refer to
. Table 1 for detailed morphological criteria.
In-stream structures have also been incorporated to assist with the immediate stabilization of the
- restored channel. These structures are designed to reduce bank erosion and the influence of
secondary circulation in the near-bank region of stream bends. The structures further promote
efficient sediment transport and produce/enhance in-stream habitat. Cross-vanes will serve as
. grade control in the restored channel. Appendix 3 (Details: Stream Restoration) depicts design
details for the in-stream structures.

- 4.3 Riparian Buffers
- The Richland Creek floodplain in the project reach is predominantly forested with hardwood
. species (Refer to Section 2.1). The restoration project will generally utilize the same belt width
as the existing channel, however some areas will require clearing to achieve the appropriate
. pattern outlined in the design criteria. Several large trees that have fallen or are at risk of falling
due to bank and bed erosion of the existing channel will also be removed. The cleared areas will
be re-vegetated with native woody and herbaceous plant materials. Following the re-vegetation,
• riparian buffers associated with the Richland Creek restoration will extend over fifty (50) feet on
- both sides of the stream for the majority of the project reach.
. The re-vegetated zone will consist of the following trees and shrubs: American sycamore, green
. ash, river birch, tulip tree, American elm, slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), silky dogwood (Cornus
amomum), witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana) and box elder. Herbaceous vegetation shall
consist of a native grass mix that may include: bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), deertongue
- (Panicum clandestinum), orchardgrass (Dacrylis glomerata), switchgrass (panicum virgatum),
and Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus). Rye grain (Secale cereale) and/or brown top millet
- (Pennisetum glaucum) will be used for temporary stabilization.
In addition to the native seed mix and stabilization seeding, live stakes shall be installed to assist
i in stabilizing the stream banks. The following species may be used for live staking: black willow
(Salix nigra), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), silky willow (Salix sericea), and silky dogwood.
S Four hundred thirty-six (436) trees per acre (based on a 10' X 10' plant spacing) will be planted
to achieve a mature survivability of three hundred twenty (320) trees per acre in the riparian zone
(DENR, 2001). Woody vegetation shall be installed between November and March when the
- plants are dormant.
• 5.0 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
A stable channel is able to move the sediment supplied by its watershed without aggrading or
e degrading. The restored channels must be competent and have sufficient transport capacity.
Competency is the channel's ability to move particles of a certain size. Capacity is the channel's
• 15
•

- ability to move a specific volume of sediment (sediment discharge). Sediment discharge is the
amount of sediment moving through a cross section over a specified period of time (lbs/s).
•
KCI utilized the surface-based transport model (SBTM) developed by Wilcock and Crowe
Wil
(
cock & Crowe, 2003) to analyze the sediment transport in the Richland Creek Reference
. Reach and subsequently in the designed Richland Creek channel (Sections 1 & 2). In basic terms,
given the bed surface grain-size distribution and the bed shear velocity, the SBTM calculates the
b
dl
d
e
oa
transport rate and the bedload grain-size distribution. Using the hydraulics model, one
- can predict the shear velocity and discharge characteristics that will provide the necessary
sediment transport capacity. By making the sediment transport and discharge dimensionless, this
l
i
ana
ys
s can be scaled to another section of the channel, separate from the reference reach. In this
• case, it was scaled to the design sections.
In the Richland Creek Reference Reach, the approximate bankfull depth was 3.7 feet (1.1 m).
. The shear velocity associated with this discharge based on the hydraulics model was 0.17 meters
per second (m/s). This shear velocity corresponded to a dimensionless sediment transport rate
(
*
f 250
00
*
qT
) o
,
0 (2.5E05). A qT
value of 2.5E05 intersects with a dimensionless water
• discharge (qW*) of approximately 1,500 for the Section 1 design slope (0.004) on the Richland
Creek River State Diagram (Figure 7). The proposed design channel will discharge
a
roxi
t
l
220 ft'/
pp
ma
e
y
s over the area subject to bedload transport. The water discharge (qw) for
- this event based on the Manning-Strickler Resistance Equation is 3.100, which correlates to a qW*
value of 1,744 (0 = 16.3%).

• A qT* value of 2.5E05 intersects with a dimensionless water discharge (qW*) of approximately
2,000 for the Section 2 design slope (0.003) on Figure 7. The proposed effective design
discharge (over the bedload portion of the channel) is approximately 300 ft3/s. The water
- discharge (qw) for this event is 3.360, which correlates to a qW* value of 1,891 (0 = 5.5%).
i
• 6.0 FLOODING ANALYSIS
Richland Creek is located in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-Year
. Floodzone. As such, any modifications to the stream that would result in the increase of the 100-
year flood elevation would require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision. It is the intent of the
. restoration design to maintain the 100-year flood elevation at the current level following
. restoration.
. The North Carolina Flood Mapping Program provided an existing conditions HEC-RAS (River
. Analysis System) model. The model parameters were reviewed to verify that the conditions
represented a benchmark hydraulic condition that could be compared to post-restoration
conditions. The existing conditions model will be revised to reflect changes to the channel and
. floodplain as a result of the restoration. A proposed hydrology and hydraulics (H&H) summary
will be submitted with a letter indicating that an increase in the 100-year flood elevation is not
. anticipated (No-Rise Certification).

7.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Monitoring shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream stability data and a qualitative
assessment of riparian/stream bank vegetation survivability, to assist in the evaluation of the
project in meeting established restoration objectives.
16
*1b
a
A
w
N M It h ?o r- 00
O O O O O O O O
C O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-k ;
5
0
0
0
0
0
0

-
f
- IryIryI????
II
--
1f
-- - -
---
----
1---
--- }}}rr-?.?????
II
--
I-Id
--
1-
--
-I
-- _- }r}}}r.. -_-- I
1
----
-t--
----
AuiJ RAJ 4
ll
----
dNt-k
---- -_
I
----
1- 1--
---- ?
7{} ] I }T}
---
f11t
--- _- _-
I ---
----
It-
---- }AJ
11
--
f1fi
-- -_ - - -
? I
-----
-ItI-
-----
f
Of
----
Mf•k
----
f ?
----
1-1--
---- }+- - _-
?if I
-------
titf ---
-------
t?ff==-
- -
fdf1=_
fHf--
Hill I I I -==f ==
-
---=_
- - d?tkkl
-
?dtEEj
HtFF1
I I I ==

==
-- tl1t===

f1ff
===
fNff-I--
Hill I I I I fl===

?f??=?=
f1?? 1-?-
III I I 1 d? 111==
- -
?dtEE?==
NHkFk1--
11111 1 1 flat===
------
t1fi===

Hill I I

t ---

I -

-1=- - --
- -
- 1-- +---
- - - - - - - -
IT tt=1==
- -
111 -- -
- - - - - -
1==1-=
- - -
11:11 --
- - - - - -
1! 1== 1
- - - - - - -
1th
tit=1== 411-=_ - -=_ ?_= d r== ttt===
ff?f1=1== 1fN=1=t=- t - -_- =1=k= dbkktl== t1ff===
tNfi --- 11th --d F - h - 1-- 11tt---
- -- -
-- --
-- -- -
-- -
- --
---- - -- -- --
- -- ?_ _
-- ;
----
- ---
4? It
- ----
t dt 1 -11 t h I== H tt I1 = 11 - - ?
__ t1t
_
= - = = = a
-_ ' ? =_
t ?t 1= == 1?t1 ?=1 = t==d d tt tj == It -- ---

f rlt f - ft I -It H - I• - f lh
fi
rr
±t-
--
o 0 0 0 0_ N
0
0 o c O o 0 o c
= oooooooo = ==

t --
?1 -
z -
t --
I --
f --
?z --
? - -- -
?= d --
af -
? --
C1 --
== --
t =-
tt -
= --
==
- -- -- ] P?4 -- - -- _ _
7.1 Stream Monitoring
Dimension - Permanent cross-sections will be established along the restored reaches at intervals
equal to one cross-section every twenty (20) bankfull-widths lengths and will be used to evaluate
stream dimension stability. The permanent cross-sections will be evenly divided between riffle
and pool bed features. Permanent monuments will be established at the left and right extents of
each cross-section by either conventional survey or GPS. The cross-section surveys shall provide
a detailed measurement of the stream and banks, to include points on the adjacent floodplain, at
the top of bank, bankfull, at all breaks in slope, and the thalweg. Subsequently, width/depth
ratios, entrenchment ratios and low bank height ratios will be calculated for each cross-section.
Profile - Longitudinal profiles, each covering twenty (20) bankfull-width lengths, will be
established at locations that are representative of restored channel conditions. The beginning and
ending points of each measured section will be permanently monumented. Average water
surface, pool, and riffle slopes, as well as pool-to-pool spacing will be calculated.
Pattern - Measurements of the restored channel pattern, to include belt width, meander length,
and radius of curvature will be collected within the same sections surveyed for the longitudinal
profiles. Calculations will be made for meander width ratio, radius of curvature/bankfull width
ratio, and meander length/bankfull width ratio.
Bed Materials - Pebble counts will be conducted at each riffle cross-section, as well as across the
overall study reach (based upon percentage of riffles and pools) for the purpose of classification
and to evaluate sediment transport.
Hydraulics - The success of restoring the bankfull return period (once every 1.4 to 1.7 years) will
be evaluated using two (2) automatic stream monitoring gauges to record continuous stream
depth readings. One gauge will be placed at or near the upstream limits of the project reach. The
other will be placed at or near the downstream limits.
7.2 Vegetation Monitoring
A qualitative vegetation assessment will be performed following the first growing season to
identify any areas that are not fulfilling the stabilization needs of the channel and/or the re-
vegetation standards of the riparian areas within the conservation easement. Any areas that are
considered to be delinquent will be replanted under the warranty of the contract.
18
REFERENCES
Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. New York: W.H.
Freeman and Company.
Harman, W.A., 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. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. Edited by
D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy. American Water Resources Association. June 30 - July
2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference
Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. General Technical Report RM-245.
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort
Collins, CO.
NCDENR. 2001. "Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration." Division of Water
Quality, Wetlands Restoration Program, Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classification for Streams in North Carolina." Water
Quality Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies
(September, 2002).
NCGS. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina
North Carolina State Data Center (NCSDC). 2001. Census 2000 Summary File for Town of
Wake Forest, North Carolina. (Internet accessed via: www.census.state.nc.us).
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. In:
Wang, S.S.Y., E.J. Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr. (Eds.). Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. pp. 12-22.
Rosgen, D.L. 1998. The Reference Reach - a Blueprint for Natural Channel Design.
Presented at ASCE Conference, Denver, CO - June, 1998.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, 3`d Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
NCDEHNR, Division of Parks and Recreation. Raleigh, NC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms. 14(1): 11-26.
USDA. 1970. Soil Survey for Wake County, North Carolina. Soil Conservation
Service.
Wilcock, P., and J. Crowe. 2003. "A Surface-Based Transport Model for Sand and Gravel. "
ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 129(2), pp 120-128.
19
.C
CL
CI
L
bA d'
? O
? N
x~
CN
?o
?o
U c
•p N
.C
v

?r
0
on
Q
0
ti
0
T

d
A
C0 0 0,
0 0 0 0 °o °o
0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0
M M N N
(sp) alit-psiQ
a
?r
?o
0
? N
? N
xa
?o
U c
c
? O
.C ?
v

0
U
0
a
a?
v
0
on
Q
A
0 00 0
00 ° o° ° o
M M (y
(spa) g2jups?Q
Appendix 2 - Site Photograph Documentation
•
•
w
Richland Creek Stream
Photograph Docum
Fq.. , yl
A 4. Typical channel conditions in the upstream
Section 2. Longitudinal survey,
g i, .,
y
Lgo-
t4`K?
I's
d 1
pop

5. Cross-section survey of pool in Section 2.
...,,... fi. Z.. .. . J'y...... u...g vo..n v ?uw... ... ....,
exercise/fitness area in Section 1.
.--,.-I.. _ v... -_ .vu.... ... _-_.. . ..Yo............
the gazebo in the background (left).
vegetation, near downstream limits of Section 1.
Photograph 10. Example of one of the small tributary
inflows that will be stabilized as part of the restoration
project.

Photograph 11. Upstream view of over-wide cross-section
immediately above the Stadium Drive Bridge.
aph 12. Downstream view of the typical cross-
and run-pool transition in the RCASI Reference
Photograph 7. Typical eroding bank. Condition persists
throughout Section 2 reach.
Photograph & Typical over-widened cross-section;
Section 2.
Photograph 9. Looking upstream in lower portion of
Section 2. Note the beaver dam in the foreground and the
eroding bank in the background (left).
transport analysis.
Photograph 14. Typical bar sampled for use in sediment
Photograph 13. Hydrologic monitoring gauge used to
study flow regime and verify bankfull in Section 2.
Appendix 3 - Restoration Design Plan Set
` V
00
U
O
U
l Y
p 1
tl `'
1 r '??ftH iW1Y1 ipM
! I 4 llapld,?One
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
SECTION 1
BEG12V CONSTRUCTION
@ STA.10+00.00
nvn= oP Snarr
i 2ME SHffi•
ra Gvaz t xo=p*0jx Ili
S OQA=-SIZEAM kEVU AUO.Y•
1A nrrAHS` rYYW= CROSSSZCnM' S-
S S0o(dRr
I nEW 4 PLATY AND PROMS S=13M
7 IMU P SIILAll Geammsr
m =u Q SZDLIMT b P.lOS=V CON72M PLAY
U EHRU I! PPANnAG PLf.Y
•PEAN SM=3 PROVZOM Wnff ILSTnRAMY PLAN
(SIXFAY COY HAS MMY AY MUM ON PLUM AND PROMS SllafS)
GRAPHIC SCALES
-50 -25 0 50 100
I ;;ad
PLANS
-50 25 0 50 100
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
-4 -2 0 4 8
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
PROJECT LENGTH
STANCE OF NORTH CAROLINA
TOWN OF WAKE FOREST
WA KE COUNTY
LOCATION: RICHLAND CREEK
WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA
TYPE OF WORK: STREAM RESTORATION
1??? 1 1-1? -=C ?y??rl / iTT( 11
( / ' JAL L
-: \J C J ?II \
?
ti
`11 I
'?iT??) II II ?'
i
\10 I ?J lull 1_I 1 /' I j
111i ?111JI?? - 1 r `
11(I 1 -- r r r 1
SECTION 1 r ` ' r
END CONSTRUCTION rr i rr
@ STA.15+4203 ' r
s
1
41 ` r
SECTION 2
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION 11
@ STA.60+00.00
STREAM RESTORATION LENGTH = 2,417 FEET
PrMm-sd In de Wks de
mmmmmw4mom KCI Associates
of North Carolina, P.A.
SUTE 220 LMUARK (ENTER L46CISM FORKS FtfLRALDCH NC
?? ENGINEERS •PLANNERS • ECOLOGISTS
PROJECT START DATE I PJnM= ZNGL =

6
PROJECT ENGAIEER
A RESTORATION PLAN SUBMISSION FOR PERIYTS oval
REVISIONS
SECTION 2
END CONSTRUCTION
@ STA. 78+7515
AvM tort
,t4 a.
e
, air
be
Town of Wake Forest
401 Dm Avenue
Rake Forest.NO th CarolVq 27587
9'9-554.WO
THROUGH A GRANT FROM THE NORTH CAROUN+
Pd CLEAN WATER MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND (CM

CD
0
6)
0
m
ID
4D

NOTE VATTING T10 BE APPLIED AM STAKED
IN ACCORDANCEYIOI PROJECT
SPECIAL PROM90MIS
CM VATTING ' .
UNOCI6ALI BY STRAW o
PROPOSED
GROUND
to°'G
A r?
v,y
y
COIR MATTING
SCALE: NTS rIrNOTC1ED
GRAM STAKE
ANCTgRRq
NOTE THE STAKESTO DE INSTALLED LIVE STAKES
IN ACCORDANCE YRN PROJECT
SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND AS SCALE NTS
DIRECTED 13Y THE ENGINEER
4 aNla
L1WIa F
^E? RDN
( 1
mar
FLTmFAWW
(INSTALL ON
f t
AUPSTREAM SM
PLAN VIEW
e
FJUNCeSD f Y , PLOW
L1IKPILL M1
Aa OF a1Bt
STONE CLASS AOES FMW WADER N01007
RIRN, MOOR WTUAAL ROCKS
QRF.VmED WTERL"
SFCTION sa (PROaEYENT
10E a111TOWD WOF FROPOBW In OF
FltOlOeF9
LNM%=- OWNELFAlN CK-01 VATIN
mAamno
A
T
T ROCKS OMSET
AT AN UM iO R
m aAAeEn TA•A17a1
9EYATKM ....... 0 ETEVAT-M
TO I
NOGAP$
IFIVRTF
fTRFANem ROCKS
ELEVATION
amE FARSC F00TgTRpp4
(INSTALL ON
aKNaTRFANVIEW
immix
AANKRU
EIFVATKIN
11,011;\
CAI Fwx WTT"
COIRAAE U DOWPOILM
aNRDReem ?.L-?,li-.
d? CLASS l/iaE
ITOEra Rortrna
AARNVSRSOC,
vac 160WTWm ma
aMOF AT TIE TOE a 11,010
&4T
v?.
LOW BENCH W STONE TOE STABILIZATION
SCALE: NTS
113 TO Tl! VADTN OF
PROPOSED CHANNEL
zwr -
FILTER FABRIC
ROCK SILL _
r
11
POOL NOOK ROCKS
PROPOSED
GROUND
SOU RE CUT
WJDS (FACING UPOU"
h
0
fluE ClrtTS10 4
(r TOrD11)AETEq ;

AH(LE cur x•.IS•
PROPOSED ORADE
FOa"8004 -
I/ FILTER FARM
MWALL
LrssrFm mm wn
PLAN VIEW J-VANE
SCALE:NTS
NOTE ALL ROCKS OR STONES IN THE VANE STRUCTURE ARE STONE, BOULDERS.
EIAPS BETNff31TlE HOOK ROCKS ONLY.
18Y1L
,I T^p ? A4?E
fl1EMTFD
ELP ATION
FOOTE11INa4 'ftitlT
a1F11 FARSC .+ «.....
IJPFnSANMID
ROCK CROSS VANE
SCALE: NTS
NOTE ALL ROM OR STONES IN IM VANE STRICTURE AM STONE BOULDERS
W
Y
ai
t
?f
`^ o
z a
Hy w oN
a z
oz
a?
0 NQ
?? 2 Oa
y
Z 4=
C, 0
D: W
z a
3
U
W
O
uuii n o
Lu Z
OF
O?
Z o
0 Fz a
w W Q
O O
W m
3 S
? o
c
Q
v
A IAAY 2W5
ue NOT TO SCALE N
O
DETAILS: CD
STREAM
RESTORATION o
CD
a
e 15
E)
ID
GD
V
9)
0

TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS - SECTION 1
STATION 10+00 TO 15+42
10.0' 8.0 8.0 0.0 5.0 3.0 10.0
I ? I I I I I I
- 1_
?-t---------{---ti is
I 3' 1.5
ar
TYPICAL RIFFLE
10.0 8.0 3.0 5.0 3.3' 2.r 7.0 3.0 60
I I ? ? I I I I I I
--t--?---- 4I--t --? --? of
3 2.5
I I
1.r 1.8'
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
8.0 3.0 7.(Y 2.T 3.3' 5.(r 30 off lo.cr
i I I I I I I I
I I I??{? , I I
f --? "4 ---?-- i - 1 -
o.6 2.5* 3.-1
I I
1 I
1.5 t.r
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
0 • niALVEG LOCATION
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS - SECTION 2
STATION 60+00 TO 78+75
to.0 20 5.0 9.0 10.0 8.0 1o.0
I I I I
Wbkf
------- I
5 ------- I t 3.0
I
TYPICAL RIFFLE
toff 20 5.0 8.T 2.8 4.0 3.7 5.0 3.0 8.0
' ' I I
I II Wbkf l I I I
0.' -?e-'-T-------i--T---r--t-??- +
I 3.0
1.1' I
I 2.S
1.r
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
8.0 3.0 5.0 3.r 4.0 26 8.r 5.0 20 10.0
I I I I I I I I I I I I
Mkf 0.51
2s 1.T
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
0 -THALWEG LOCATION
w
Ee
a
.? g
o !?
0
o•
H
N 0
113 ?N
? a <a
oz
¢J
N N¢
?y w a-
o
z
{{ ii z LL=
w
z <
C?
U
W
2
O
wa o
Wz
o
QF
? tY
zo zo
g F
sW W
L) 4w 0
W
En
Ln
O
D
MAY 2W5 rp
?,•g cu
O
DETAILS:
TYPICAL XS
0
a
•sr 0 a ?-?

-I
,
, I
I I `
I I ?
1 I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
ZZ,
?-
I
1 1 ? '??, 1 11
1 1 ? 1 1
264
262
260
258
256
254
252
250
m
? ?'"??++JJ21? r-
r

\
1

1 i
1

1 m
m
1 2
1 m

\ o

' '
m ? N{ N Y
? g'
,
Ql..?.
. A
? r'
m W
y OE H
?O
? c.
M o...
?
??
?
r :
fY. M. f
•/.N N riN.•..V. . N r ?:... ..•..:.~ n ?? ? ??
0. O O 0 0: =.:, N_
<C
_ N

g F

0 F
F
w
r

K• ..y <.. ..,....,.. .
W.. :
W ?
?W

:.. ' . .,. :....:.
~
??
?? .
f r
IO b K.
(0

d m
A m
n
..?....?
f0?m? .'? ?
'N ryry ? m V

? f

?..
.
ffi 2SN. .$rv?0 .'..L.
40 -
a*. ....?? 0'..,?0
F.. ..'?Z-a ..,....... . ?. H,?. ..; -;-;.?-

?tt ?: ?r'
{e _.
1. ... N•i n'
=o _... W

rv
c?i..t. +
b?
«?
'?,?g{
N
g?
N
N ?im .^
r
- h$
d
N
d
..n
H
? ;..
f?
..

-?
?:

-
a d
y
1
.?F.
1
?:dF-
o
c o x

.
z .
z.. .
s rL r ?c c'
c' 1F F. 1F 1F 1FdF :dF ?OrQ 0. n
w
` W W W W - -

.......
g
Lu

......
g
W:

J
..

ig
0
o?
w
0
?E
t
0
F
N
?- T
o
Z
r ,? ? oz
00
y ? W=
00
F, z
F-
U
N
Ya : g
w
wZ
0
z0 0 z 8a
Lu ?o
L) UJ
Q_' ? LL g O
a o r?-;
l< o
N O
v) \
c
SECTION 2:
PLAN AND
PROFILE