20061484 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20060913

W A T ?9QG
uu_
o -c
Mr. Lin Xu
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Indian Run Stream Restoration Project
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
o avmw[9D
SEP 2 5 2006
DENR, WATER QUALITY
yi'E 003 N@ STOr'? tiATE.R BRN'
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Xu:
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 22, 2006
DWQ# 06-1484
Cabarrus County
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to impact
3,050 linear feet of stream in order to complete the stream restoration/enhancement project of Indian Run
Stream in Cabarrus County, as described in your application received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
on September 13, 2006. After reviewing your application, we have determined that this project is covered by
Water Quality General Certification Number 3495, which can be viewed on our web site at
tittp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. The General Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number
27 once it is issued to you by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please note that you should get any other
federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your project, including those required by (but not limited
to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
The above noted Certification will expire when the associated 404 permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the General Certification. This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described
in your application. If you change your project, you must notify us in writing, and you may be required to send
us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the
Certification and approval letter; and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached Certification, as well
as the additional conditions listed below:
1 If the design of the project changes or if the project is not constructed according to the design then this
approval is no longer valid and plans must be resubmitted per General Certification 3495.
2. Erosion and sediment control practices must utilize Best Management Practices (BMP) and be in full
compliance with all specifications governing the proper design, installation, and operation and maintenance of
such BMP in order to protect surface water standards.
3. Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to the 401 /Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality.
4.
Continuing Compliance. The applicant (EEP, Lin Xu) shall conduct all activities in a manner so as not to
contravene any state water quality standard (including any requirements for compliance with section 303(d)
of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of state and federal law. If DWQ determines
Nose Carolina
NlrrrallJ
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Ave., Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us FAX [phone]
An Equal OpportunitylAttirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
that such standards or laws are not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use)
or that state or federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance,
DWQ may reevaluate and modify this certification to include conditions appropriate to assure compliance with
such standards and requirements in accordance with 15 A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before codifying the
certification, DWQ shall notify the applicant and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0503, and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to the applicant in writing, shall be provided
to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that
conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless
you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, please telephone Mr. Alan Johnson in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-663-
1699 or Ms. Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh 919-733-9721.
Sincerely,
SiV
Attachments
cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Ian McMillan, Wetlands Unit
Becky Fox, EPA
Central Files
for Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Triage Check List
Date: 9/14/06 Project Name: Indian Run Stream Restoration
DWQ #:06-1484
County: Cabarrus
Alan Johnson, Mooresville Regional Office
To:
60-day Processing Time: 9/13/06 -11/11/06
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone : [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!
y..
,r
- -, c®s st1em .i-
PROGRAM
20061 481
September 13, 2006
Cyndi Karoly, Unit Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650
Re: Permit Application- Indian Run Stream Restoration Project
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Attached for your review are two copies of restoration plans (one copy sent to DWQ Mooresville
Regional Office) for Indian Run stream restoration project in Cabarrus County. Please feel free
to contact me with any questions regarding this plan (715-7571).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely

Lin Xu
Attachment: Restoration Plan (2 originals)
'1
2006
u;?•
A
N,CD`NR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, HC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / w?m.nceep.net
Office Use Only: Form Version October 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 0 0 6 1 4 8 4
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information `- ?
o?E
77
Lill]
1. Owner/Applicant Information SF F
x,016
Name: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Mailing Address: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Telephone Number: 919-715-7571 Fax Number: 919-715-2219
E-mail Address: lin.xunnemail.net
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation: N/A
Mailing Address: N/A
Telephone Number: N/A Fax Number: N/A
E-mail Address: N/A
Page 5 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Indian Run Restoration Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
N/A
County: Cabarrus County Nearest Town: Concord
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From I-85 South, »uer,-e onto
US-29 S via Exit 58 toward Monroe / Concord /Barber - Scotia, ao 4.2 miles and turn left
onto Warren Coleman Blvd / US-601 BYP S. Continue to follow US-601 BYP S. for 1.2
miles. Then turn right onto Old Charlotte Rd SW. Go 2.1 miles, and turn slightly left onto
Rocky River Rd. and travel approximately 0.7 miles south to bridge crossin.q of ludiau: Ruuu:
tributary to Coddle Creek. Bride is between entrances to Autumn Ride and Boulder
Creek Subdivision.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N/A
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Forest, pasture, residential and commercial development
7. Property size (acres): 12 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Rocky River and Coddle Creek
9. River Basin: Yadkin
Page 6 of 13
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Stream restoration and enhancement
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track Hoes, loaders
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Forest, pasture, residential and
commercial development
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application:
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Watcrs of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 13
1. Wetland Impacts (No Impact)
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local Floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at ham://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0 acres
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
indicate on ma linear feet Before Impact (please s ecif
Indian Run Grading and
Restoration earthwork to 1,791 Indian Run 29 feet Perennial
Segment 1 restore existing
stream
Indian Run Grading and

Restoration earthwork to

restore existing
635
Indian Run
24 feet
Perennial
Segment 2 stream
Indian Run Grading and

Restoration earthwork to
624
Indian Run
23 feet
Perennial
Segment 3 restore existing
stream

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps arc available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.eov. Several intcrnet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozonc.com,
www.mapqucst.com, etc.).
Page 8 of 13
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 3,051 LF
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S. (No Impact)
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres
Waterbody
Name
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N//A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The nroicet is involved with enhancing and restoring streams for Indian Run proiect site in
Cabarrus County to serve ESP's program objective and mitigation needs. The proicet is a
mitigation effort and does not impact adiacent streams and wetlands. See Indian Run
restoration plan for specific information regarding the restoration design.
Page 9 of 13
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The restoration plan is attached. The plan indicates the conservation casement
acquired by the state, plan views, cross section view and proposed method of
enhancement and restoration.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Page 10 of 13
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify Catawba Buffer Requirement )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Page 11 of 13
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 0 3
2 0 1.5
Total 0
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; "Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
Stream restoration is an exemnt activity under the Tar-Pamlico Buffer rule (15A NCAC 2B
.0259)
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
Page 12 of 13
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A

T11310
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13

INDIAN RUN
101
b
s
RESTORATION PROJECT IN u U a j ?t ,,.3
CABARRUS COUNTY, NC
z -7- - ,
1% A.

60%
COMPLETION
RESTORATION
PLAN
AUGUST 25, 2006

PREPARED FOR:
i'
??c???y?rclll
•
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
NC DENR
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
919.715.0476

PREPARED BY:

HDR Engineering, Inc.
of the Carolinas
128 S. Tryon Street, Suite 1400
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
PROJECT MANAGER:
Chris Matthews
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
128 S. Tryon Street, Suite 1400
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
HA61TAT
ASSESSNIENTAND
RESTORATION (it' lf?l
HARP, Inc.
P.O. Box 655
Newell, NC 28126
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E
AP
?

SEF 1 ` LIU/
ZUC6
i+n pc., i Y
??,':CH
INDIAN RUN RESTORATION PROJECT IN
CABARRUS COUNTY, NC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... ES-1
1.0 PROJECT SITE LOCATION ...................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Directions to Project and Reference Reach Sites ............................................................ 1-1
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 NC DWQ River Basin Designations ............................................................................... 1-1
1.4 Project Vicinity Map ............................................:.......................................................... 1-2
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................2-1
2.1 Drainage Area .................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Surface Water Classification ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils ................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ................................................................ 2-2
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species ...................................................................................... 2-2
2.6 Significant Cultural and Natural Resources .................................................................... 2-3
2.7 Potential Constraints ........................................................................................................ 2-3
2.7.1 Property Boundary and Ownership .................................................................... 2-3
2.7.2 Site Access ......................................................................................................... 2-3
2.7.3 Utilities ............................................................................................................... 2-3
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................................... 2-3
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Channel Classification ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Discharge ......................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Channel Morphology ....................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3.1 Existing Morphology .......................................................................................... 3-1
3.3.2 Planform ............................................................................................................. 3-2
3.3.3 Cross Sections .................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3.4 Longitudinal Profile ........................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment ......................................................................................... 3-2
3.5 Bankfull Verification ....................................................................................................... 3-3
3.6 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 3-4
4.0 REFERENCE STREAM ........................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Watershed Characterization ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Channel Classification ....................................................... :............................................. 4-1
4.3 Discharge .........................................................................................................................4-2
4.4 Channel Morphology ....................................................................................................... 4-2
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment ......................................................................................... 4-2
4.6 Bankfull Verification ....................................................................................................... 4-3
4.7 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 4-4
5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS - Not Relevant to this Restoration Plan ............................... 5-1
6.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS - Not Relevant to this Restoration Plan ................................... 6-1
7.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN ...............................................................................7-1
Indian Run Restoration Project t August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
7.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ....................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 Stream Restoration Concept ............................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis ..................................................................... 7-3
7.2.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 7-3
7.2.2 Reference Reach and Regime Analysis .............................................................. 74
7.2.3 USDA and USACE Velocity Analysis ............................................................... 7-5
7.2.4 Traction Force Criteria and Shield Curve Analysis ............................................ 7-5
7.2.5 Bed and Bank Stability Structures ...................................................................... 7-6
7.3 HEC-RAS Analysis ......................................................................................................... 7-6
7.3.1 Existing FEMA Study and Zone Designation .................................................... 7-6
7.3.2 FEMA Study Application to Indian Run ............................................................ 7-6
7.3.3 Local Flood Management Ordinance ................................................................. 7-7
7.4 Stormwater Best Management Practices ......................................................................... 7-7
7.4.1 Narrative of Site-Specific Stormwater Concerns ............................................... 7-7
7.4.2 Device Description and Application .................................................................. 7-7
7.5 Hydrologic Modifications (not relevant for this restoration plan) ................................... 7-8
7.6 Soil Restoration ............................................................................................................... 7-8
7.7 Natural Plant Community Restoration ............................................................................ 7-8
7.7.1 Narrative and Plant Community Restoration ..................................................... 7-8
7.7.2 Onsite Invasive Species ...................................................................................... 7-9
7.7.3 Invasive Species Control .................................................................................... 7-9
8.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA .................................................................................................. 8-1
?0
8.1 Streams ........................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Stormwater Management Devices ................................................................................... 8-2
8.3 Wetlands (not relevant for this restoration plan) ............................................................. 8-2
8.4 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.5 Schedule/Reporting ......................................................................................................... 8-2
9.0 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................9-1
10.0 TABLES
Table 1 Project Restoration Structure and Objective
Table 2 Drainage Areas and Regime Morphologic Estimates
Table 3 Land Use in the Watershed
Table 4 Stream Morphologic Parameters
Table 5 BEHI and NBS Sediment Export Estimates; Project Stream (protocol was not
established at onset of project)
Table 6 BEHI and NBS Sediment Export Estimates; Reference Stream (protocol was
not established at.onset of project)
Table 7 Estimates of Discharge Using Manning's Equation
Table 8 Designated Vegetative Community (by Planting Zone)
Table 8a Planting Zones and Stem Estimates
11.0 FIGURES
Figure 1 Restoration Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2a Restoration Site Watershed Map
Figure 2b High Altitude IR Aerial Photo of Restoration Watershed
Figure 2c Land Use Classification Map of Restoration Watershed
Figure 3a Restoration Site NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 3b Restoration Site Geology Map
Figure 4 Restoration Site Hydrologic Features and Gauge Locations Map
Indian Run Restoration Project
Cabarrus County, NC
11
August 2006
Figure 5 Reference Site Vicinity Map
Figure 6 Reference Site Watershed Map
Figure 7 Reference Site NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 8a Reference Stream Planform Map
Figure 8b Reference Stream Cross Sections
Figure 8c Reference Stream Cross Sections
Figure 8d Reference Stream Longitudinal Profile
12.0 RESTORATION SHEETS
Sheet 1 Existing Channel or Site Conditions
10a Channel Reach Index Map
lob Planform Map: Coddle Creek Confluence to Rocky River Road
loc Planform and BEHI Map for Segment B (above Rocky River Road)
10d Planform and BEHI Map for Segment C (above Rocky River Road)
100 Existing Cross Sections for Indian Run below Rocky River Road
10f Existing Cross Sections for Indian Run above Rocky River Road
log Existing Longitudinal Profile below Rocky River Road
loll Existing Longitudinal Profile below Rocky River Road
loi Planform Assessment above Rocky River Road (Station 0 to 1063 ft)
IOj Planform Assessment above Rocky River Road (Station 1063 to 2192 ft)
Sheet 2 Design Channel Alignment - Planform Maps
I la Design for Indian Run Restoration: Coddle Creek to Rocky River Road
1 lb-1 Design for Indian Run Restoration: Zone A (above Rocky River Road)
I lb-2 Design for Indian Run Restoration: Zone B (above Rocky River Road)
l lb-3 Design for Indian Run Restoration: Zone C (above Rocky River Road)
Sheet 3 Design Longitudinal Profiles
1 lc-1 Indian Run Longitudinal Profile Design, Rocky River Road to Station 2000 ft
l lc-2 Indian Run Longitudinal Profile Design, Coddle Creek to Station 1878 ft
Sheet 4 Design Cross Sections
l ld-1 Design Cross Sections, Indian Run above Rocky River Road
l Id-2 Design Cross Sections, Indian Run below Rocky River Road
Sheet 5 Design Vegetative Communities Map by Zone
(Indicated in Cross Sections at Sheet 4)
13.0 APPENDICIES
Appendix 1 Restoration Site Photographs
Appendix 2 Restoration Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 3 Restoration Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4 Reference Site Photographs
Appendix 5 Reference Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 6 Reference Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 7 Hydrologic Gauge Data Summary, Groundwater and Rainfall Information
Appendix 8 HEC-RAS
Appendix 9 Supplemental Data
Figure Aga Sediment Stability Curve and Estimated Velocity Range
Figure A9b Shield Curve
Grain-size Distribution Plots for Indian Run
Indian Run Restoration Project ill August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
49 The project reach is located along Indian Run, a 2"`' order tributary of Coddle Creek, the latter
® draining to the Rocky River within the lower North Carolina portions of the Yadkin River basin.
The project reach starts at the confluence of Indian Run extending 3,580 linear feet upstream in
® the NNW direction crossing Rocky River Road.
® Coddle Creek, from 0.2 miles upstream of N.C. Hwy. 73 to Rocky River, is currently listed on the
NC 303(d) as nonsupporting and biologically impaired. The Coddle Creek watershed is one of
j ® the targeted high priority restoration areas within the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
® Program (NCEEP) plan for the Lower Yadkin River Basin. In addition to the current non-
supporting use classification for the lower portions of Coddle Creek, anticipated high rates of
® development in the watershed pose critical challenges in managing the region's aquatic resources.
® Land Use/Land Cover analysis indicates that 89 percent of the 1.5-square mile Indian Run
® watershed remains currently pervious with a dominance of forested lands, and 11 percent is
impervious land. It is likely that the majority of the watershed will be built-out within 10 to 20
® years. Anticipated impervious cover (as a percentage of the total watershed) is likely to approach
® 25 to 30 percent at built-out conditions.
The Indian Run catchment was previously impacted in the lower 1,700 linear feet above the
confluence with Coddle Creek by channelization. The 2,200 foot reach of Indian Run above
Rocky River Road has been impacted by both, bed incision as well as bank erosion with over
1,200 linear feet of this portion of the reach characterized by unstable banks with moderate to
high bank erosion hazard indices (BEHI). Cross section information for both, the upper and
lower reaches (when compared to reference reach and regime data) indicate entrenchment with
the bankfull stage approximately 2 feet below current top bank elevation.
The overarching goal is to return approximately 3,580 linear feet of a degraded reach of Indian
® Run to a natural equilibrium state that recovers to the extent feasible, its remaining natural or
ecological potential.
® Below Rocky River Road approximately 1,700 linear feet of the existing channelized reach will
be restored using a Restoration Priority II strategy to a natural planform, dimension, and profile
resulting in approximately 1,878 linear feet of a meandering E(4)-type Rosgen stream. The
e Rocky River Road and culvert will not accommodate raising the channel bed 2 feet to restore the
® reach to its original relationship to the adjoining floodplain with its Chewacla soils, so a bankfull
bench is proposed to recover some of the floodprone area and provide relief for future increases
® in the impervious lands within the watershed.
Above Rocky River Road the restoration work along the 2,190 linear feet of Indian Run utilizes a
Restoration Priority III strategy. The restoration activities are focused geographically in three
• zones, each approximately 450 linear feet in length where data indicates the greatest benefits to
. be achieved, with least disturbance on existing bottomland hardwood forest.
The restoration in this upper reach, extending 2,190 linear feet upstream from the Rocky River
Road culvert, is geographically divided in three zones (Zones A, B, and C of Figures 10c and
10d) where site investigations indicate the greatest benefits to be achieved in a practical manner
(i.e. with conservation of existing bottomland and riparian trees). A spectrum of approaches is
incorporated into the proposed restoration efforts in this upper reach which are discussed in more
detail in following sections of this plan.
. Indian Run Restoration Project ES-1 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
0
1.0 PROJECT SITE LOCATION
1.1 Directions to Project and Reference Reach Sites
To Project Site (Cabarrus County) From I-85 South: Merge onto US-29 S via Exit 58 toward
MONROE / CONCORD / BARBER-SCOTIA, go 4.2 miles and turn left onto WARREN C
COLEMAN BLVD / US-601 BYP S. Continue to follow US-601 BYP S. for 1.2 miles, then turn
right onto OLD CHARLOTTE RD SW. Go 2.1 miles, and turn slightly left onto ROCKY RIVER
RD. and travel approximately 0.7 miles south to bridge crossing of Indian Run tributary to
Coddle Creek. Bridge is between entrances to Autumn Ridge and Boulder Creek Subdivisions.
To Project Site From I-85 North: Merge onto US-29 BYP N via Exit 42 toward NC-49 / US-29,
go 1 mile, and stay straight to go onto US-29 N / NC-49 N / N TRYON ST. Continue to follow
NC49 N. for 10.2 miles, then turn right onto OLD CHARLOTTE RD SW, and in .5 miles turn
sharp to the right onto ROCKY RIVER RD. and travel approximately 0.7 miles south to bridge
crossing of Indian Run tributary to Coddle Creek. Bridge is between entrances to Autumn Ridge
and Boulder Creek Subdivisions.
To Reference Reach Site (Iredell County) From I-77 North: Take Exit 33 for Rt 21, turn left on
Williamson Road, go 2.4 miles to intersection with Brawley School Road, turn right on Brawley
School Road, go 0.85 miles, and before culvert turn right into sewer line pump station facility
parking area. Reference reach (West Fork Reeds Creek) runs parallel to east side of sewer line,
and can be entered along Brawley School Road shoulder, or from sewerline easement adjacent to
pump station facility.
To Reference Reach Site (Iredell County) From I-77 South: Take Exit 36, turn right on NC150,
go 0.43 miles, turn left on Williamson Road, go 0.88 miles to intersection with Brawley School
Road, turn left on Brawley School Road, go 0.85 miles, and before culvert turn right into sewer
line pump station facility parking area. Reference reach (West Fork Reeds Creek) runs parallel to
east side of sewer line, and can be entered along Brawley School Road shoulder, or from
sewerline easement adjacent to pump station facility.
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code
® Figure 2a shows a portion of USGS topographic 1:24,000 scale map for the project site area and
catchment. The USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) is 03040105-020010. The project reach is
® located along Indian Run, a 2'd order tributary of Coddle Creek, the latter draining to the Rocky
River within the lower North Carolina portions of the Yadkin River basin. The project reach
extends from the confluence of Indian Run upstream to the NNW across Rocky River Road for a
® distance of 3,580 linear feet. The reach is ungaged, as is Coddle Creek. The closest USGS
® gaging station within the 14 digit hydrologic unit is USGS Gage Station #0212433550 (Latitude
® 35°19'18", Longitude 80°32'27" NAD83), located on the Rocky River above Irish Buffalo Creek,
near Rocky River, North Carolina. The water from the 278-square mile watershed is
• concentrated at this gage point.
® 1.3 NC DWQ River Basin Designations
® Figure 4 shows the location of the project site catchment within the NC Yakdin-Pee Dee 03-07-
11 Subbasin (upper Rocky River watershed, above confluence with Reedy Creek). Coddle Creek
is shown as Impaired from its confluence with the Rocky River up to the Coddle Creek Reservoir
located upstream from the Indian Run project site. The closest monitoring site within the basin is
Indian Run Restoration Project 1-1 August 2006
® Cabarrus County, NC
i
a Benthic macroinvertibrate monitoring station along Coddle Creek at the NC49 crossing, above
the Indian Run confluence.
1.4 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1 shows the location of the site within the SE Concord metropolitan area located northeast
and southwest of the Rocky River Road and Indian Run crossing. Rocky River Road is a narrow
two lane road without adequate shoulders for parking in the vicinity of the Indian Run culvert. If
visiting the site one will have to pull off and park in the subdivision public streets located north or
south of the culvert.
0
® Indian Run Restoration Project 1-2
® Cabarrus County, NC
August 2006
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Drainage Area
The drainage area for the Indian Run restoration reach is shown in Figure 2a and is delineated for
the area draining to the confluence of Indian Run with Coddle Creek. Variations in drainage area
are less than 15 percent along the restoration reach, and thus one drainage area is used to
characterize the hydrologic regime for the project. The delineation is based on the USGS 7.5
minute topographic series. The watershed encompasses approximately 1.5 square miles which
compares well with the selected reference reach watershed that has 1.49 square miles of drainage
area. The Indian Run stream restoration work covers a 6-acre parcel located between the
confluence of Rocky River and Coddle Creek and Rocky River Road, and an additional 6.0 acres
from Rocky River Road to a point approximately 2,190 feet upstream.
2.2 Surface Water Classification
The restoration reach is formed by the lower 3,580 linear feet of Indian Run just upstream of the
confluence with Coddle Creek within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-11. Indian Run
is unclassified. Coddle Creek from Source to a point 0.2 miles upstream of N.C. Hwy. 73 is
classified as a Class II Water Supply Watershed (WS-II), and from 0.2 miles upstream of N.C.
Hwy. 73 to Rocky River as Class C waters (EMC, 2000).
Coddle Creek from 0.2 miles upstream of N.C. Hwy. 73 to Rocky River is currently listed on the
NC 303(d) as nonsupporting and biologically impaired. A map showing the impaired waters
within the 03-07-11 basin is shown in Figure 4, which also includes the locations of NPDES
discharges and water quality monitoring stations. NCDWQ sampled Coddle Creek immediately
upstream of its confluence with the Rocky River in 2001. The benthic macroinvertebrate
community received a "Fair" bioclassification, some instream habitat was available and
sedimentation was noted (NCDWQ, 2003).
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
This watershed is located within the North Carolina Piedmont physiographic province. The
province is characterized by rolling hills of moderate to low relief and is underlain by deeply
weathered rocks of variable igneous, metamorphic, and indurate sedimentary rock types.
Drainage is relatively mature with a well-developed dendritic network of predominantly C and E
Rosgen Class streams.
Soil information for the target watershed is shown in Figure 3a. The restoration reach lies within
a low gradient valley floor underlain predominantly by Chewacla sandy loam that is frequently
flooded. Adjacent hill slopes are dominated by Enon sandy loams with 2 to 15 percent slopes.
Hill tops are dominated by Cullen clay loams with subordinate Poindexter loam and Pacolet
sandy loam (USDA, 1988).
The site lies within the Charlotte belt of the North Carolina Piedmont, which is a geologic
province dominated by large areas of variably metamorphosed plutonic and volcanic rocks. The
dominant plutonic rocks are generally characterized as being pre-, syn-, or post-tectonic with
respect to the early and middle Paleozoic phases of deformation that imparted new textures and
secondary minerals into existing units. The resulting oriented fabrics or foliations represent
weaknesses within these rocks that have been worked on by the forces of weathering and erosion,
and are often followed by today's surface streams imparting to them a lower than expected
Indian Run Restoration Project 2-1 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
sinuosity for the low grades and giving them mixed C and E stream class traits. In the case of the
Indian Run tributary to Coddle Creek (see Figure 3b) the stream trends for over 3,000 linear feet
in a relatively straight orientation paralleling measured foliations and parting directions in the
underlying metamorphic rocks. The dominant lithology within the watershed, and directly
underlying the restoration reach, is a Paleozoic complex of metavolcanic units that in turn form
the host rocks to the Concord plutonic suite that is found in the northernmost part of the Indian
Run catchment. The metavolcanic rocks are fine grained and tend to lead to the development of
thinner and more clay-rich soils particularly in hill top areas. Nickpoints of the metavolcanic
rocks are exposed in the bed of Indian Run which are dark grey, dark green, and blackish in
appearance.
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Over all the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-11 is within the greater metropolitan area of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and information related to land cover quickly becomes outdated and
tends to underestimate development and impervious land cover. For the entire subbasin land
cover information compiled between 1993 and 1995 describe more than 60 percent of the land as
forested, nearly 30 percent as pasture or managed herbaceous land, and more than 6 percent as
urban (impervious), and the population is projected to increase 53 percent in Cabarrus County
between 2000 and 2020 (NCDWQ, 2001).
Land cover characteristics were derived by digital (maximum likelihood supervised)
classification of the 1998 infrared high altitude USGS photography of the drainage basin and is
presented in Figure 2c. This analysis indicates that 89 percent of the watershed remains pervious
with a dominance of forested lands, and 11 percent is impervious. The individual impervious and
pervious classes are summarized in Table 3. Aerial photography shows evidence of historical
clearing and reforestation activity in portions of the drainage basin, but field inspection of the
bottomland hardwoods along the upper portions of the restoration reach (above Rocky River
Road) reveals tree species and diameter breast height (DBH) values suggestive of 70-80 years of
forest succession. The lower channelized reach lies within a cleared area that was last used as
® pasture and has a narrow fringe of trees along the banks with DBH values suggestive of 40-70
years of growth. The Indian Run watershed is currently undergoing rapid residential
development. It is likely that the majority of the watershed will be built-out within 10 to 20
years. Anticipated impervious cover (as a percentage of the total watershed) is likely to approach
25-30 percent at built-out conditions. The extent to which stormwater controls will be introduced
in future developments is presently unknown. Restoration design for the Indian Run reach will
need to address the potential impact of development on stream hydrology and its attendant
changes in morphologic regime.
® 2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species
40
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database was conducted to
determine the element occurrence records of any federally rare, threatened, or endangered species
or critical habitats on or near the site.
The NHP and USFWS records show one federally-listed threatened or endangered species
occurring in this portion of Cabarrus County, which is shown in the table below.
A review of the project area has indicated that the Schweinitz's sunflower does not occur along
the roadsides, in the fields or in the utility rights-of way that exist at the project location.
Indian Run Restoration Project 2-2 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
Federally Listed Species
State Federal County
Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Status
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E E Current
State Status Codes: E - Endangered, T - Threatened, SC - Special Concern
Federal Status Codes: E - Endangered, T - Threatened, C - Candidate,
® T(S/A) - Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
2.6 Significant Cultural and Natural Resources
HDR staff visited the NC State Historic Preservation Office to review known resources located
proximal to the project site. A review of available records from the National Register of Historic
Places indicates multiple listings within Concord (NPS 2005). The historic resources located
within one-mile of the project site include the Leroy McKee-Morrison House, the Joseph Osborne
Pharr House and the Jim Russell House. None of these resources are on land parcels adjacent to
the project site or will be affected by construction activities.
2.7 Potential Constraints
2.7.1 Property Boundary and Ownership
No issues regarding boundary location or ownership are anticipated for this project as
Marion Patrick of the NC State Property Office has secured right-of-way for the project.
2.7.2 Site Access
Site access is not an issue as local topography and road infrastructure is adequate to
support short and easily developable access locations for construction equipment.
2.7.3 Utilities
There are several utilities in and around the project area that may require coordination
with the utility owners. However, the stream construction activities should not affect any
of these utilities.
A fiber optic line and right-of-way owned and operated by BellSouth is located on the
Hoyle and Autumn Ridge properties. While construction will not affect the line,
BellSouth should be notified of the construction project.
The second utility is a sewer line that has been constructed to serve the Hearthwood
subdivision which is upstream of the construction reach. This line has been modified to
accommodate the stream restoration project and should not be affected by the project.
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass
There are no FEMA issues as the project site is outside of regulatory floodplain, see
Section 7.3 for more detail. The project will not incur any hydrologic trespasses.
® Indian Run Restoration Project 2-3 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS
3.1 Channel Classification
The project reach is located along Indian Run, a 2°d order tributary of Coddle Creek, the latter
draining to the Rocky River within the lower North Carolina portions of the Yadkin River basin.
The restoration reach is formed by the lower 3,580 linear feet of Indian Run just upstream of the
confluence with Coddle Creek within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-11. Indian Run
is unclassified. Coddle Creek from Source to a point 0.2 miles upstream of N.C. Hwy. 73 is
classified as a Class II Water Supply Watershed (WS-II), and from 0.2 miles upstream of N.C.
Hwy. 73 to Rocky River as Class C waters (EMC, 2000).
Coddle Creek from 0.2 miles upstream of N.C. Hwy. 73 to Rocky River is currently listed on the
NC 303(d) as nonsupporting and biologically impaired. A map showing the impaired waters
within the 03-07-11 basin is shown in Figure 4, which also includes the locations of NPDES
discharges and water quality monitoring stations. NCDWQ sampled Coddle Creek immediately
upstream of its confluence with the Rocky River in year 2001. The benthic macroinvertebrate
community received a "Fair" bioclassification, a little instream habitat was available and
sedimentation was noted (NCDWQ, 2003).
3.2 Discharge
A common method of determining the likely dominant (channel forming) discharges and
equilibrium channel dimensions in a given setting of the North Carolina Piedmont is use of
"regime" relationships worked out by analysis of streams that have good bankfull morphologic
indicators as well as USGS gaging. The discharge estimate and methods is discussed in detail in
Section 3.5 of this document.
3.3 Channel Morphology
3.3.1 Existing Morphology
In order to demonstrate the current levels of impairment along the targeted reach of
Indian Run six steps have been taken.
• Planform maps of the reach were created by field surveys using measuring tapes and
compass/transit bearings and by establishing centerline stationing in order to
accurately define the length and location of morphologic features.
• Characteristic locations where identified in the two areas (above and below Rocky
River Road) for collection of cross sections, and these were then surveyed using tape,
stadia rod and transit.
• Using a transit and tape, longitudinal profiles were acquired for the portions above
and below Rocky River Road focusing on bed features such as riffles, pools, and
bedrock nickpoints.
• Using slope and vegetative cover characteristics, a BEHI survey of the banks along
the upper portions of the reach was conducted to isolate in a semi-quantitative
manner areas of greatest bank instability and sediment erosion.
• Survey was conducted of the species, diameter and condition of riparian trees with
root masses encroaching on upper banks along the upper reach.
Indian Run Restoration Project 3-1 August 2006
Cabarrus County. NC
Series of photomosaics were assembled for the worst bank areas to further document
the degree of bank erosion and assist in the process of developing a restoration plan.
These individual datasets are presented in Figures 10a through 10j and in Appendix 1
(photo mosaics).
3.3.2 Planform
The planforms for the upper and lower portions of the Indian Run restoration reach are
shown in Figures 10b, 10c, and 10d. The lower portion extending from the confluence
with Coddle Creek up to Rocky River Road is composed of a series of straight ditch-like
segments broken up by low angle bends, or small segments where the channel has
undergone aggressive bank erosion and unstable meander development since
channelization. The channelized planform being man-made does not allow a rational
assessment of meander parameters such as meander wavelength, sinuosity (essential 1 on
any regime-based estimate of wavelength), meander belt width, or meander radius of
curvature. The upper reach follows a natural planform that has evolved over time within
a long lived bottomland hardwood. This allows a rational assessment of stream
morphologic features related to the stream planform. The planform and its morphologic
characteristics are shown in Figures 10i and 10j, and summarized in Table 4.
® 3.3.3 Cross Sections
® Cross sections for the lower portions of Indian Run, below Rocky River Road, are show
® in Figure 10e, and their locations in Figures Ilb-1, -2, and -3. The cross sections
® illustrate that in both the channelized reach below the Rocky River Road, and the areas
above it, the floodprone stage is below the top of bank. Only 2 of the 8 surveyed sections
S had a floodprone stages above the elevation of the existing floodplain. There is also
• considerable variation in the width to depth (W/D) ratios for the reach above Rocky River
Road. Variation of W/D ratios from 7 to 16 (difference of factor of 2) causes problems
® for stream stability, as extreme fluctuation in W/D ratio promotes sediment transport
® disequilibrium along the reach.
3.3.4 Longitudinal Profile

® Longitudinal profiles are shown in Figures lOg and 10h, where bed and water surface
elevations are plotted with bed structure divided into pools and riffles. The overall slope,
riffle and pool slopes, average riffle and pool lengths, and riffle/pool ratios are
summarized in Table 4 (summary of stream morphologic parameters). The upper and
® lower portions of the reach are relatively comparable in their bed structures with
riffle/pool ratios of 0.21 and 0.17 for the upper and lower portions, respectively. Average
® pool lengths are 46.5 and 43 feet, for the upper and lower portions, respectively, and
® average riffle lengths are 19 and 7.4 feet for the upper and lower portions, respectively.
These values when compared to the reference reach with riffle/pool ratio of 0.5, riffle
® length of 14.3 feet, and pool length of 28 feet indicates that both the upper and lower
e portions of Indian Run have less than desirable bed structure to support aquatic habitat.
® 3.4 Channel Stability Assessment (BEHI Survey and Photo Mosaics) and Tree Survey
For the upper portions of Indian Run, where the stream runs through a bottomland hardwood
forest, restoration work is feasible only in areas where access permits, and the level of
impairment would justify. Priority-I and III restoration opportunities alon the 2,192 linear feet
Indian Run Restoration Project 3-2 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
•
of this segment are identified by careful consideration of morphologic data (discussed above),
existing trees (species, size, health, and relation to stream), and bank erosion hazard indices. A
50-foot sampling or survey interval was established for conducting the BEHI assessment using
the same stationing as used for the morphologic planform and longitudinal survey work. The
BEHI values were determined for upper and lower bank areas in order to isolate specific zones of
high erosion hazard. The resulting values were initially ranked into four levels of erodibility and
these results are presented in Figures 10c and 10d. Combining these results with morphologic
data isolated three zones (A, B, and C shown in Figures 10c and 10d) where restoration work was
thought to be of greatest value and practicality.
In order to develop preliminary restoration concepts for these three zones, detailed tree surveys
were conducted in a 20-foot riparian fringe on both sides of the creek. The tree survey results are
shown in Figures I lb-1, -2, and -3. In the restoration plan that follows the surveyed trees are
broken into three categories: trees to be conserved, trees that will have to be assessed during the
construction, and trees that will likely have to be removed due to proposed bank and bankfull
bench construction activities.
The major bank areas with erosion and stability problems were then photographed for visual
documentation and assistance in the development of the conceptual designs. Photo mosaics
assembled from the photographs taken from a central vantage point are included in Appendix 1.
In addition to the BEHI survey initially performed only at the upper reach to isolate areas for
restoration work, the cliannelized lower reach was surveyed for its BEHI conditions to provide a
complete BEHI survey for the entire project area. The BEHI survey for the lower reach assigned
the typical BEHI values and adjective terms for the entire bank profile, top to bottom using the
standard set of observable parameters. The original survey work for the upper reach had used a
modified BEHI approach in order to separate upper and lower bank problems and identify
strategies for restoration. These data were converted to the standard BEHI value (0-50) for entire
bank and assigned the standard adjective rank terms (very low to extreme). Both sets of data are
presented in Tables 5 and 6.
3.5 Bankfull Verification
A common method of determining the likely dominant (channel forming) discharges and
equilibrium channel dimensions in a given setting of the North Carolina Piedmont is use of
"regime" relationships worked out by analysis of streams that have good bankfull morphologic
indicators as well as USGS gaging. The regime-based estimates of discharge and channel
dimensions were compared to reference reach observations and calculations to verify the field-
based observations of bankfull conditions and assumptions of channel stability and morphologic
equilibrium. The regime analysis has been performed for both rural and urban streams in the
North Carolina Piedmont (Harmon et. al., 1999, Doll, et. al., 2000) and generated the following
sets of relationships:
Urban Streams (this set is in meters and km2):
Abkf = 3.11 A,r 0.64
Qbkf = 5.44 A,r 0.17
Wbkf = 5.79 A,,, 0.32
Dbkf = 0.54 A,r 0.32
Rural Streams (this set is in feet and mi2):
AM = 66.57 A,y 0.89
Qbkf = 18.31 A,,, 0.71
Wbkf = 11.89 AW 0.43
Dbkf= 1.50 A,,, 0.32
In these equations,
Indian Run Restoration Project
Cabarrus County, NC
3-3 August 2006

® AN, = the drainage basin contributing area; (km2, mil)
Abkf = cross section area of flow at the bankfull stage; (m2, ft2)
® Qbkf = discharge at the bankfull stage; (m3/s, ft3/s)
Wbkf = width of the water surface at the bankfull stage; (m, ft)
Dbkf = mean depth of flow at the bankfull stage; (m, ft)
In a follow-up study to the urban stream analysis of Harmon et al., 1999, Forsythe et al., 2004
reanalyzed the urban bankfull relationships to watershed area for streams 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 overestimated the adjustments. The modified set of urban
relationships (in feet and mil) is:
Abkf = 45.57 AW 0.64
Qbkf = 169.55 A,y 0"0
2
Wbkf = 21.53 AW
Dbkf= 2.11 AW 0"'
® The stream drainage areas pertaining to this project are shown in Table Aga. Both the rural and
® urban estimates for Abkf, Qbkf, Wbkf, and Dbkf generated from the above equations are presented in
® this table. It should be noted that a preponderance of the data used to generate the urban curves
was obtained from urban streams in Mecklenburg County. 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
ratios of urban (using the Mecklenburg County data, Forsythe et al., 2004) to rural values for
discharge and bankfull area, respectively, range from 2.0 to 3.2 and 2.4 to 3.0 for the watersheds
listed in Table 2. The entrenched and enlarged sections of Indian Run have imbedded bankfull
scour, erosional bench, and depositional berm features that allow a `disturbed' or `disequilibrium'
bankfull stage and corresponding bankfull area to be determined and thus compared to regime-
based estimates of area and discharge. These comparisons are listed in Table 2, and provide a
reasonable verification for the bankfull discharge that must be accommodated in the restoration
design, and the further validation of selected reference reach to be utilized for this restoration
design (discussed in Section 7.0).
3.6 Vegetation
The area along the stream corridor above Rocky River Road, as can be discerned from the high
altitude infrared aerial for the project site, is currently a bottomland mixed forest, dominated by
hardwoods. The species found in this upper corridor are annotated on the tree survey presented in
?t
Figures l lb-1 through -3.
;a
The areas along the stream corridor below Rocky River Road contain a narrow bank fringe of „
young trees and scrub brush, lying within pasture. No attempt has been made to survey specific
species within this young growth and pasture zone, although some invasive species were located
and are described in Section 7.7 of this plan.
Indian Run Restoration Projcct 3-4 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC

4.0 REFERENCE STREAM
The regional topography, valley slope, and cross sections surveyed along the Indian Run
® restoration reach indicate that Indian Run occupies a relatively broad level floodplain that would
in stable equilibrium conditions be occupied by a E-t e Rosgen, 1996, 1997) stream with a
® bankfull stage at, or very close to, the true top o ank. The Indian Run restoration reach is very
® similar in watershed, topographic, and morphologic character to the EEP Caldwell Station Creek
restoration reach located a few miles to the west in Mecklenburg County, for which a similar
reference reach was also needed. Stable E-type channels have been difficult to find in the
® Charlotte area of the North Carolina Piedmont due to the practice of converting level floodplain
lands to row crop agriculture in past centuries. For use in both the Caldwell Station and Indian
Run restoration projects a stable E-type reach was found northwest of the project site in the
® Mooresville, NC, in area along the lower portions of West Fork Reeds Creek (lower portions now
® Reeds Cove, Lake Norman). The location of the reference reach is shown in Figure 5. Data for
the reference reach is presented in Figures 6 through 8, and summarized in Table 4 (along with
® the parameters for existing conditions of the degraded segments of Indian Run). Photographs of
® the reference reach are included in Appendix 4.
® 4.1 Watershed Characterization
The West Fork Reeds Creek watershed and its hydrologic features are shown on a section of the
USGS 1:24,000 topographic map (Figure 6). Overall the watershed is still dominated by open
lands that are a mix of wooded and agricultural lands with a subordinate variety of urban land
classes, the latter dominated by single family residential subdivisions, but with significant amount
of transportation, commercial, and institutional parcels. Soil characteristics are shown in Figure
7, with the restoration reach, itself, lying within a stream corridor of alluvial soils. As is the case
for the Indian Run restoration reach, the reference reach lies within the Charlotte `Granite' Belt,
with a variety of mafic, intermediate, and silicic pluton and metaigneous rock units of variable
resistance to chemical and mechanical forces of weathering and erosion.
® The reach is located within the outer developing surburban fringe of the Charlotte metropolitan
area, and is transitioning from a rural to suburban setting with impervious percentages similar to
those anticipated in the next couple of decades for the Indian Run restoration reaches.
4.2 Channel Classification
Based on the data summarized in the Morphology Table 4 this West Fork Reeds Creek reference
reach is an E5 Rosgen stream with a somewhat lower than typical E channel sinuosity. The
® alluvial floodplain setting, presence of lateral aggradational levees, proximity of bankfull to
current true top of bank, entrenchment ratios, and low stream slopes support an E channel
® classification, but with some C channel (e.g. sediment transport) characteristics, single-threaded
e channel with low to moderate sinuosity. The reach is located just upstream from Reeds Cove on
Lake Normal. Lake Norman was impounded in the 1920's, and represents an approximately 70-
80 year old base level that has created a zone of sediment accumulation and formation of
® multithreaded channels. The single-threaded (dominantly a sediment transport channel) E
channel in the reference reach is transitional from upstream (erosional and transport) C channel
morphologies to less stable multithreaded distributary channels within the accumulating sediment
fan at the head of Reeds Cove. The targeted reaches for restoration along Indian Reach are also
® transitional from C to E valley settings. In the restoration watershed of Indian Run the restoration
reaches are located in the transition C to E channel settings of the confluence of Indian Run to
Coddle Creek.
Indian Run Restoration Project 4-1 August 2006
e Cabarrus County, NC
e
s
4.3 Discharge
The observations of bankfull indicators within the reference reach have been annotated on the
plots of the survey cross sections. The estimated cross sectional areas, wetted perimeters, and
channel slopes, combined with estimated Manning's roughness coefficients, provide input
parameters for discharge calculation using the Manning's equation. The input parameters and
calculated results are presented in Table 7. The estimate of Manning's roughness coefficient is
subjective and brings some ambiguity into these calculations. A roughness coefficient value of
.026 is adopted for reference reach 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 (0.03 and 0.04) were used to calculate a range of discharge values. The resulting
range of discharges for the reference reach is shown in Table 4 wherein values determined using
the urban and rural regime relationships are also shown for comparison.
4.4 Channel Morphology
The pattern, dimension and profile of the reference reach were surveyed using standard
morphologic methods after initial inspection of the stream stability and bankfull indicators. The
surveyed pattern of the reference stream reach, annotated with meander radii of curvature,
meander belt widths, meander wavelengths, and sinuosity are shown in Figure 8a. The pattern-
based morphologic parameters are summarized in Table 4. The surveyed dimensions of the
reference reach are shown in the cross sections of Figure 8b and c that are also annotated with the
dimensional bankfull parameters. These values are summarized in Table 4. The surveyed
longitudinal profile is shown in Figure 8d, and basic parameters such as stream slope, riffle and
pool lengths, and riffle/pool ratio are summarized in Table 4.
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment
There are four categories of observations that are used to determine the stability-based
appropriateness of a reference reach for restoration design purposes:
• Consistency of channel morphologic parameters with regime-based estimates of channel
dimensional parameters and discharge,
• Indications of recent overbank flow and levee aggradation to demonstrate that the channel is
hydrologically connected to the surrounding floodplain under current watershed, climate, and
hydrologic conditions,
• No significant bed or bank erosion areas, and
• Reasonable riffle and pool habitat present for riffle and meander bend areas, respectively,
without signs of aggradation within the channel from the formation or migration of lateral or
medial sediment bars (point bars excluded).
Photographs included in Appendix 4 and morphologic surveys shown in Figures 8a through d
® demonstrate the stability of the selected reach. Quantitative assessments of sediment
export/erosion using a BEHI and NBS indexing approach was not completed for the reference
® reach as no standards were available for converting such data to sediment erosion rates for E
® channels in the Piedmont of North Carolina at the onset of the project. Erosion pins should be
e
• Indian Run Restoration Project 4-2 August 2006
® Cabarrus County, NC
I •
placed in each stream or watershed to be studied in order for these types of data to be accurately
correlated to erosion rates.
4.6 Bankfull Verification
A common method of determining the likely dominant (channel forming) discharges and
equilibrium channel dimensions in a given setting of the North Carolina Piedmont is use of
"regime" relationships worked out by analysis of streams that have good bankfull morphologic
indicators as well as USGS gaging. The regime-based estimates of discharge and channel
dimensions can then be compared to reference reach observations and calculations to verify the
field-based observations of bankfull conditions and assumptions of channel stability and
morphologic equilibrium. The regime analysis has been performed for both rural and urban
streams in the North Carolina Piedmont (Harmon et. al., 1999, Doll, et. al., 2000) and generated
the following sets of relationships:
Urban Streams (this set is in meters and krn ):
Abkf= 3.11 A,, 0.64
Qbkf = 5.44 A,,, 0.57
Wbkf = 5.79 A,,, 0.32
Dbkf = 0.54 A,y 0-12
Rural Streams (this set is in feet and mi2):
Abkf = 66.57 Aw o.s9
Qbkf = 18.31 A,,, o.7s
Wbkf = 11.89 A,,, 0.43
Dbkf = 1.50 A,,, 0.32
In these equations,
A, = the drainage basin contributing area; (km2, mil)
Abkf = cross section area of flow at the bankfull stage; (m'-, ft''-)
Qbkf = discharge at the bankfull stage; (m3/s, ft3/s)
Wbkf = width of the water surface at the bankfull stage; (m, ft)
Dbkf = mean depth of flow at the bankfull stage; (m, ft)
In a follow-up study to the urban stream analysis of Harmon et al., 1999, Forsythe et al., 2004
reanalyzed the urban bankfull relationships to watershed area for streams 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,r 0-64
Qbkf = 169.55 AW 0.70
Wbkf = 21.53 AW 0.29
Dbkf= 2.11 Au, ""
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 presented in
this table. It should be noted that a preponderance of the data used to generate the urban curves
was obtained from urban streams in Mecklenburg County. 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
Indian Run Restoration Project 4-3 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
ratios of urban (using the Mecklenburg County data, Forsythe et al., 2004) to rural values for
discharge and bankfull area, respectively, range from 2.0 to 3.2 and 2.4 to 3.0 for the watersheds
listed in Table 2. 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 adopted in the restoration
design to limit instability as the watershed undergoes future development.
4.7 Vegetation
The reference reach selected for morphologic design purposes did not exemplify a sufficiently
evolved native bottomland hardwood community to provide an adequate reference for plant
community restoration along Indian Run. The riparian corridor along the reference reach
includes few trees over 8" DBH and suggest that the lands along the creek were cleared for
agricultural use in the early parts of the 20"' century. In lieu of utilizing this reference reach for
rr plant community restoration, we shall utilize the existing bottomland forests in the upper portions
l? of the Indian Run restoration corridor (areas above Rocky River Road). The existing species of
bottomland trees in the riparian corridor above Rocky River Road include approximately a dozen
native species with DBH values in excess of 24". Interviews with local landowners indicate that
the bottomland forest in this area has been left undisturbed for a minimum of 3 to 4 generations.
The list of observed and proposed species to be restored in this area is presented in Table 8.
Indian Run Restoration Project 4-4 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS - Not Relevant to this Restoration Plan
Indian Run Rest3ration Project 5-1 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
6.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS - Non Relevant to this Restoration Plan
® Indian Run Restoration Project 6-1 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
0
49
7.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
7.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The Coddle Creek watershed is one of the targeted high priority restoration areas within the
NCEEP plan for the Lower Yadkin River Basin. In addition to the current non-supporting use
classification for the lower portions of Coddle Creek, anticipated high rates of development in the
watershed pose critical challenges in managing the region's aquatic resources. The Indian Run
catchment is a 1.5-square mile drainage area that was previously impacted in the lower 1,700
linear feet above the con uence wltfi-Coddre Creek by channelization. The 2,200-linear foot
reach of Indian Run above Rocky River Road, has been impacted by both bed incision as well as
bank erosion with over 1,200 linear feet of this portion of the reach characterized by unstable
banks with moderate to high BEHI. Cross section information for both the upper and lower
reaches (when compared to reference reach and regime data) indicate entrenchment with the
bankfull stage approximately 2 feet below current top of bank elevation. Specific morphologic
conditions were illustrated in Figures 10a-10i, and are summarized previously in Section 3.1.
Photo mosaics of the worst bank erosion areas are shown in Appendix 1. This restoration project
aims to restore to the extent feasible a stable natural channel morphology in the areas above and
below Rocky River Road. Below Rocky Road approximately 1,700 linear feet of the channelized
reach will be restored to a natural planform resulting in approximately 1,878 linear feet of
meandering E-t ep?&I steam. The Rocky River Road and culvert will not accommodate
raising the channel bed 2 feet to restore the reach to its original relationship to the adjoining
floodplain with its Chewacla soils, so a bankfull bench is proposed to recover some of the
he Impervious lands within the
floodprone area and provide relief for future increase in the-
watershed.
7.1.1 Stream Restoration Concept
The stream restoration concepts proposed here have been developed following the NC
inter-regulatory guidelines for stream restoration in North Carolina (NCDWQ, 2001).
They consider existing conditions and causes of impairment, and are sensitive to site
constraints, and future changes in the contributing drainage area. The analysis of
conditions within both the impaired and reference reaches follows standard applied
fluvial morphologic principles and practices such as those exposited by Rosgen (1994,
1996, 1997), or Newbury and Gaboury (1993). The overarching goal is to return 3,580
linear feet of a degraded reach of Indian Run to a natural equilibrium state that recovers
to the extent feasible, its remaining natural or ecological potential.
7.1.1.a Indian Run, Confluence with Coddle Creek to Rocky River Road (1,810'
Restoration Segment A of Figures 10a and b).
® This reach was channelized prior to the last 50-70 years of tree growth along its banks,
and with the exception of a few trees and shrubs is located within a cleared floodplain
that now forms open green space common areas for two residential subdivisions located
® north and south of the reach (Autumn Ridge, and Boulder Creek communities). By
® agreement with local interests a corridor of open land has been set aside to construct a
new stream channel to the north of the existing channel using a natural E-type reference
® reach as a design goal. Back water and flooding constraints for the Rocky River Road
® crossing of Indian Run will not likely permit complete recovery of the bankfull elevation
to the existing floodplain along the reach, but sufficient land has been set aside in the
restoration in order to cut a floodplain bench adjacent to the banks of the new stream
I'
s
Indian Run Restoration Project
Cabarrus County, NC
7-1 August 2006
channel and achieve morphologic design benchmarks documented in the reference reach.
The proposed new alignment for Indian Run and some of the proposed bioengineered
components to be incorporated into the new channel are presented in Figure l la.
The restoration in this segment is proposed to have a down stream tie-in 42 feet up from
the confluence with Coddle Creek and an upper tie-in at station 1743 feet (thalweg
distance from downstream confluence). The restoration is approximately 1,878 feet in
length with a sinuosity of approximately 1.2 - 1.3. The meander wavelengths, belt
widths, and radii of curvature are shown in Figure IIa. A conservation buffer
approximately 150 feet in width is provided along the stream corridor. As the stream
meanders within this conservation corridor, the buffer widths to each side increase and
decrease in a balanced or compensating manner to keep the total buffer width
approximately constant. Constructed riffles with upstream riffle crests underlain by rock
sills shall be used in conjunction with meander hydraulics to recover a riffle and pool bed
and habitat structure that is comparable to that seen in the reference reach.
The proposed, Priority II restoration along this segment of Indian Run will result in three
primary benefits. The restoration will result in the removal of approximately 1,700 linear
feet of unstable banks which have generated and transported sediment downstream to
Coddle Creek, the latter believed to be biologically impaired in part due to elevated
sediment. Second, the restoration of an E-Rosgen channel in this area will allow
attenuation of storm flow with anticipated increases in runoff within the watershed
arising from future development and increases in the overall impervious land cover in the
catchment. This will lessen stress and potential bank erosion in downstream areas. Third,
restoration of improved riffle and pool bed structure within the reach should enhance
aquatic habitat in the reach, and have secondary ecological benefits for up and down
stream areas.
The restoration of the longitudinal profile and channel dimension of this lower portion of
Indian Run are shown in Figure 11c-1 (longitudinal profile) and Figure lld-2 (cross
sections for inflection and meander zones). These elements were designed utilizing the
data from the reference reach, and restore natural functions to the reach. The embedded
nature of the reach within existing floodplain, FEMA issues, and the Rocky River Road
culvert elevation, required the use of the floodplain bench shown in cross section view of
Figure l Id-2 to achieve a reasonable attenuation of overbank flow traction forces within
the channel. The floodplain bench allows for an entrenchment ratio of a roximately 2.9
to 3.5.
7.1.1.b Indian Run, Segments B and C (Figure 10a) 2,190 linear feet upstream from
Rocky River Road.
The restoration in this upper reach, extending 2,190 linear feet upstream from the Rocky
River Road culvert, is geographically focused in three zones (Zones A, B, and C of
Figures 10c and 10d) where site investigations indicate the greatest benefits to be
achieved in a practical manner (i.e. with conservation of existing bottomland and riparian
trees). A spectrum of approaches is incorporated into the proposed restoration efforts in
this upper 2,190' long reach which are discussed in more detail below.
First, a conservation buffer is proposed for the entirety of the reach (shown in Figures 10c
and 10d) with a minimum of a 50' wide conservation buffer from top of bank along both
sides (with exception of existing utility easements). The conservation buffer will be
Indian Run Restoration Project 7-2 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
replanted in any areas disturbed by restoration activities with a mix of species appropriate
to the setting and surround bottomland forest community and habitat.
Second, the enlargement, of the stream bed that has occurred in the last 70 years (judging
by the age of trees with undercut tree root balls) can be partially recovered by a balance
of bank cutting and filling (see comments below on floodplain bench and proposed
design cross sections of Figures l ld-1 and -2) and by the installation of cross vane and
artificial sills to be placed under constructed artificial riffles at periodic points with the
three zones shown in Figures llb-1, -2, and -3. This work, while geographically
restricted to the proposed three areas, will also have hydraulic impacts on upstream and
downstream areas, and effectively raise the average bankfull and floodprone stages
relative to the existing floodplain. This component of the plan essentially provides for a
degree of dimensional restoration within the entire 2,190 linear feet of the reach.
Third, within the three targeted geographic areas for restoration work, lateral areas to the
existing banks (where there are no high quality trees to be conserved) can be used to taper
banks back above the bankfull stage (1 to 4 feet below existing top of bank) to form a
floodplain bench or ledge. These are preferred on the inside of meanders for stability
reasons, but in some cases have been proposed for both outer and inner banks. The
floodplain bench combined with the proposed elevation of the existing bed should restore
the average dimensional characteristics in the three zones to values comparable to those
seen in the reference reach. The extents of the floodplain bench to be constructed in the
three zones for restoration above Rocky River Road are illustrated on Figures l lb-1 to
11 b-3.
Forth, within the three targeted geographic areas for restoration work, banks will be
reshaped and protected with a combination of matting, brush mattresses, root wads, rock
vanes, and live stakes to provide long term sustainable bank stability. Stability is to be
achieved by a combination of 7 interdependent strategies. First, slopes are graded to
angles that are stable `angles of repose' for incohesive materials. Second, temporary
herbaceous cover and riparian shrub species are to be established along the banks to
provide cohesive strength to the soils to depths of at least 12 inches. Third, bank
vegetation in combination with root wads and brush mattresses are used to create a low
velocity shadow zone along the water - soil bank interface. Forth, rock vanes, and cross
vanes are used to direct maximum velocity vectors away from bank areas. Fifth, regime
and reference reach design benchmarks are used to define channel planform and
dimensional geometries that promote equilibrium and will transport water and sediment
discharges through the reach with a minimum of erosion and aggradation. Lastly, grade
control is used to insure that the stream bed will not become further incised with the
secondary consequences of undercutting existing banks and trees.
7.2 Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis
7.2.1 Methodology
There are four approaches to the analysis of sediment transport and channel stability for
this restoration. First is the reference reach foundation for the design's pattern,
dimension, and profile. This paradigm assumes that nature finds a stable design for any
given watershed setting, provided there is sufficient time for adaptation and evolution.
This design model assumes that nature will find comparable fluvial morphologies for
comparable sets of watershed characteristics (topography, climate, soils, bedrock, land
Indian Run Restoration Project 7-3 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
use, etc.). Thus, one check on the stability of a design is that it has similar characteristics
to those observed in the selected reference reach areas.
A corollary to this reference reach model is the regime approach. The regime approach
states that at a regional level, there are some central tendencies in streams of similar
morphologic class (e.g. Rosgen E- or C-type streams) to have comparable morphologic
parameters for similar drainage areas. The regime approach has the benefit of averaging
out a lot of "noise" that occurs in individual watersheds, such as disruption of normal
tendency by odd events or features (e.g. hurricane, downed tree, small pond, etc.).
Neither the reference reach nor the regime approach is necessarily sufficient to achieve a
stable design. Both sets of data are susceptible to yielding guidelines that may be
erroneous for a given circumstance. Thus, independent of the reference reach or regime
data, a separate effort must be made to check or verify the stability of the restoration
design.
® The second and third methods used here for stability analysis are the determinations of
® transport thresholds for bank and in-stream materials. These checks on transport, or
® erosion potential, for bed and bank materials are either a minimum velocity analysis or
critical traction force analysis. There are two approaches for checking velocity
® thresholds for the design at Irwin Creek and two approaches for the critical traction force
® analysis.
® Finally, stability can be examined from a structural viewpoint. Structures can be
emplaced or found (e.g. the stream can be located over or within bedrock) to provide
® added stability. These structural approaches are usually folded into a given project as a
design unfolds and areas of greater risk, or opportunity, are discovered.
® 7.2.2 Reference Reach and Regime Analysis
e Table 4 show reference reach information gathered from the West Reeds Fork tributary.
® The restoration morphologic parameters need to reflect the anticipated future changes in
the contributing catchment, as well as the wetland restoration goals within the adjacent
floodplain. The reference reach has been estimated to have approximately 20 percent
® impervious cover, and thus provides a future looking benchmark for the Indian Run
® reach, with approximately 10 percent impervious cover.
The regime equations developed for the rural and urban Piedmont were shown in Section
5.2.2. The regime values for the restoration reaches are shown in Table 3. As previously
discussed, the reference reach data are reasonably consistent with the regime curves, and
therefore, provide a reasonable basis for the extrapolation and selection of restoration
® parameters.
The restoration design attached in planform, section, and longitudinal views of Figures
lla to 11d can be characterized by the morphologic parameters indicated in Table 4.
Meander bend radii of curvature, wavelength, meander belt width, riffle/pool ratios,
sinuosity, bankfull widths, depths and cross section areas have all been selected to be
consistent with the range of conditions seen in the reference reach data, and the North
Carolina regime data. While the primary concerti is the impact of future urbanization on
the restoration morphology, this concern is largely mitigated by the construction of E
channels with aggressive grade control. All morphologic elements have been selected to
be hydraulically in equilibrium with a morphologically-defined bankfull flow event. As
Indian Run Restoration Project 7-4 August 2006
Cabarrus County. NC

®
E channels have abrupt attenuations of bed traction forces and mean velocities with flood
stages over the bankfull elevation, the frequency of bankfull events cannot be considered
® a determinant morphologic attribute of the reach. For these reasons, a fixed bankfull
® discharge design approach is not required to assure stability.
® 7.2.3 USDA and USACE Velocity Analysis

The USACE (1994) published a graph of allowable velocity-depth data for granular
materials ranging in size from 0.1 to 500 millimeters (nun). The range of expected
® bankfull mean velocities are listed in Table 4 and extend from approximately 4.4 to 4.5
® feet per second (fps). The expected range in velocities are plotted in Figure A9a (in
Appendix 9) on a stability chart from the USACE (1994) that can be used determine the
® range of sizes of granular materials that would be unstable as exposed incohesive
materials along the channel. This is the shaded area shown in the figure. From this
analysis, it is clear those materials with D5(y, less than 1 centimeter (cm) will be unstable
within Indian Run, and for these reasons all banks areas with fine soils will need to be
® matted to protect banks until vegetation is established with good root density and depth.
7.2.4 Newbury and Gabory's (1993) Traction Force Criteria and Shield Curve Analysis

For streams with non-cohesive bed materials greater than 1 cm in diameter (fine gravel),
a general rule of thumb for stability may be approximated as:

® Tractive Force (Tau; kg/m^2) = incipient diameter (cm)
® This is an empirical relationship arising from a compilation of in transport streambed
materials and tractive force observations for a wide range of channels worldwide. The
Newbury and Gaboury criteria are derived from compilations presented by Lane (1955)
and Magalhaes and Chau, (1983). These critical traction forces versus grain size analyses
40 and curves are sometimes referred to as Shield Curves. Table 4 includes calculations of
® the bed traction force derived using the following equation:
49
40
Is
40
0
d
Tau (kg/m^2) = 1,000 x (depth (m)) x (slope (ft/ft))
This relationship is roughly equivalent to the Tau = RS formulation used by Rosgen
(1994) but can yield more accurate estimations of the maximum traction forces needed
for stability analysis, as a maximum depth can be used in lieu of the hydraulic radius.
For a successful restoration, one is more concerned with the maximum conditions that
may exceed thresholds and trigger failure in the channel system. Thus, the DS rather
than RS method is used here to calculate critical traction forces. The values in the tables
are estimated for the floodprone stage. The corresponding threshold diameters for
particle stability (using the first equation) are then multiplied by a 1.5 safety factor, and
used to determine the D8, for the inflection zone grade control cobble and cross vane
material.
Figure A9b shows a variation of a "Shield Curve" with data from Leopold (1964) and is
presented in Appendix 9. On this figure the expected conditions for events with
floodprone stages (2 x Bankfull maximum depth) are plotted to show the corresponding
stable threshold particle sizes for proposed conditions in the restored Indian Run
tributary. These values are lower than the design diameters for riffle armour and cross
vanes and thus indicate the design should be adequate to stabilize the bed.
Indian Run Restoration Project
Cabarrus County, NC
7-5
August 2006
7.2.5 Bed and Bank Stability Structures
The attached plans, cross sections, and longitudinal profiles show the location of
structures present in the design to assist in the stabilization of the restored channel.
First, with respect to bed or grade stability, at the upper and lower tie-in points on
affected reaches cross vanes will be installed with rock sized for immobility. Second,
cross vanes are to be installed approximately every 4 h inflection zone in conjunction with
the cobble material to augment riffle habitat. Again cross vane and riffle materials are
sized to promote long term bed stability. The estimates for D50 and Dg; for riffle armor
are noted in Table 4.
Where the proposed new channels leave the old alignments, channel plugs will be
installed up to the surrounding floodplain elevation for a minimum distance of 20 feet.
Inner meander bends are graded to a lower slope (z4:1; run/rise) to allow attenuation of
flood velocities at or near the bankfull stage. The outer banks of meanders are treated
either with a series of 2 to 3 rock vanes, brush mattresses, root wads, facines with soil
lifts or combinations, thereof.
Typical installation schematics will be included in the final construction documents for
all features.
7.3 HEC-RAS Analysis
7.3.1 Existing FEMA Study and Zone Designation
According to the FEMA detailed study for Cabarrus County (Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) Number 37025CO120 D - November 2, 1994), Coddle Creek is a FEMA-
regulated stream with determined base flood (100-year water surface) elevations (Zone
AE) along its reach from its confluence with Rocky River up to the Rowan County line.
Coddle Creek is affected by backwater from Rocky River to approximately 4,400 linear
feet from their confluence. Indian Run is a Coddle Creek tributary flowing into Coddle
Creek approximately 6,000 linear feet upstream of the Coddle Creek and Rocky River
confluence.
7.3.2 FEMA Study Application to Indian Run
Upon a detailed review of the FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and FIRM the
following was concluded. There was no detailed study performed specifically for Indian
Run, nor was the Indian Run drainage basin individually considered in the hydrology
methods for flow determination. The Indian Run drainage basin was incorporated into
the 15-square mile Coddle Creek drainage area that was used to reflect the flow change in
the Coddle Creek between its confluence and U.S. Route 29. The resulting flow change
for the 100-year storm event is 1,420 cubic feet per second (an increase from 9,950 to
11,370 cubic feet per second).
The 1.5-square mile Indian Run drainage basin represents only 10 percent of the 15-
square mile portion of the Coddle Creek drainage area.
Indian Run Restoration Project 7-6 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC

The source of the base flood water surface elevation shown at the confluence of Indian
Run and Coddle Creek is the Coddle Creek backwater, which will not be impacted by
changes in the Indian Run geometry. The impact to the FEMA floodplain at this location
could be evoked by significant changes in the land use resulting in altering the hydrology
regime in a manner that would significantly increased the peak runoff flows generated
® within the Indian Run drainage basin. The proposed Project will not increase the peak
runoff; in fact, it will likely promote runoff infiltration and intake by vegetation within
the project area.

7.3.3 Local Flood Management Ordinance
According to the Cabarrus County Floodplain Manager there are no local ordinances that
® apply to stream construction outside of the FEMA regulated floodplain.
® 7.4 Stormwater Best Management Practices

® 7.4.1. Narrative of Site-Specific Stormwater Concerns
® Currently storm runoff collected from developed parcels adjacent to the reach enters in
® ephemeral and intermittent channels. The confluences for each of these channels with
Indian Run will be assessed for stability, and where necessary additional energy
dissipation, and bed and bank protection measures are incorporated to prevent hydraulic
impacts in the discharge areas.

Direct storm runoff into the stream by overland flow along the banks is controlled by the
incorporation of a low natural levee that will intercept slope water and redirect it into a
vegetated swale within the conservation buffer, and then discharged into the stream in
areas where appropriate bed and bank stability measures are in place. Typically these
floodplain release points will be at the upstream ends of constructed riffles (over rock
sills) and preferably on the inside bends of meanders.
Up stream, future residential development in the watershed will eventually take the level
of impervious lands over 20 percent and potentially change the regime for stream flow
within Indian Run. The reference reach was selected from an area with approximately 20
percent impervious cover, and therefore provides a future-looking design benchmark for
the restoration. Calculations of current bankfull discharge indicate the channel has
undergone enlargement to conditions similar to those for urban creeks of Mecklenburg
County, and thus can accommodate future increases in storm flow with the continued
urbanization of the upper watershed. The floodplain bench cut has been expanded to
provide an approximate 60 to 70 percent reduction in the near bank shear stresses at the
flood-prone stage (2 x bankfull) over existing conditions.
7.4.2 Device Description and Application
The restoration plan utilizes instream structures such as rock sills, rock vanes, brush
mattresses, and constructed riffles in combination with vegetation to protect the stream
channel in stormwater sensitive areas such as confluences with direct outfalls, tributaries,
and floodplain, and floodplain bench release points. The incorporation of a low
constructed streambank side levee to control both overbank storm flow and lateral
overland stormwater shall limit stream bank erosion from direct runoff. Where deemed
Indian Run Restoration Project
Cabarrus County, NC
7-7 August 2006
appropriate in final construction drawings, energy dissipation devices at outfalls shall be
incorporated into the plans.
7.5 Hydrologic Modifications - not relevant to this restoration plan
7.6 Soil Restoration
Soils on the site currently support vegetation that is typical of the plant restoration community
and thus appears adequate to achieve restoration goals. No wetlands are created within this
restoration plan, and thus hydric soils are not required. Grading activities will stockpile top soils
for reuse in areas of the new floodplain bench cuts, and where needed the final soils will be
amended to provide adequate fertility.
7.7 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Restoration for the Indian Run site involves plant selection reflecting hydrology, shade, and
slope. Species used in the restoration have been chosen to represent modifications of the
Piedmont Levee and Alluvial Forest Communities as defined in the Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation, by M.P. Schafale and A.S. Weakley,
1990. The lower reach, approximately 1,700 linear feet below Rocky River Road, will be
restored with the natural community concept as stated above because it will be constructed in
open field adjacent to the existing channel. However, the upper reach, approximately 2,200 linear
feet, will only be restored in those areas impacted by construction access because it has an
existing bottomland hardwood community. The restoration in these impacted areas will use the
same species as specified for the lower reach. Table 8 provides an alphabetical list of the species,
with columns noting the potential habitats:
1. Stream bank - Modified Levee Community
2. Floodplain bench - Modified Levee Community
3. Upper slope and Riparian buffer - Modified Levee/Alluvial Forest
The Table 8a provides estimated quantities of plants used in these areas, with assumption of
average distance between plants, in feet on center (ft o.c. - avg).
7.7.1 Narrative and Plant Community Restoration
The restored stream bank will be planted with a mixture of live stakes and plugs. Live
stakes include Silky dogwood, Silky willow and Buttonbush. Plugs include Coralberry,
Elderberry, Virginia willow, and Tag alder.
The diversity of the floodplain bench will be enhanced with the addition of plugs of
Pawpaw, Spicebush, Beautyberry and Painted buckeye to the list of stream bank species.
Selection of these species for these two habitats will provide a diverse, shrub dominated
community with the stability needed for protection from erosion. By massing some of
the species, such as Coralberry, Pawpaw, Spicebush, Beautyberry and Buttonbush into
groupings along the floodplain bench, the different characteristics of the species can
become more evident in this suburban setting.
The upper, slope and Riparian buffer will be planted with bare root and containerized
trees and shrubs, reflecting a mixture of Levee species, such as River birch, Sycamore,
Tulip poplar, and Green ash, with the addition of Willow oak, Red maple, Persimmon,
Indian Run Restoration Project 7-8 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
Black walnut, Red mulberry, Water oak, and Black gum. Shrubs, as plugs or
containerized, include PawPaw, Sweetshrub, Sweet pepperbush, and Bladdernut to
provide increased diversity.
7.7.2 Onsite Invasive Species
Invasive species in the site are relatively limited. However, following the disturbance of
construction and the exposure of a remixed seed bank, the occurrence of previously
undetected invasive species is unknown. On site, three invasive species have been
observed, but none exist in large numbers or dense stands. These include:
Ligustrunt sinense - Chinese privet
Lonicera japonica - Japanese honeysuckle
Poucinis trifoliata - Trifoliate orange
Since these do not occur in thickets and since they are woody species, control following
the project will be much easier than if, for instance, dense growths of Microstegium
(Etdalia) vindneum develop.
7.7.3 Invasive Species Control
Control and elimination of the invasive woody vegetation will be most effective by
cutting and herbiciding the basal stems immediately after removal. Follow-up
inspections should be performed each spring and fall through the monitoring period with
cutting and herbiciding when needed.
Indian Run Restoration Project 7-9 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC

®
8.0 STREAM PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND MONITORING PLAN

® Restoration of Indian Run will be deemed a success after the monitoring period is complete. The
® stream channel should maintain its dimension, pattern, and profile over time. Additionally,
instreatn structures should remain secure and stable during the monitoring period. The plant
® species should appear healthy within the three zones identified for revegetation (see Section 7.7).
®
8.1 Streams
® Four monitoring strategies are to be utilized to demonstrate the stability and restoration goals of
® the stream restoration work.
® A series of benchmarked cross sections are to be established for the monitoring of channel
® dimensional stability, and these sections should extend to within 5 feet of margins of the
conservation buffer to both sides of the channel. These cross sections are to be re-surveyed at the
• frequency and calendar cycle set by EEP's monitoring protocol utilizing standard stream
e surveying techniques. The spacing of cross sections shall not exceed 500 feet, should include
® typical meander and inflection areas, and should include at least one cross section for each reach
segment of 20 bankfull width-lengths (in this case approximately one section for every 460 feet).
Five or six monitoring sections should be established for the restoration reach below Rocky River
Road, and five or six sections above Rocky River Road. The monitoring survey protocol should
be the same as used in the As-built survey.
®
• A longitudinal profile starting and ending at benchmarked station points at the upstream and
® downstream ends of each of the restoration reaches is also to be resurveyed during each
monitoring event.

® Third, a series of photo stations is to be set in the field with benchmarks and documented
azimuths and photos acquired at each of the monitoring events. Such photographs shall provide
documentation of the stability of the channel's bed and banks at typical tie-in points, in stream
structures, meander and riffle areas.
Finally, a Modified Wolman Pebble Count (Rosgen, 1996) is to provide a quantitative
characterization of streambed material. This composition information is used as an indicator of
® changes in stream character, channel form, hydraulics, erosion rates, and sediment supply.
Pebble count data can be used to interpret the movement of materials in the stream channels.
Established D50 and D84 sizes should increase in coarseness in riffles and increase in fineness in
® pools. Data collected over the monitoring period should be plotted over that of the previous
year(s) for comparison. Over time, established D50 and D84 should be compared.
It is expected that there will be some minimal changes in the cross sections, profile, and/or
® substrate composition. Changes that may occur during the monitoring period will be evaluated to
determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down cutting,
deposition, and/or erosion) or if they are minor changes that represent an increase in stability
® (e.g., settling, changes in vegetation, and/or decrease in width-to-depth ratio). Unstable
conditions that require remediation will indicate failure of restoration activities that need to be
addressed prior to continued monitoring.
Indian Run Restoration Project 8-1 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
•
d
•
8.2 Stormwater Management Devices
Areas of stormwater release to the stream shall be monitored by appropriately placed and
documented photo stations which over time provide a basis for the comparative evaluation of
performance and stability. Such photo stations shall document areas of the stor nwater release
® and the immediate downstream areas of the channel's bed and banks.
® 8.3 Wetlands - not relevant to this restoration plan
8.4 Vegetation
Native vegetation, as determined by native NC Piedmont reference areas, will be planted.
Survival of vegetation within the riparian buffer will be evaluated using survival plots. Survival
® of live stakes will be evaluated along the restoration site. Vegetation survival of target dominant
species will be confirmed. Woody vegetation will be monitored for five years, or for two
® bankfull events. Plants should be replaced per the contract documents. Permanent sampling
® quadrants will be established at random locations within the restoration site. Expected desired
species will be monitored and records of sampling locations will be maintained. Non-native,
exotic, and undesirable species will be noted during the sample collection.
6) 8.5 Schedule / Reporting
® The monitoring and reporting schedule shall occur during the lst, 3`d, and 5" annual cycle
® following completion of the re-vegetation within the restoration areas. The first annual cycle
should include the first full growing season following re-vegetation. Monitoring reports are to be
completed and submitted within 90 days of the end of each annual monitoring cycle. All
monitoring data and reporting shall be conducted in accordance with the most current version of
the EEP document entitled "Content, Format, and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring
Reports". As-built and subsequent monitoring reports must include all background, morphologic,
sediment, and vegetative elements outlined in the most current version of guidance documents.
Indian Run Restoration Projcct 8-2 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
9.0 References
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/programs/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 1-1251-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. 401408.
NC DENR/DWQ, 2003. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List
(2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).
NC EMC, 2000, Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, Reprint from North Carolina Administrative Code: 15 NCAC 2B
.0309, Raleigh, N.C.
NC DWQ, 2002, Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan,
http://l12o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/index.litm
NC DWQ, 2001, The Intennal Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, Raleigh,
North Carolina, (http://li2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands/regcert.litmi).
NC WRP, Guide to the NCVVRP's Watershed Restoration Planning Strategy (version 1)
littp://ii2o-.enr.state.nc.us/wm/pdf/restplans/Plannin,g%2OGtiide.pdf
Newbury, R. W., and Gaboury, M. N., 1993. Stream Analysis and Fish Habitat Design, A Field
Manual, Newbury Hydraulics, Gibsons, British Columbia, Canada, 262 p.
Rosgen, D.L., 1997. A Geonnorphological 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.
Schafale, M.P., and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina, third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, N.C.
US Department of Agriculture, 1963. Soil Survey of Iredell County, North Carolina. Natural
Resource Conservation Service.
Indian Run Restoration Project 9-1 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
US Dept. of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1998, Detailed County Soils-
Cabarrtts County, North Carolina: US Dept. of Agriculture.
USACOE, 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter, No. 02-2. Guidance on Compensatory Mitigation
Projects for Aquatic Resource Impacts Under the Corps Regulatory Program Pursuit to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Indian Run Restoration Project 9-2 August 2006
Cabarrus County, NC
V
Q?
m
O
,w
L O
.? O
V Ltd
3 Q
+L+ :It
O
?a
L
O im
Z
4) W
CU
?Z
O
L
a
T
m
cc
t..l

c
o -
o

O
- o
L
- o
D
O C C 0x = U
co x V:
(1)
CTJ (1) U c
cz
d C 0 O C
a? O C
y) c m O C
c m
ca CZ a) c c 0 '- c c 0 '- c c 0 '-
L
C C O
L cz :- O
6
L cz :: O
'O
= ca m O
'd
N1 N C d CO O D p 0 O CO O
C
d C `-
0 3 C O 0 C
O O O M
' C O 0 C
0 0 0 Co
' C O 0 C
0 0 0 co
'
E E ? tI) C C O C C O C C
E ,
C
ro C m O
a)
-
m -o C Crs O
m
CL
i
m C m O
m
waro
U C
n.
O E
w
'p C1 _E
0 CL
a
a E_
R7 CL
LI O 0
- CZ O O
C,) N U Y a) n Y a) (nn ?C a) - y
N c N
0 ? .N O X
rn a) Ca N O x
in a) N O X
- N C)
-
O O C En 7 0 N - > a) Cn
U 7 a) y
U
4) 15.2 (1) IT) >, U cl) N >+ ? N ?+
(z 'a 'C7 C cz Ct3
-
= O C
t5 O C
O X O O i
O= cz c O= CTS C O t c0 C
LL (a) - U U C1 a) U C1 (1) U C1 (2)
'a CU
L
Q1 d +O.
00
00

- 03

M

O
0 V ct V
LL
0

N C ca OD ccri O
X 0
LU J L r V ?i cf
L
t
R
p
L a
O
O
O
O
CL rL CL IL IL IL

p C
O O O O
ca sz ca c cz
O O O O O
(n N

m ? ? cc

Cl> R O Q) LO OOD O
C + Cn r O
r O r N
p pp L 1 1 1 1
C
O
00
OD
CY)
O O+
Cf)
+

+
0)
O
++
= O
O r
O t\
O In
r
CU

J cc
O N CY) d
R O
L
E C.)
0 01 U
co U
C13 U
co U
(Z

) a
) a) a) a)

Q?
E
N
W
U
tm
O
O
t
CL
0
d
E
a?
.a
G
R
N
c0
d
Q
a
m
R
C
N
0
S]
h"
0
U
N
E
0)
Q
C
0
E
a?
a
c
ro
a
a
O
ro
Q
R
c
0
U
r
z
w ?
Y L
? O
n
c a
03 0
7 r

Q1 Y
C L
X r
'f V
C)
O)
r t0 O
m j
7
?p C
O
a
C a
U A E rn
(? N
O y` H N N
?
A X a
O " C)
O
E c
D
LL Q ? N N
? C

O
a
O

r C\j C)

co O
Cn
.r
" N N
X a
3 &
O
N
` o c+7
In C1
LL Q u LO -'I-
0) rn

- ?
z 'IT CY)
n n
w
L N N
C
a m ch
c9
67 O .,
E CR Co
o O

y _ Cl) co
C7 N
??
7 O O
.'X
Y L N N
C
° 'f N
c
C. m
- E rn rn
co co
0
N
o
Cii n
cs co V
d LL V V
O
0 C -
O n
C
a
U
tv
v
Xa
3 -
a
LL ?

? rn Lo
n n
T-
c -
o
E v c!

X a
d
m

C m
Y co In
CO O
c0 d
17
N
co co
oa
m a
c ca E to v

O a ?
0
U
m
-O Y
V N
O N
U U
d O co
N d

C Y
Q lL
c
N N
"O N
C 3
n? O
Y L
? LO
M (`7
?

o C 6
m u N N

N
O ? a
C) C t X C) V
L m -?0
C3 N N
Uj 7
1L C -
v ? E ? v
O f m Li L
U X a
m
n _
o y
E
LO
N
C
N tL c0 CO
_
Y
U C -
O
U
A

X

V

CO
C CD
N

?. l0 m
O
a X a
3 - It
cq

LL m
O co
N N

i
in
cu
C
to
Y C\l
N (0
c0
_
O
17
N
co
c)
oa
I N
(D
0)
c co E
T
O a ?
m
d
U
_o
?
? Y
N

d O
U ?
U
O N
U
C r
Y
LL
c LL
c0
V
C N
47
Table 3. Land Use in the Watershed
NCDENR# D5004S
Landuse Acreage Percent
Pervious Classes
Scrub/shrub 8,395 12.85
Ever reen Forest 20,857 31.92
Deciduous 10,945 16.75
Forest unclassed 2,835 4.34
Lakes & Ponds 101 0.15
Open Fields & Lawns 15,056 23.04
Subtotal 58,189 89.06
Impervious Classes
Asphalt Roads & Parkin 1,163 1.78
Residential Buildings - Asphalt Shingles 5,070 7.76
Commercial Bld s - Balast Roofing 489 0.75
Gravel Roads & Parkin 428 0.65
Subtotal 7,151 10.94
Total 65,340 100.00

L
U 0
CO
II
C
N
c II
X
(0
E X
(4
E
c u
=3 A
GI
¢

O
N

O

N o

V
O

O

'

a
°

n

n
M

O
M

C
O

C

n

n

V

n
M

C0
(D

(D

n

M
C
m d
o
O
o
°
11
A
N C
)
N
O to
N
W
m O
o
o
.E
.E
O
M
V
N
V
(D
co
c6
n n
? v
co
.O 3 _ O p O M (n N
C O L 6 m
J
3
c
c
L
W
N
O

L c
c
N
?
c S

X
(0
E N

X
(0
E
c U ro
N
7 (9
CC U
C [r
-
o
O
o N
(D
c0 co
O
(n

M

L
to
V
O
m

c

(.
m co
V p
n
,

n
(n

o

O (n
M
,
N _ N
II
11
n
M

m

N

(n

(n
O)
co
m

n

D
co
V
c0
A O o O o A N N CO In
? O L
N W m 0 °o 'E 'E O N In V N N u) N (Nn
C L 0 0 M N 0 0)
-' 3 N
II
II
V C C
W_ m

>
O n
O
N
n

(O

N
)

co

m

o M

N

U
X m
X N
X n
X O (D
X
I
X
.Y co
E N
E tG
E I N
E 11
X
m (V
E A
E
E E E
V

V

V O

N n N

n N

C

O m p

cV M

V 0

V (O

.p p

O n

n co

o

O

n
(D
11

n

co

(n

(n
O

N

M

(D

c)

co

N

V

w W 0 0 C
•E n II
c C C II
c II
c N C °
o °
o C c
'E N .y M a ? 6 O c6
o o E E . ' E E
E c?i E E E ?i
y ^ II

(D
(D
(D

(D

(D (D

It
M
lOL II
C C
N 11 C C C C C

L6 II
c C
_ r m M
N (O N V
L
C U U
(,?
to
O y
C Q U
'D
to
(n
(n

(n M

A O
(O

A co
ct N
O

O
rn

M
T

N
N
N

N •Q
(O
1)

O
O
`
A d 0 0 S co In r (n N O CO V n 0 n 0 ^ N °
0 3
c o cl o o to
N co o 0
J E
C u
(G

m U

C m

N

n N

O0 oo
O

0

2

M

p

0

?
q

°
M

7

n

6

to

N

°

N m

V

S O

onp

o

n

p

V

co

n

°

C)

O

w

n

(D

n
(G ? (n
N N N (`J 'G' (D In
(O c
N (n N o V O) o
clj
M
u)
(n7
n
m
M
n
v
c a E O O O V

E
c
.. E
u 7
Cl

E
ai 2
c

> at
E
C
• o
.d.
Q ^ o O

N 2 U

E E
c
0

m O o ar m
a ? d (n

1:7 o m 1 `o
ILL in c
f of
` Q N v > 7 a
m o v ar E a r w c
m °o

c,
cc
¢
E
(7
C7
`
E
E E N o
m y v?
'o Lo
v LL
E a,
13

U a ? g L
- E E n >
rn
o, d
?

m
cr
N T3
(? G) cr,
O L
'O ..
.- ?
a) E
7 U
U G! a O
O C C
a, O
In K
oo ?
M QI C
d A o U
E °! ::

c10i
(7 (? d
a.
•3
t
R
E N
y
¢
o
w y
J O
?
?
m
t
2 L
tp Ol
13 !3
H I
:°. GI
E o
E

I
m v c`, x o v 3c o o 5 5 v '? a -°
o (G
o
.0
0 o
N
3
3
Q'
E
(co
c
E
cc
ao
a°
¢
6
E
E
E
E
m
o
w
m
r
m
r
E
E
-
a
N
•o - - - - -
m o
`• L
c
d
m
c'
? a -
> -
7 -
7 °
a -
7
o
E E o v
E c c c c ° > > > > c c c o ° m '
> In _
in 2 2 2 m m m co m u. W 4 4 Q Q ¢ m ¢ m m M I M LL m LL 2 2
N
d
d
E
t0
R
U
O
O
L
a
o
2
R
d
t-

Table 5a. Bank Erosion Hazard Index Survey and Rank
Indian Run, Coddle Creek - Project Stream
Lower Reach - Confluence to Rocky River Road
e, .P•
4
Downstream
Station Upstream
Station BEHI Value
Right Bank Right Bank
Adjetive Rank BEHI Value
Left Bank Let Bank
Adjective Rank
20.5 50 32.7 High 34.0 High
50 100 31.6 High 31.6 High
100 125 31.9 High 33.1 High
125 150 34.1 High 29.5 Moderate
150 175 34.1 High 27.9 Moderate
175 200 33.0 High 27.8 Moderate
200 250 28.9 Moderate 32.4 High
250 300 23.1 Moderate 31.6 High
300 350 29.2 Moderate 25.5 Moderate
350 375 23.5 Moderate 26.2 Moderate
375 400 34.3 High 27.0 Moderate
400 450 30.8 High 24.8 Moderate
450 500 29.3 Moderate 26.4 Moderate
500 550 25.1 Moderate 30.9 High
550 600 34.1 High 23.7 Moderate
600 650 26.1 Moderate 30.4 High
650 700 28.2 Moderate 29.2 Moderate
700 750 25.7 Moderate 28.7 Moderate
750 800 27.0 Moderate 29.7 Moderate
800 850 29.6 Moderate 29.2 Moderate
850 900 25.9 Moderate 28.6 Moderate
900 950 28.1 Moderate 29.3 Moderate
950 1000 29.3 Moderate 28.0 Moderate
1000 1050 27.7 Moderate 30.4 High
1050 1100 29.6 Moderate 29.5 Moderate
1100 1150 28.0 Moderate 32.8 High
1150 1200 28.8 Moderate 32.7 High
1200 1225 30.8 High 29.1 Moderate
1225 1250 31.1 High 29.5 Moderate
1250 1300 29.3 Moderate 28.5 Moderate
1300 1325 31.0 High 28.5 Moderate
1325 1350 28.4 Moderate 27.1 Moderate
1350 1400 31.3 High 26.1 Moderate
1400 1450 29.7 Moderate 31.0 High
1450 1500 30.3 High 30.8 High
1500 1550 31.1 High 31.4 High
1550 1600 29.8 Moderate 29.9 Moderate
1600 1650 30.0 High 31.6 High
1650 1700 28.2 Moderate 29.2 Moderate
1700 1750 28.9 Moderate 28.3 Moderate
1750 1778 29.0 Moderate 29.2 Moderate
Table 5b. Bank Erosion Hazard Index Survey and Rank
Indian Run, Coddle Creek - Project Stream
Upper Reach - Rocky River Road to Station 2192
Downstream
Station Upstream
Station BEHI Value
Right Bank Right Bank
Adjetive Rank BEHI Value
Left Bank Left Bank
Adjective Rank
0 50 26.7 Moderate 26.8 Moderate
50 100 30.4 High 24.3 Moderate
100 150 26.9 Moderate 25.2 Moderate
150 200 31.0 High 22.9 Moderate
200 250 26.9 Moderate 37.1 High
250 300 24.9 Moderate 34.2 High
300 350 33.1 High 36.4 High
350 400 26.5 Moderate 24.2 Moderate
400 450 35.3 High 25.9 Moderate
450 500 28.3 Moderate 38.1 High
500 550 29.6 Moderate 38.5 High
550 600 28.6 Moderate 28.6 Moderate
600 650 23.7 Moderate 25.8 Moderate
650 700 30.6 High 32.3 High
700 750 29.6 Moderate 30.9 High
750 800 24.8 Moderate 26.3 Moderate
800 850 27.6 Moderate 37.9 High
850 900 25.7 Moderate 29.8 Moderate
900 950 33.7 High 28.0 Moderate
950 1000 31.0 High 30.4 High
1000 1050 29.7 Moderate 27.3 Moderate
1050 1100 27.5 Moderate 25.7 Moderate
1100 1150 23.6 Moderate 32.1 High
1150 1200 25.8 Moderate 28.9 Moderate
1200 1250 30.0 High 27.6 Moderate
1250 1300 28.2 Moderate 29.2 Moderate
1300 1350 27.7 Moderate 29.2 Moderate
1350 1400 24.8 Moderate 27.0 Moderate
1400 1450 29.1 Moderate 30.2 High
1450 1500 28.4 Moderate 27.7 Moderate
1500 1550 27.9 Moderate 30.5 High
1550 1600 31.4 High 27.3 Moderate
1600 1650 31.0 High 25.6 Moderate
1650 1700 26.9 Moderate 32.7 High
1700 1750 28.7 Moderate 33.5 High
1750 1800 26.3 Moderate 24.3 Moderate
1800 1850 37.7 High 28.3 Moderate
1850 1900 38.1 High 28.7 Moderate
1900 1950 36.9 High 24.8 Moderate
1950 2000 26.9 Moderate 34.0 High
2000 2050 27.2 Moderate 30.3 High
2050 2100 29.7 Moderate 30.0 High
2100 2150 28.0 Moderate 24.6 Moderate
2150 2192 25.6 Moderate 33.5 High
Table 6. Bank Erosion Hazard Index Survey and Rank
Reeds Cove Tributary - Reference Reach
Downstream
Station Upstream
Station BEHI Value
Right Bank Right Bank
Adjetive Rank BEHI Value
Left Bank Left Bank
Adjective Rank
0 50 18.1 Low 23.4 Moderate
50 75 21.6 Moderate 20.8 Moderate
75 100 20.2 Moderate 16.1 Low
100 150 17.8 Low 14.0 Low
150 200 17.4 Low 21.8 Moderate
200 225 21.9 Moderate 19.0 Low
225 250 22.7 Moderate 14.8 Low
250 275 20.2 Moderate 18.5 Low
275 300 15.8 Low 19.7 Low
300 350 16.7 Low 17.0 Low
350 400 18.2 Low 18.8 Low
400 450 21.5 Moderate 18.5 Low
450 500 20.8 Moderate 17.3 Low
500 550 20.2 Moderate 19.7 Low
550 600 19.7 Low 21.7 Moderate
600 650 16.9 Low 22.1 Moderate
650 700 21.7 Moderate 20.5 Moderate
700, 750, 18.2 Low 17.1 Low
750 800 18.1 Low 15.6 Low
C
O
LU
U)
a1
C
cc
C
d
L.
t
U
V•?
O
N
d
E
W
h
Q?
v v w
rnW O a o r
tc9 C)
L N N N
E
U .
cm
LO
Ln
CD
5 a,
co
^
0
0 CA
N
? 00 M M
0 W Q M M N

ca C <
L .
U
N_ C
N
O 0 v r-
M
O N N ?-

C O
Q O O O
O O O
N O O O
O
C O O
O O O
O O
C: O
O O O
a.
.a Gr
C) Q) ,., In to In
E w ui
N ui
N cD
N

a

U*) 7 M
N N N
N N
n CD
L
- a
Y Q /
U.)
1L?n
T
W
r- m v F,
N 1_
N
M
m C)

w M
Y D .
C N N 0
CS N
m
LO L
m X ?.

?C .]C
U U Y

U
U U
c
0
0
0 a
a)

0 > j
a
i

> > U-
a: cc N
c C: 0)
c ? ?
a a
C C
O O
O O
O O
co N
d N
c C
L c_-
0) C)
O O
CA O)
c r
? C)
c ? ? E
c c )
0 o Un 0
aaa) 0
m a? a) E
u a E 'm
m a) ? c
a) a) - cIJ
w 0 L
U U ? C
fn fA • L '
0000

Table 8. Designated Vegetative Community
r
u

2 me ?c
c
m
` 0
°
ya
, m
J Q 2
Q

d
m ?
m

.0 2
O
O

C 0
V
J o

/ N
? y
a
0)0
m
O
Acer rubrum x Red maple Bare-root,
containerized 24-,60- 8'
Aesculus sylvatica x Painted
Buckeye Containerized 4'-6-
Alnus serrulata x x Tag alder Bare-root,
containerized 8,
Asimina triloba x x Pawpaw Containerized 8'
Betula nigra x River birch Containerized
Callicarpa americana x x Beautyberry Containerized 6'
Calycanthus tloridus x Sweet-shrub Containerized 4-6'
Celtis laevigata x Sugarberry Bare-root 24" 8'
Cephalanthus x x Button bush Live stake 4'
occidentalis
Clethra alnitolia x x x Sweet
Pepperbush Containerized 4'
Comus amomum x x Silky dogwood Bare-root,
live stake 24-,18-24- 8' 18"
Diospyros virginiana x Persimmon Bare-root,
containerized 24" 8'
Fraxinus pennsylvanica x Green ash Bare-root,
containerized 8'
Itea virginica x x Virginia willow ake,
Live
st 4'
p
g
Jugians nigra x Black walnut Bare-root, 10,
containerized
Lindera benzoin x Spicebush Contaiine
rized, 4-6'
g
plu
Liriodendron tulipi/era x Yellow poplar Containerized 8'
Morus rubra x Red mulberry Containerized 8'
Nyssa sylvatica x Black gum Bare-root, 24" 8'
Containerized
Platanus occidentalis x Sycamore Bare-root,
containerized 24" 8'
Populus deltoides x Cottonwood Live stake, 8,
containerized
Quercus nigra x Water oak Bare-root, 24" 81
containerized
Quercus phellos x Willow oak Bare-root, 24-,60- 8', 8'
containerized
Salix sericea x x Silky willow Live stake 18-24" 18"
Sambucus canadensis x x x Elderberry Containerized, 18"-2'
plug, live stake
Staphylea trilolia x Bladddernut Conta
ine
rized, 4-6'
p
g
Symphoricarpos x x x Coral-berry Live stake, 18-24"
18"
orbiculatus plug
N
C)
ca
E
W
E
()
cn
co
N
C)
C
O
N
cm
c4
IL
co
CD
W
J
Q
F-
Y
C O m
C
-
ca
M `?
Q) c cz
E ro 0 m
LO
E O IL U N
ro
c In Y O
c w r
65 N m N
m
U O
22 rocm
C ¢ C) co
C) .= cz U N
O ca d O N

N

c ? N
ai w
m

m
c
°? c
>
w c ca
r
d co m U
C O
0
C) h C7 0 U
I-L C:
a) d
m
c C S
co C)
M w
rn >
cEu m m
0

E
, a ci 0
N
ro
c co Y O
C N
fn U m N
(n C? cr,
m 2 2 c co

Q d co cz
ca=co U
O
O O CO
N =3 M

M°'
a)
0) cc>
ro c
? -p m U M
C 7 .
-
N 00 U O
0 N N d
C3 m
Y
C C m .
C
C13
M
N E c>a v)

E
r ca O
W n ti M
cn
Q) CZ O (n Y O
C
cn 42, m N
C)
C

Q ca c
d >
C c c
¢ _ co
L N
C
O O Ch
M a C
C;

N d

m _
m T

O C C >
c?
Q N 'D CL U
0 O
0
?-
C
0
m U
C •-
m
R
O
cc
L
d
7
E
Y
V
O
1d
O
.a
Q
.?r
V
ca
O
CL)
a
a
M
LO
N
11
m
C
c
E-L
U
M
CL
E
C
O
a
Q
O
O
O
M
I I
N
C)
N
c r
1
U)
N
U
U
O
c
O
U
C
O
U
E
0
U
O
n.
E
co
(000)
Co - d
(0 LO 0
s
U
C y
U Y
m C
c m
n E
O d
O j _
LL m (n
N
ca
m
c
.c
as
CL
Y
C
O ?
C Q

C3
LO _
E c ca
co

E ms' co
M ca
2 rL 0)
O
CZ co N O
co
N 7 M (n w
(n y m N
cn
C'
C\j
c

Q (1)

? cz
_ m
C O Cl)

N
a

m r-
m r
m
a)
O >

(Z C
m

Q
co _

a? v
C j co 00 U 0 (D
N N LL U d
m m
I
I
I C
i E c d
co ca co
?
IL
Y M
1 m
{
ca ? C\j
L cC (. co
L CL r
I m
I
? C
I C '_
n$a n
O c0
i O U
L C
{ N
m
Hydrologic Features:
Lake/Pond
Stream
Building Footprints
Topographic Contours:
50' Contours
10' Contours
ti
tt
lf1
M
Transportation:
Highways
Minor Paved
Gravel
Railroad

z
Restoration Site M
M
Indian Run L'
Tributary to
Coddle Creek
(H U C #03040105-020010)
Lat.: 35.33886
Long.: 80.59524 z

80.616670 VW WGS84 80.5
z
0
O
O
O
N
It
to
M
i
o
M
m
LEGEND
80°36.000' W
rlJ/
z

z
WGS84 80°35.000' W
LEGEND a.._
? -?
D
?
I
? .?oloQi<Ftoturel- d
' IncorporvtedA-
' - .?
Lake/VOnd RCr`ef
Sirenm I
1 `- 1

?/
- `
* ?1 ?iyy j 1 }. LandcoVtr
F or<tr<d i.<ne
? ? cleared Lond
Ilu la,n
Foorpr?ms ?
4
y
,?
? ? ,iii - Trnnsoortation:
I
A +n?a?voee

Restoration Reach I Restoration Watershed

N
(? ?
80036.000' W WGS84 80035.000'W
MN TN 0 5 i MILE
7tti? 000 FEET 0 500 1000 METERS
Pdnted tlom TOPO! 02001 National Geographic Holdings (www.topo.oom)
Indian Run Restoration Figure 2a. Watershed January 2006
M let CMOY[
H.? .: Project in Cabarrus County Topographic Map for the
„n ,`Eqrm
NCDENR# D5004S Indian Run Catchment HDR# 09177-12850-018
P'naww r.R. - .?iY1i n,aet.. I
I
LEGEND
Boundary of the Indian Run
Restoration Reach Drainage Basin
?
??i
N .? }
a SA?F -
F ? ? ifh a??t -
r?
P
- t
?• '?' ,s
46
4
P _ t
s .. k%
40 MIN
4- •'
Scale
0 .5 1.0 mile
r` Indian Run Restoration Figure 2b. High Altitude January 2006
H•R Project in Cabarrus County Infrared Aerial Photo 1998)
A?s=??,. ,
R-ORAPON Rt ,..,. ,..... NCDENR# D5004S of the Indian Run Catchment HDR# 09177-12850-018
PRa=R.M .. ..a....
LEGEND
Landcover Groups
Pervious (89.1 %)
0 Deciduous Forest
- Conifer Forest
Scrub/Shrub
Fields/Lawns
Ponds
Impervious (10.9%)
Buildings
Asphalt Roads
Bare/Gravel/Concrete
------
Restoration Watershed
Restoration Reach
vvu??
0 .5 1.0 mile
n?r?rp. Yq.
MM F
of IM broNnn
RES fC«. ? ron
NJ&
PrK>-nor. ... -

Indian Run Restoration Figure 2c. Landuse
Project in Cabarrus County Classification for the
NCDENR# D5004S Indian Run Catchment
2006
HDR# 09177-12850-018
i•
1•
LeL end

?\_Q
Symbol Soils Name and (loss Slope Gh f "Y, / @n15 '? } vru y
Aall Altavista sandy load 2 to 6 percent slopes err' 1 E RB`'
Apll Appling sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes Gtr Q r l ?POF?
Ar Armenia loam, _:. `' n, IFaF r
Bab Badin channery sift loam 2 to 8 percent slopes Ga D END
BoD Badin channery silt loam 8 to 15 percent slopes
Baf Bodin channery silt loam 15 to 45 Percent dopes E aD _
Pof
QB2 Cecil sandy day loam 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded I pfe @ l _ y a 2 Paf
CcD2 Cecil sandy clay loam 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded IdA Ja G e B 1 u D 2 C J?
(e8 Cecil-Urban laid complex 2 to 10 percent slopes 8 A 1 'Gh GyrD 2 - l
(h Chewado sandy loam frequently flooded ? 1-1 l ( uUU _ -i } (xe a
(all Coronaco day loam 2 to 8 percent slopes GcD 21 [oD (aonam day loam B to 15 percent slopes GOB E.78
CuB2 Cullen clay loam 2to8 percent slopes, eroded GeD 21- 1 ' f ErtA^?
? Gu&.? '•..:",'•_
CuD2 Cullen day loam 8to 15 percent slopes, eroded r Pap I pdeB ?w' ErrB ) 1 I
EnB Enon sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes
EnD Enonsandy loam 8to1S percent slopes Ud aF Erg Eir GtrB??"
EoB [non-Urban land complex 2 to 10 percent slopes Err6 RD ,Ln$? Gtr,
GeB2 Georgeville silty day loam 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded ?- t r eD 2 ' aF' _
GoC Goldston very channery silt loam 4 to 15 percent slopes CUD
Gof Goldston very channery silt loam 15 to 45 percent dopes D er fl E RD?.
Hell Herndon silt loom 2 to 8 percent slopes
HWB Hiawassee day loam 2 to 8 percent slopes ?D WA F aF E?8 PoF Ir
HwD Hiawassee day loam 8 to 15 percent slopes E rD GU D 2 E nE `"
IdA Iredell loam 0 to 2 percent dopes r D ti j '
Erb FaF Gt1
r 1 i Gu02
frill Iredell loom 2to6 Percent slopes lt?e @
y +? ? ?.GtrB7
BkB Kirksey silt loam I to 6 percent slopes
Me6 Mecklenburg loam 2 to B percent slopesS _ p, -? r? ("1€ ?D aF
L. Li
11 Pof aB `? C !d8
dA
MeD Mecklenburg loam B to 15 percent slopes Pe E 3 + - L E rrB a.0 1?
MkB Merklonburg-Urbon land complex 2 to 10 percent slopes pile D Gv D COB Are D
MsA Misenheimer channery silt loam 0 to 4 percent slopes L
Pal' Paalet sandy loam 15 to 35 percent slopes
PcE3 Pa(olet-Udorthents complex 12 to 25 percent slopes, gullied I !t {? fGLZ 2 J
Poll Poindexter loam 2 to 8 percent slopes Cu D2)
PoD Poindexter loan 8 to 15 percent slopes E (TB
Pof Poindexter loan 15 to 45 percent slopes Cu B 2
SIB Sedgefieldsandy loam 2to8percent dopes Pof' --? '
Tall Tatum silt loam 2 to 8 percent slopes a6 ?1B En8
1aD Tatum silt loam 8 to 15 percent slopesf j PaF'•? or, ? r,?p Gh J { rErt
TbB2 Tatum silt clay loam 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded ??" ?` I r I J
TbD2 Tatum silt clay loom B 1015 percent slopes, eroded k Me @ Di t ' - FaF ?ErrB ' "D r' ` ?1
Ud Udorlhents, loamy rrD 1 CuG? D
Ur Urban land Indian Run
Va6 Vance sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes 8 2
VaD Vance sandy loom 8 to 15 percent slopes Ve@ Gh' % ,ERestoration Reach Catchment,
We Wehadkee loam hequently flooded ua _(
W Water ?? + r ?
i-------i
Restoration Watershed
Restoration Reach

Scale
0 .5 1.0 mile
?Me D
DI
r` Indian Run Restoration Project Janua 2006
°?' Figure 3a. Area Soils Map of the
ry
rATW?NAssEssmENTANo In CabarruS County Indian Run Restoration Reach
0? c I HDR# 09177- 12850-018
_.-_.. . I ,,, :; NCDENR# D5004S
to ?i 75
?t

Cross Section
mqd
Qmnoortl plubvn
LEGEND
my
mqd Metavolcanic Rocks mm Metamorphic Mafic Suite
sb Silicified Breccia DOgd Granodiorite
DScs Syenite of Concord Plutonic Suite q Quartzite
DScgb Gabbro of Concord Plutonic Suite C Contact Metamorphic Rocks
my Metavolcanic Rocks mqdp Metamorphosed Tonalite Porphyry
DSsg Granite of Salisbury Plutonic Suite Qal Quaternary Gravel, Sand & Silt Deposits
?
Indian Run Restoration Figure 3b. Area Geologic Map Manua 2006
January
°""•
H r_
J Project in Cabarrus County for the Indian Run Catchment

0
0
a°F«MtH*.?
R ?., tlr ?tem
I
NCDENR# D5004S x 2
Quad-
(source "Geologic Map of the Charlotte 1
rangle, North Carolina and South Carolina" by R. Gold-
HDR# 09177-12850-018
Puy=p.MK - - •,wow smith- D- Milton and J. W. Horton. Jr.)

I•
•

I0
?0
Yadidn-Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-11
MF1fFY 1
\ti
A J
1 Comek s
t
1 Hr>berwtge
1
MECKLOVOURG
O SIT ftOWEy
An*w t Naioriro Sbftn
c FYh Comwnla &don
® FMh 71e 8leron
?ol?hrOw
? rya
_. Mna
N
n f nd ReWd
NO oo,
P*WY PALO
"Odpaly
N
WT 11 fl, I

97. SSB-2 ?!r
Davidson /
&1
t "nnepdis
., ?.
QMAMM
91
Concord
lr A7s
n
65
7
'Indian Run
Restoration Reach Catchment
" HpRiBbUrg F-2
` 54 ? 6 / 53 51 /r
con
/ WMEWR
X37 Dint' •N , PlrmmmtB"Mch
HiB Ba mwide Plu mmt Prim Unit
Minch 21, 2003
Indian Run Restoration Project Figure 4. Restoration Catchment January 2006
HAerer
in Cabarrus County within the NC Subbasin 03-07-11 - -- ---
A;:E Eve .?NCDENR# D5004S (Yakdin-Pee Dee River)
HDR# 09177-12850-018
PRCRXMM n -
d Areas
nd
1
lion:
1
I Printed gam TOPOI 02001 Ndioral Geopepke HokbW (www.topoxom)
„E„?,,,,,,,,o rN.- Indian Run Restoration Figure 5. Reference January 2006
HABITAT
°'Project in Cabarrus County
Ass,e ss+.. "? ??? I l?t1 NCDENR# D5004S Site Vicinity Map HDR# 09177-12850-018
Ri iwu u.w viii
PFOGPI.M •. -
80052.000' W 80051,000' W WGS84
ttm -.1:=...,., k r` Indian Run Restoration Project Figure 6. Reference Site Watershed Map, January 2006
• ?s in Cabarrus County West Fork Reeds Creek, Iredell Co.
:I - I ?T i NCDENR#D5004S HoRnosn7-izsso-ois
rN 0 S I MILE
7° 000 FEET 0 506 1000 METERS
Imm
Printed from TOPOI 02001 National GeVapluc HoldirV (www.topo.com)

}
C
m GtC2
•
O `CCC3'
S NOS
, 0162

III • C2
• ' fo At92
-A CtB3

• '' 1 fi b, r

a _ 1
{I _ µ

• ` t
` - y

a

[w V
? 'Gfii

Reterence Reach
West Fork Reeds Creek ;
(now an early successional -
• forested site with recovered
^t ktl F t rh I
?
??"
7 41

?jll?
d ?
c182
p 5000 Feet
•
AsB2: Appling sandy loam, 2-6% slopes, eroded Cm62: Cecil sandy loam, 6-10% slopes, eroded
AsC2: Appling sandy loam, 6-10% slopes, eroded CsE2: Cecil soils, 15-25% slopes, eroded
CcC3: Cecil clay loam, 2-6% slopes, severely eroded Cw: Chewacla soils
CfB2: Cecil fine sandy loam, 2-6% slopes, eroded Lo: Local alluvial soils
• CfC2: Cecil fine sandy loam, 6-10% slopes, eroded Mm: Mixed alluvial soils
HIM „?„E?...,.p..? r` Indian Run Restoration Figure 7. Soil Map for Reference
•
H... Project in Cabarrus County Reach, West Fork Reeds Creek,
• "" '"`?'""" '"`?J? NCDENR# D5004S Iredell Co. N.C.
R. r.:4wr..., 1k?
2006
HDR# 09177-12850-018
0

N
?o
CL
CD w
a
0
?' w a
W =r
O
O w
IR
w
o W
to

CD Lri
w w w
w
p
LfI
W Ln
.A
m w
1 o
° -n
xj (D
, a W
9 s .' 0 1 W cn
R"s w
w cn
w Ln
Qn
W w
i ?" w ?
Lnn IOIR w
' w Lq
a: ? z
1 w ;o NO
OR
?t \
w
?
w Ln
w ^ v'
- ? -4
o
O 1 W ' cn
Z CD Q Ln
m 0 0
W Lo W
? w Lo Ln w OR
Lq Cn
Ln U1 W
" CD W Ln UI)
O ccn .N-. / w .. OR w u,
cn p .0-? o r (W W
C
VI l?
(n W
o
-n w -- W
CD Bra, Ln
S ? C ? W -WP
CD' 70? w
IN ,oN w
w
•
Z W? c.n
(ID
n to CD,
w
-
O CD (.n
N
d
n CD
n d o
w A
I
8

CD CD c CD w
m TJ D
d
CL

Vi
0 C: CL

m / m m
CD
n r

m
G)
W
-? I N

cn m
O
O

co

m
r o

?
8
8 C?
8
°
a
i _ (D I
n
Oo ?o
N
Q)
O

2
N
C V
? Z
O) C
3
vtni -
o_ as
C- d
0 0 o
V
M Y
as
? d
as G.1
v
C N
a? 'fl
`
s d
a
? d
Y

o p
'X °° ? O
cx?
LL-

n 0 r
c
° n o rn
a v? Q vR• ? L A
O
C 3 c
01 U
y C
c
w ot
d
Ems?
a
l ?
u
c C
II
V
°
C
D y 11 C
ot°
G C =

..i `
p O v
CV .
O r Q
l
° O N
O` II cD C..) O
o Ii W c C
)
o
O LL
W o
O
N
LL W
C
C C C ? c
V ?
O O p
; U W
U

cn
.?• Q?

o U
?+ ` N c C

U 0
?
K
X n
K o a)
h? C o Z
L
Q ? L t L
n
Q
a L L L
nn u ° II CL
? a
fi
p01 O ? O ? m y u
Q m >
? Q x 6 ?
> P
y a) i Q a1 ?
I
A ry I C C Y Y
? ?
a) m a] ? I
II m 0] Q) -
A A
cc cc
cc
N N N Y R,
al ? ? a) o ,? ? o
r
>

O
w ]
IT
w O
>
o O
..

r v ??
U oh u NW)
y
a io y
t 11 N C4 y
II 'O 'Q 1 1
N j. : 1
a)
a) ?
CD t
A a)
. ,
? m w i?dd
cc Q cc
Y Y Q Q
> >
C C
,a ,a
m m
N Y Y
C C
m m
N Y Y

m m
N
N N N
W O l!I O Iii O
0 0 ?' m w a?
'(11) u011en013 o o m m rn o
^(11) UOIJUA013 0 o c? c? rn rn
(u) UOIJUA@13

N
N C?
g O
O W
O N
N
'-
?
c n
co
C
13 O
C
y 4t
O
S
vi
O ?

U
? O
N U
o a

o
o ti s
?? U d
t
U
c0 Y
? O)

N
a>, -p
a`a as
a? as
Y

o v O
N
n
n 0 c n
%? O ? A ?
n 0 d
O O vC 4.
u ?i c C c u c
du
Q
_ f6
d
or yd d
L
w c E
o
c

C e
u Ic
O. o
O
u C o
uv
° c - cn

a ` 11
O
«
o 9
0 0
O (D U
0 O O
O C_
C

at O
C
u w 3? O
G
U. w
p
N 2L
,
u w
a? - o
c c c a
O O O U Z
u
d U
« u U
d ?.? Q
? ? co ..-.
U
I r• I ,C ?
? o! I v
y c .

Pf
?
N o
? l
11
L

u ,
, n L
L
U °,I ?
L L
u tr a

g a

d n
co
p ? am CL m
01 W Q
C 0
C) _
cc
x m >
m Q d .> d 2 a
C
C

_
22

YY 22 (D
YY
_
r
m m d

m
co N t0 w

mm rJ
m
m
cc
cn (n U)
o V t _
i ti
GI
7 CD
7 d
> n9

«
O ?N O Yv O ny Ya ?
N r of (0 N ,°o ' 1 a 3
u L 11 Ql II d L II ? ^ '? ? ? i
n
« a
cc ?? V 2 a cc
?
?
ti ? Y Y
Y Y
A m
mm
r C
mm C C
m m
N O
W
0 o m rn rn rn
(y) uol)ena13
Vl N
W U O IL O
0 o Grn'l 0) ? ?
^(y) u011en013 O o ? ? ? ?
(y) UOIIEA013
C
O
?
o co
o
cli
(6 I`
C
cm)
d'
O

°
o
Y
O

m U ?
N C

d

m cc
? Y C
O J
d LL
h V

CO U
C
(D (D
Q
o ?-
N = W
LL Q
j
I O =
(n
M L)
? Vf O
r n N 2 ?
u m

L) :Z
»
C
_
C ._
CO
? .O z
? d
C
8 O

N
o -

roo
i
Z(Z4
N
N

W

Q

O

O
Q
a
yte
,,
O
8
N O t'1 N m
(u) uogenal3
SHEET I
EXISTING CHANNEL OR SITE CONDITIONS

rd
-
LEGEND
-t..,111?.?,, ! 4 ? EJ
10' Contour Intervals '
w
2' Contour Intervals ?\11?111 1
/
71
w11 e 1
r-
Stream Alignment' y
4. Y ?.
K?
>i
I r
Index Areas for
Other Figures I
j
1
- r +t
r
Base: Cabarrus Co. GIS Ortho hoto raPh _
P 9 Y
1
R
, t`
f ' MFG - i r
7
J
r-?
. f t
?r
ON
0%
001-
e ,
1 '+?? :
?i
.{ r
;.r.. ? ? \ •}F ? ??/1?. _ ! Ili ? :!'.
ev I?
V 40
004

M
!
%
1 rilllh??, ,
7
,b
_ k, tr
;?' fl!?4ns` - ???? - .E?? '<roif *•- I; i- •l. ?` 1, ',? ,,M!':. ? _ :t,;. ,4.
f ?.
v
Y i. !.
- ?I
s -
!
r? -
,
Y• e C. l
100 20 300 400 500 feet
0
•x4
3
.1
a.
s e` ?s ). "R a Approx. Scale
NOSE^.^~?"'°•'? r, Indian Run Restoration January 2006
? otlh?CaroNna? Figure 10a. General Site
H 1911AI Project in Cabarrus Count
As cGSMCNTAND h° em Y Nip and Index Sheet
RESTORATION I??a? HDR# 09177-12850-018
Pk!>;?AM?..._. NCDENR# D5004S
1+ ?
\ 6.
"=F=9
0 ,(W 200feet ` +------ -ANi
p
Approx. Scale '" 3?...
lit
WN
of;Rocky River Road
1
1.
#1
3.12
NI:
SOO
OO R 9
! ?? !?,5?
n
?? NJB m na r
_ r
?E
SOS
f a e ?, .M1 9 ?; a?
w^. 600 yI P? I rY ..F iii ? J
?( r
ate.
?a ,w t r
i
.,o coyae ee. Ana ee,
w
01,
v.? 5 4
40, 1
d
HOREipMreelrq.hc ?1-
0 Baf
i i? Indian Run Restoration Figure 10b. Planform 11bp of the January 2006
HABITAT Project in Cabarrus County Lower 1810' Channelized Reach
A55E5$hFNT AND .it- llrh& RtsICMATKM NCDENR# D5004S of Indian Run Se ment 1 HDR# 09177-12850-018
PRROGIMM ?K. _ I ° ti -11, -PROGRAM g

..

. FM
.
() Al CA 100 200
N
Geometric 50'
Buffer from Top
of Bank
450
457.4
A-3 Q
X
Longitudinal
Station 0+00
I
w.M

• el-
•
J11 y81
A-t 947.1
•I
•
731..
•
A-2
Boundary of 3.1 Acre
Conservation Buffer
-k 0

•

•

1A A-6
(
Ice
®1
A-4
-
445• rt
41l
•
!•

•• ; cv.a
BM # 1
A-1 q
• _ 242
43
60 ft Right-of-Way
Legend
c•t
Photo Mosaic Area
Color-Coded BEHI Index
Upper Right Bank ! Green - Stable Banks
Lower Right Bank O Yellow - Moderately Stable Banks
Lower Left Bank ! Orange - Unstable Banks
Upper Left Bank ! Red - Extremely unstable Banks
Centerline of Rocky River Road
Indian Run Restoration Figure IOc, Bank Erosion Hazard Index, January 2006
Project in Cabarrus County
NCDENR# D50045 Segment 2, Indian Run HDR# 09177-12850-018
erg
n ",0
H
eo
Confluence Station 71
92
END
t
C-3 t 7100
•()
1011.E a j__

lees -
Zon C •• •"
r-2
195.9 _
IW4
0
1 fl-W

7,14 ?;abions
n•
T
I,
y
'
Geometric 50
Buffer from Top

of Bank
• Boundary of 2.9 Acre

-
--- Proposed
- ,? 1 Conservation Buffer
•O ••
%

.•
N
1444
N
1395.5 -
1309
\ Zone B AB4 •
f •
Bedrock
Zone B
17.IG? ?+^° ?` Indian Run Restoration
Project in Cabarrus County
NCDENR# D5004S
Legend
m c-'
Photo Mosaic Area
Color-Coded BEHI Index
Upper Right Bank • Green - Stable Banks
Lower Right Bank O Yellow - Moderately Stable Banks
Lower Left Bank • Orange - Unstable Banks
Upper Left Bank • Red - Extremely Unstable Banks
Feet
0 25 50 100 200
10d, Bank Erosion Hazard January 2006
Segment 3, Indian Run HDR# 09177-12850-018
i
C
O
t1
m
N
N
N
O
V
C
C
A
'O
C
y CS) 'nal3
C4
? n
t
A
r?
?e
IL W ;
8= ?
N ?
al?•lm
II II N
11
B
aa€
a
0 22$
? ?a33
G b
N
It
i
m
i
R
A II
II
s ??r
3 C+
W W ;
ac
N
11 11 N
cb.E
<i
C
O
C
e?
R?
1^ II
mW
Q
m
9
C C
_O O
?1 $ V
m
y
8
Co
%
T
cc I ?
2
C-) o
a R W
Em', c ¢
C E 1 ca co
Co v v
m a C U
C n N C N LD
NN E o o 3
^I?i cu U
.- 3 eC? N LL
=3
c c
e S
LLW?. 3 8
OL y ) C
II 11 N m U Z
{n me ? c cw ".
'?>c m w c Z
o
g ?_aa mm a
A Y C w
?c y
m 7
m
o $ L m
Ru Q) O J
II ? L
?^ X n p?p? ppL
m E ? e?
c
m
a
cm
lO L
mH
N N
N N
O O
V V
C C
7 7
C C
A ?0
'O 9
C C
RxMHa
(){) "n913 (4)'A913
s
N
SC „
H O r
a
y ? 11
$Q e
aIII
3 h
j O
V
N r N
11 11 N
611
d
o Cad
I to
ch E
Q 4
a8 2:9
N O
rro nM N
?Ipp A
Iy H A H
H
it 0 CIO
3 m co
E? i ° E
y? I
g
xr I rr
is
n M1N? -... N +tV ? U
??' 11 11 - 1 ! II II N RS
C II L II N
N oiE a d1E
ca-
as o i Q
71 1
?IB3 ? ?? ?r?3 C
m II; cc
Cc O ?v C
pop a r o m ?O
N? O N Intl r
M H '! 11
o Q)
c `Bi?mrn ?? c c
aB 00 'A813 ac c
8

-
W n
A II
$ 11 0 ce
N LJ
11
O
H
ry
N I t I
II N O C
y U?
C H
3 c E- o
nU ao
C 11
[L- tcu;
Y
'c c

m
in

G C

C C
Q
c9i
a
Y!
O
V
o
il-?
A813
9

+ N N ?
O OD
N Y
H 11 V M 10 ?
1.1 N tU
MIN ?
11 N
I
a y N
i
O

C
cbE
N a0. Q
d
p
o c E
faa

d
Cry @C Y.
? R R ? 9
? ? m
c IC:
m R

1' I
I
N ?. win
W
C
O
w
rm C
O
:7
rQ
w
d I !
? .. o a
o g? m o
N?

N
o , i.

. II 11 y

0 II 11

3a
V I,,_l J_L l.. o ? ? ?
m?irn8i?? c c
92 c A
(U) 'A813 (8) 'A813 m m
0
0
0
T
0
0
N
a
i
0
0
00
0
0
'IT
0
M C M C`am') N N N (D CN
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
(4) UOII@nO13
d
m
c LU
v C)
Z
C O
a
LL cn

m-
°o
FT a
Ln
LO ? Ln
(u) 313 MH
- ?v co
_ r
N Q
CD 0
co
N N
fu ~
N C Q
u ! Q
?NN
Q
2
Q?
co
?• Q7
C N
O
J O
C
- n CU N
C ?T
O U - O
?
O
T
c ?
o
N , U)
0
A !/J 7 LO
U N
C ?$
U Z
N-
oo
(r d
-1 o
LO N

LEGEND
Meander
Wavel 1219.34 ft
a
ength
I `
Meand
er
Belt Width
' 1'
I

1063
Meander 7
Radius of Curvature

R 459.71
„-'L
983.1
`.a.a',as ?srw
can s-
ISbbondpenoe:
xlhv??NvPem)nnl
947.1
R 297.46 -
919 2
Reach Length ¦ 1085 ft
Valley Length a 843.4 ft R 388.52 -
Sinuosity m 1.48
Average Radius of Curvature m 41.4 ft R 279.24 790.4 867
Average Meander Wavelength m 113.0 ft 851 2
Meander Belt Width a 101.6 ft 767.9 1818.18 ft
R 357.59 -
731,7

670
1642.11 ft
2060.48 ft
i
600
'
R 641.79
Op , 2176.78 ft
563
1215.21 ft
R 233.41 - i
533.2
493 513]
R 62.54 459
451.4 404.3
R 156.22 729.15 ft
R 111.84 432 ' 379.2 933.41 ft
351 I r
R 177.63

R 271.74 30

1420.30 ft
269.8
R 373.60 -
1. So
235 1225
08 ft IF
.
187.7
R 57.19 176.
R 112.84 - 168.8 '
R 133.53 96
142
5
.
31 1068.79 ft
R 214.25 i
x 624.20 ft
rn
43 n
N
.
W
Longitudinal Station 0+00 a OIuq
vv,odHIT, Feet
0 25 50 100 200

. ry Indian Run Restoration Figure I Oi, Planform Morphology of Restoration Reach January 2006
• Project in Cabarrus County
• above Rocky River Road ($t, 0 ' 163 ft)
?.•• ~ 11 I ri ;n ; ululf NCDENR# D5004S
HDR# 09177-12850-018

j j
Reach Length ¦ 1129 ft
valley Length • 636.4 ft END Profile Station 21 +92
Sinuosity ¦ 1.36
Average Radius of Curvature 29.2 ft 2150.2 2192
Average Meander Wavelength 116.6 ft
Meander Belt Width a 129.9 ft Confluence R 21.8
R 173
R 12.6 _ 2100
1934 1943 2009.5
R 7.0 I 2069.2
1967 R 34.4
108.4 ft
1885 116.7 ft 102.8 ft
R 13.2 ? 11 10
1859 1842 76.3 ft
R 18.2 -
I
111.9 ft
1800 128.5 ft
17786
R 37.4
1744.73abions
R 22.7
R 13.5
17132
1622.8 1678
R 65.5
93.1 h
15,93 ./
I
122.2 ft
1
1551
106.7 ft
R 18.3 1507
I
113.9 ft
1444
R 67.4
I
182.0 ft
1 395.6
164.1 ft
t 309 R 30.9 1
1275
R 25.5
I I
t2a&
R 32.0 1200 86.4 ft
1083.9 Bedrock
Milli
1063
I
1161 R52.9 .i
iris
R 34.1
95.4 ft 140.5 ft

NN
129.9 k _ T
Feet
0 25 50 100 - - --- 200
r? Indian Run Restoration Figure 10j. Planform Morphology of Restoration Reach January 2006
wA"?, v Project in Cabarrus County
above Rock River Road St. 1063 2192 ft., a o. tfy' 11;1 it„ci_c ` NCDENR# D5004S y j HDR# 09177-12850-018
SHEET 2
DESIGNED CHANNEL ALIGNMENT
•
LEGEND
Meander4aadu45fkurvature f r' Limbs of "f fix: Q _ - r , 15 to
n erirte of Rocky River Road
Floodpl-in Bench e
jj`? _ -1 y 94 p u
/ ? /? - Limits of Excavation ADM iF
Bankfull Channel LL
Excavation
Meander Ben Width 543.12 f
(approx. 80 ft)
-; •1 ?. ; ° t , ,6P
i
",an "o,
I
L Y
Centerline / / o°SeNailoP 'J t I
of New Channel / / it and d w afti sway
/ / prolac j
1 I? b V ?? I
4?
/..!r I _ ,• ,fd
Construcbd Riffle Rock Vane with & Brush mattres used Rootwaids used
Zone with without Extended for Habitat and for Habitat and
Rock Sill Rack Sill Bank Stabilization Bank Sfedl¢ation ` ?• 1 .x S F9"" '? N "'
f-
r ? s
go,
,v --'
00
i
lop _ A
-.-mr
1154 00
00
d
/ ?. 000
00
00 wo 00
a 1
100 11 4,
46
, 782 c 1 ` y r !.
,
l 9
11 r ..
7 Boundary of 6.0 Acre )
B,
I !eGti Conservation Buffer
?t r tot /
k
Indian Run ,.
r % 4 0 Lower 1878' Restoration too #sot
r r? ?.? Reach u? t . C1 6
1tx f ?T ' ''? / 40 db ft radius of cnrralun
3e0 ? 70 80 it meander belt width
r
150 - 100 ft meander wavelength 1
150 ft wide restoration corridor
(to Include, existing channel) I' ^
p cam.
e /' ` • Now channel ali nwent to be I
g e
r ~\ 4 constructed off-line, with minimum -
13 h separation from old channel
?
A
for construction access.
0 200 feet
Approx. tale Vm, ..P
?•--Coddle Ck
HIR Indian Run Restoration Figure 11-a. Detailed Planform June 2006
HAsiTAT ? Project in Cabarrus County Design Indian Run, Coddle Creek
RLSIORATION sSESSWnrnm NCDENR# D5004S Confluence to Rocky River Road HDR# 09177-12850-018
"
PROGRAM W _.. Pe06rrue

I I
10" Black walnut
O \ (3) Boles, Cedar
LO 10' Hackyberry 6", 4', 4'
• Ephemeral Channel 12' Syacamore - 533.2 Leaning 6• Hackberry
Sy?amo e -
Conflueme 70' ?
/ .12' Black walnut
• I 1 i
J 137
12" Syacartare s• Ced ar f (2) Boles, Cedar 6', 4'?
• --- - _._.-- ---- - - --- - 493 10• Cedar
Legend 10' Sycamore 1' 12" Black walnut
459 4" Hackbeny
• 4' Water oak 8043 4 Hackberry
Larry n Crr k 1 4' Sycamore
45
. Top of Bank Tree Diameter, Type & Location M0" Dead-Ceda' 12" Sycamore- /
- `
Toe of Bank 12' Cedar ? t-o . - .432 g? 3792
Station Distance & Survey Point (3) Boles,
Cross Section Water oak
941 1 ? 4', 8", 6" 1
3
• (5) Boles, Sycamo 5
re
over re
Color Coded BEHI Index 4', 8', 8-, 4", 8' 18' g Hackberry
(_I caning over creek
. Upper Right Bank0 Green - Stable Banks (2) Boles, ll
Lower Right Bank. Yellow - Moderately Stable Banks w6-, 6 k s^ Black er walnut
10' Green en ash
Al
Lower Left Bank• Orange -Unstable Banks 6' Hackberry, 308 x
• Leaning 8' Black walnut
Upper Left Banks Red -Extremely Unstable Banks
10' Black walnut {. 8' Cedar
• / 8' Sweet gum';- 9.8
6- Hackbery 6" Water oak
10" Sweet gum - - - Zone A
• I • 35 6' Cedar, Leaning
• III 8" Cedar
8• Ham
4817 6' Cedar
12. Black walnut, Leaning
oO • i (4) Boles, Sycamore
• I /__ -__-l _?"_.. l ? 10-, 14 14', 14"
1769 1 8
`-r - ` 8- Cedar / J
I*
Scale
lllllllllll I Feet
0 25 50 100
N st. D

ABM#1
Legend
.1
--- Top of Bank
Toe of Bank
Cross Section
p Trees to be Preserved
p Tree Status to be Determined in
the Field
Q Trees likely to be Removed
Replanted Buffer Zone
Reshaped and Stabilized Banks
"Roof Constructed Bankfull Bench
Brush Mattress or Facines with
Soil Lifts
Root Wads
® Rock Vane
Rock Vane & Sill at end of
Constructed Riffle Zone
Di. Constructed Riffle Zone with
% Grade Control Sill
Photo Location Map
Legend
PWoM s-
:`1
?M-CANW FM 01 Vy
Confluence
A-30_.
Zone A
30
A-1 B
N
1611
17E 9
68a
;1. ?kc
0 25 50 1W
an.o.arr..
t'1Ae1TAT
.Ecosysaem
As:ESwerer wnm }
t
Pnoc M ,NC _ .. -- _ aeocwwr
Scale
Fee
0 25 50 100
N optil
of

Indian Run Restoration
Project in Cabarrus County Figure 11b-1. Conceptual Restoration Plan Zone A
- -
NCDENR# D5004S (With BEHI Index, Tree Map, & Photo Locations) HDR#
June 2006
09177-12850-018
Bedrock in Channel
4Y .,
_.._,,,. --
8" Sweet gum _ 1083 8- berry 4"', 14" Hackbeny

8' Black nut
• 10' S ore - 8" Ironwood
" 16' Sycamo 1
12
River
-
Feet --

I
•
0 25 50 100 10' Sweet gum
10" Sycamore 8" Sweet gum
• 72" Cedar
Q?
98 -,
. _X---SeC Fil ._ ? ..
--
V
V
12 Cedar Legend
V 10' Cedar ga ? 10" ackbeny
• Top of Bank Tree Diameter, Type & Location
•
10' Cedar 6` Hackberty
• 3", 4", 4", 6" Toe of Bank 12" Cedar
Station Distance & Survey Point
•
10" Black In (4 les, Ironwood
8" Sweet gum _ Cross Section 9471
(3) Boles, Cedar B', 8", 8'
6" ed
6' C
d 10' Green ash
:
'
Color-Coded BEHI Index
• e
ar
6' Cedar . 12
Cottonwood
6" Sweet gum
h 4" E1
4' Ri
bi Upper Right Bank • Green - Stable Banks
ver
rc -owe- Right Bank Ye'.mN - Mode-ate .v Stahe Banks
6' Cedar J
N
O

a• a
re3:
ios1?
F
eet
0 25 50 100
River birch . 4" River - 6 Cedar
• 10' Sweet g Lower Left Bank* Orange - Unstable Banks
8' RI b' h 12
ver ac
4" River Birch
10' River birch Upper Left Bank* Red - Extremely Unstable Banks
"
1* 6" River birch 4
10" River birch
"
-- --- -
18 Syacamore Black walnut
/_ . 10
Cedar Wa .d -t roan
• 12' Sweet gum
8" Sweet gum - 12" Southern red oak
10" Sweet gum
r
6' C
d
79
8" River birch 76 ?
e
a
• 74 Sycamore
10" Cedar
o
• 4' Water oak 10' Black wain
• 4" Water oak Black walnut
O 4" Ironwood
h? I
Photo Location Map
40
Legend
• Pnom Mw kNm . eB-4 1249
12
•
4 'Y
? ra 1063 831
u
m
u
t aw

• q
<.
w
. /
7..0 R ?m ^, n nn
61
7904
- 7.Z7,1 JO
Z 9"1
O&1 97711
Optimum Radius
of Curvature
(40-45')

V.
o s.erp..
,=a" m
Legend
Top of Bank
Toe of Bank
Cross Section
0 Trees to be Preserved
p Tree Status to be Determined in
the Field
Q Trees likely to be Removed
"Moe Replanted Buffer Zone
001111111111110 Reshaped and Stabilized Banks
Constructed Bankfull Bench
Brush Mattress or Facines with
Soil Lifts
Root Wads
Rock Vane
?••• Rock Vane & Sill at end of
Constructed Riffle Zone
4099 Constructed Riffle Zone with
Grade Control Sill
+Warer dt BYirMY
`JO
f? F-
0 50 W
C' Indian Run Restoration
„AB„AT Project in Cabarrus County Figure 11b-2. Conceptual Restoration Plan Zone B
=?`s "' A iOOSstem NCDENR# D5004S (with BEHI Index, Tree Map, & Photo Locations)
Rr.SrORATRIN
P'n, RAM --
j
I
June 2006
H D R# 09177-12850-018
l
Is
- - - Ephemeral Channel
Legend Confluence
• ztoo
_ Top of Bank Tree Diameter, Type & Location
12" Cedar - • •
• Toe of Bank
Station Distance & Survey Point I
Cross Section ! •
9471
10" Black walnut 9 5 • p069.2 -
?0
Color Coded BEHI Index r
8" Green ash / 1933 '? IT Black walnut
t
Upper Right Bank* Green Stable Banks _
1931/ 10' Hackberry
Lower Right Bank Yellow - Moderately Stable Banks > 8" Black walnut
0
Lower Left Bank* Orange - Unstable Banks
Upper Left Bank* Red - Extremely Unstable Banks
-- -- -- - - - - 14" Hackberry
1885 U+00

Scale
6" Cedar , Wood Hue
6' Sycamore

Feet
0 25 50 100 j 659`- 84z
48'+ White oak ?
N

I 0+85 18" Heckbwry

I 14" Green ash

?
(3) Boles, Sycamore
-
6, 6', 4' '-
1\
, 17786 6' Cedar

10" Hackberry
Zone C
1744.7
Gablons 10" Hackberry
W31
(
12' Sweet gum
(2) Boles, River birch
r
(4) Boles, River birch 8" 10-
?
4', 4', 6', 8'
4' Sweet gum

8' Green ash _1678
Photo Location Map Confluence
l Ge w
16226 r 4" Sycamore ycamore a
/ 6" River birch
1931 I a3o95
16" Sweet gum
1593 4" River birch
C-2.

Legend

-- Top of Bank
Toe of Bank

Cross Section
0 Trees to be Preserved
- Tree Status to be Determined in
the Field
0 Trees likely to be Removed
Replanted Buffer Zone
Reshaped and Stabilized Banks
Constructed Bank full Bench
Brush Mattress or Facines with Age
Soil Lifts
6'Ctln
Root Wads
® Rock Vane 0 A
I'll Rock Vane & Sill at end of
Constructed Riffle Zone
At. Constructed Riffle Zone with 0+8
•; Grade Control Sill
Zone C
N
?e
7.
?r
`.A 1W
. v o 25
7,12
16228 Legend
waro Mau Slelbn
I cl
593 ?,?„
Mae?carew needy
Scale
Feet
0 25 50 100
N
Optimum Radius r
of Curvature
(40-45') 4R9i
hW L-----
H? Indian Run Restoration June 2006
Project in Cabarrus County Figure 11b-3. Conceptual Restoration Plan Zone C
HABITAT - - ,
,EN Aro em (with BEHI Index, Tree Map, & Photo locations) HDR# 09177-12850-018
RE TCOR^MTION k1? ,_?[NCDENR# D5004S
Ephemeral Channel
Confluence
1840 0-1?
?ucs--e
177 6 ,?
0-?
21p0

SHEET 3
DESIGN LONGITUDINAL PROFILES

U t:
c u
C U
u
U a
0
in U
cC4 U
h ?
O C
O
I c c N
O cl
v
O cy
O
lV 4
O
cy
O
t
V
-U II I I I I I I I I

r P
a 0 f!
U t'
C U
U ?
?U
U o
II
I
I
O O
?= O
u
x
W cG
c
Q? U
c o
n ?
C ,? W
_ u
O '? p
M c7
.tz c cG
W ?
C ?
O ?
'y n
cs
•c ?
o
? i
n
u
u
c
ti 0
N°o C C?
S
C ,
U
u
u
v?? O c
O CVi
c u =
^ O r
o > -_ CV
W U a

p
c u ° 2 = om
'I
o
o =1 > n
/
LL j
m
Q :
3 a - T
_
o O U -.. - .
_

o ? O =
b t =
O W

O

cv n Q)
F-' C cn ?
O '
h y ? ?

o i _ V

u D E
C O`

=3 E,
c
u =
?
U C
cn u
c > ? a
'C U v

W a c
a
?
7 0 U
' c_
C U
_ r3 > Q j
:;j
T ?

0 o LL
rn C
00 ?_
,t 0
r

I
c
?y
0
l
y
v7 n
i
co c
m
c ° - :3 (n
! ca U p I

.? ?
V .
O N O
N ? ? I

O ` 4
u c9 Of
u Ln u U Z
F° U c.cw
u u o s to u c9
U ?c1
0
c G:
n U
x .>
W C4
C o
e n C4
v_.
c
o W Q
U
y O
? N
O ?
r [1
? G
? O
C
U ?
?^ O
F .?
h ?
U
o c > c5 O
C] 3 z
v ?.o
W h a
c o
c u
:.0 C4 a ;
0
r5;
c1 v, i a ',
. U I1I i . S ` ' ?
H ? `I a241
E .? ? IiZQCL?I
C C
(U) uouene?3?
?`
u
U M
n
o >
u W
Cup G
u
. U
o ?
C v
u
N
u -?
u
i 4
? o
C N
_ u
E^ O
h ?
N ?
c
i o
In N ?
(4) NOUVA3-13
s
? O
Q ?
°o
U
Z
8 o U
? u
0
U
s
c
c
n
c
v
0
c
C
c
0
U
8 0
w
h
u
a
v
u
O M
C kn
CJ •:
EW
t c
;, o
c y
? N
N
,.. ao
r
of
6
(0 00
o ? 04 li
CN '
CU ti
? r
O
Q>
O
C
t7?
N
CCS i
t= A .
p '
?Q) O
C=
(] CU
C= ? I
CL' c
o '
C CJ
CIO Y
a C-)
C. ?
' U U I',
0
Q?
C?
U-
c ?
o =3
0
o U
N
N 2 LO
2 co ?
c cao
=3 C)
cv ? U
? Z
- o
to y i
p?j iz€
SHEET 4
DESIGN CROSS SECTIONS
c 00
o
c c I a c 1 m O
? =3 0 I =3 U i x 00
m 1 cc0? ?a -a I I p N
obi I CO 1 CC a? N
Q ?O L j o
EE
C: U)
v' (D I m I o 2
} I O -? O
-_---- I Ao
1 o a.
D
m o
co
I 1 N CL ` C
_0 C p,
I ?
c 0-
u 0
U- a 0 a
cu :3 cn Elf
\ 00 1 (, 0 q) c0 c0 .0 c
1 oD - V
n°' N a °-° 1-
?? \ I fC m ? ? 0
00) C?
0
\• M 0- o E 'c° N 8 0 a>
L
\ \ - N? NFU C C-.3
C\j '6
\ \ r N CJJ .C N IL U LL.
C
(D I ' O \
0 CO til \ ?? co
O
01 lf)
In ?, ? \ \ I I -? U
Z \
o I,
ON o ,K \ \ a>
00 0 U)
0 O
co ca
a \ \ \ \ CO m
N o
v / \ I CD
C o E
3 // \ I cm cz o - L E
LL-
Lo / / \ I Q T ?ro 30 -
l O) N 7 0.N ? O N
/ ^J ? O
mc Ea ?U-ZI-
a) C)
u 0- ca
C.0 -M
0-0
?.. ?' co 0'N N 0 U Z
Co =3
p
I. r O
I ` \ OU
I ?/ N? ? ? m C ? 'r
O? ) +?• j
Q
U) _0
I' / Q
c `- d c:
p
°
`von C
Z 1il?
i 1Y
oc°n C l..
C\j
- - N `
?3 4- m -a
00 EL cz
L0 a
I ',=dad

II,

I
I III
® LO
r

N '
'
LO
N

V
CD
I
I

N
1 O
C
f cz
CO Cn
I

O
O
T
(h

' r

O i I

i N I

I® N
o

O
(D V N O 00 CD
(DOmm 00 co
(4) 'nal=l

z
(D
J
f`
V
+
N
Q)'
co
+
N
a
O
V I
0
N
N
O
L
U
(f
c
I
c
o
N co

Q cz

Q

\ u U
0
w
IIIco
O

W

II LO
I

A q, C
O
1 It N a co
)O0)Q)(AC
O
co
O
N
O
O
co
cn
? c
(D O
N T 5
O II
(s
I N O m
I r w
x
CO
+ Cl)
N U
+ _
O ?
r T
>
O
+ (o c
N a;
U
= II
LL U)
?
U
I
O
O
N
i
t`

ILO

C
o
O
00
+

e U)
N .-J
III

MT I
W ' j a
V
V) O
N
Cl)
i
O
L

CD d' N O (D (D
0)iTrn000N

I i I
O
co
O
I O
I

t ?

O
:r
O
T U)
li
O
Cl)
N

T
U
N
'
O I

V ,
? O
r
N
N
O

(? I L_1 o
(D It NO(D(D
00)OCA co 00
(11) 'nal3
00
O
O
00
O N
C> r
IN
? r
O
U
U ?
Co
m
L Q
CD Cn
C=I- CD
Q
=3 O
N
NN=
Lim U>
CD
Ca U
_C:3 CD
C C/3
N O
L
U
CD =
L
CM
LL-
C C
O C
v?-
12 U o
O
5 ? Lo
Li. (O
=3 cu
V Z
C: w
C ?
a i c)
c •°? Z
O
j
s=
T
j
? IQt2(i
SHEET 5
DESIGNED VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES MAP BY ZONE
(Indicated in Cross Sections of SHEET 4)
0
APPENDIX I
RESTORATION SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
END Profile Station 21 +92
2192
2150.2
Confluence ¢[(F °
I °o 00
C-3
0 21010
/
193/4/` '
\?1,\'t
2059 0
'. 1 88 5
Zone C
1857 C4
800
1778.6
QG ?J
1744.73abions
2 C-1 _
171 3.2
1622.8 1678
ice
©
1) o
1593
Q
QQ
0-
1 1551
1.507 ?Q
®o
1441
Q
1 395,6
Legend
o-- ZO1
°
130' Photo Mosaic Area
©G ?``?' S
Color-Coded BEHI Index
Q
B_4 1248
Zone B %1 Nl% Upper Right Bank ° Green -Stable Banks
A Lower Right Bank Yellow - Moderately Stable Banks
!ro^k ° N --- -- ---
1063 10819
Lower Left Bank Q Orange - Unstable Banks
urzQ Upper Left Bank 0 Red - Extremely Unstable Banks
t - 1161
04 N 133 111®
Feet
Zone B 0 25 50 100 .._200
NCEEP Restoration Site Appendix 1, Sheet-1. Photo Mosaic Index and Bank
Indian Run Tributary to October, 2005
BEHI Assessment Map
n 4. ; Coddle Creek
s
s
s
s
•
•
S
s
•
10 3
„.a
0'
=i
f B-3,?
Zone B - 00
08, 3+1.1 (.
®o z
32
F'
Confluence
?
f_ M„ 3
373
Zone A
Longitudinal Station Legend
III' ?BM # 1 2 C-1 Bridge Photo Mosaic Area
Color-Coded BEHI Index
\ Upper Right Bank © Green - Stable Banks
60 ft Right-Of-Way Lower Right Bank Yellow- Moderately Stable Banks
Lower Left Bank 0 Orange - Unstable Banks
N Upper Left Bank O Red - Extremely Unstable Banks
r Centerline of Rocky River Road -
I Frv+t
0 . i ?[I 1[xl 2[I) i
ID.Za:: NCEEP Restoration Site Appendix 1 - Sheet 2. Photo Mosaic Index and BEHI
Indian Run Tributary to October, zoos
R w" ?K??. Coddle Creek Assessment Map (Rocky River Rd to St. 1063)

Appendix 1 - Sheet 3
Flower Zone A - Section 3 - Left Bank
- Flow Zone A - Section 4 - Right Bank

Appendix 1 - Sheet 4

•

••••
Appendix 1 - Sheet 5
AU
Flower Zone C - Section 1 - Left Bank
- Flow Zone C - Section 2 - Right Bank
Flower Zone C - Section 3 - Left Bank
APPENDIX 2
RESTORATION SITE USACE ROUTINE WETLAND
DETERMINATION DATA FORMS
RESTORATION SITE USACE ROUTINE WETLAND
DETERMINATION DATA FORMS
Not Relevant to this Restoration Plan
APPENDIX 3
RESTORATION SITE NCDWQ STREAM
CLASSIFICATION FORMS

RESTORATION SITE NCDWQ STREAM
CLASSIFICATION FORMS
Not Included in this Restoration Plan
APPENDIX 4
REFERENCE SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Reed's Creek West Fork Meander X-Section I
looking up
#fir
1fy i
RRR '? ' ?
f ? 1 { CI alf!? f? 31i:}?s 1Y

) and Inflection X-Section 2 (Back)
Reed's Creek West Fork Meander X-Section 3 (Fore) and Inflection X-Section 4
looking upsteam
iooxmg aownsteam
2
M
•
•

U
a
Y
* 'r
R
,It
w
M
C
O
U
N
U
'O
C
cd
rU
O
w
3
U
Fs

?>,..?
?.

.y `
•. i4 f

m
Aa
z
4 y;?

r
•
•
•
7

8
APPENDIX 5
REFERENCE SITE USACE ROUTINE WETLAND
DETERMINATION DATA FORMS
REFERENCE SITE USACE ROUTINE WETLAND
0
DETERMINATION DATA FORMS
Not Relevant to this Restoration Plan
APPENDIX G
REFERENCE SITE NCDWQ STREAM
CLASSIFICATION FORMS
REFERENCE SITE NCDWQ STREAM
CLASSIFICATION FORMS
Not Included in this Restoration Plan
APPENDIX 7
HYDROLOGIC GAUGE DATA SUMMARY,
GROUNDWATER AND RAINFALL INFORMATION
HYDROLOGIC GAUGE DATA SUMMARY,
GROUNDWATER AND RAINFALL INFORMATION
No Available Data Relevant to this Plan
APPENDIX 8
HEGRAS ANALYSIS
HEGRAS ANALYSIS
Not Relevant to this Restoration Plan
APPENDIX 9
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
0
EM 1110.2-1418
81 Oct 04
?0

70

1 I ? ?
A ` -- -_
DEPTH
W(?
N
0 I I
7
1 CF FLOW
v
ft
a i i li ll

10 I
J -
W

5
-
-

2 I
1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5

Bankfull I i
1 2 3 5 10 Z0 30 50
0.91 C.C2 0.05 0.10 0.:0
BED MATERIAL GRAIN SIZE, 050
100 :CC 300 500 ton
oia 1 2 1:
Example of allowable velocity-depth data for granular motcrials.
(from USACOE 1994 Appendix A and B.)
Estimated bankfull velocity for restored channel conditions along Indian Run plotted on the
Mean Velocity vs Bed Material Size (D 50) chart from the USACOE 1994 guide to stream stabi-
lization.
LDR Indian Run Restoration (USACOE 1994) shown with Stability stimated June 2006
Project in Cabarrus County
1r', I s??? f NCDENR# D5004S mean Bankfull velocity for restoration reach NDRUOSn?-,zasoa,a
Pw. rJ

.01 l 1 10 100
1000
X75 cm
F

X25 cm
'
70
100

u

W

E•
W
7 7
I.
Q

1
N?
U

1
.
.001 .01 .1 1 10 100
TC. CRITICAL SIIEAIZ STRESS (Ibs./sq.11.)

FDR --- - -
Indian Run Restoration Figure A9b. Shield Curve with Range l June 2006

-, E my tell]
`
Project in Cabarrus
my of Conditions for Indian Run
Bankfull HoRaos,n.,seso-o,a
?...'; :. ?..a R# o5oo4s
and Floodprone Discharges

/
iy }7

o (data of l.l'O? Old et al., 1 )6-1)
U
(4
N
E
L
O
J ?
C -
? E
co N
C m
N
J
U W
H
O
O C)
O -4
O

w
D
J
OP
O
co

c)
O

to
W
J
CD
co

O
?

c?
O
U

N

a?

o
j

I L
a
?
N
O cn
0
70
B E

p
E
?
N
N -1
Z

Q
°v
E _
lln
Q1

(n u

CL
N
v
? a

'1
M
v
w
j

I- cn
J
U)
O
00 C) CD O C) O O O O O O m r,4
A
E
E
M
M
x
E
v
00
iz)
E
E
N
N
Ln
0
E
E
M
O
.CF
00
0
Ueu4 JDUIJ % •JOA ani}elnwnD
s
a?
E
a?
J a?
C
7 E
ca
C fn
`° o
0 O
? a
H
J
U W
0 N
?
C) 00) 000 N ko ? V M N O
.-1
O O
O
O

w
J
D
00
O
co

O

?
O

w
J
m
co

C)
rl
M
O
U

N
i
N F

o a

O (n

U

fa
Cl.
E N

Z
Q

E Ul)

41

V) u

m
N
v
? n.
M

j

Ln
J

O ?D
E
E
O
O
X
E
v
00
0
E
E
N
O
0
0
E
E
N
O
2
co
0
ueg4 J@UIJ % •10A ani4elnwnD
s
U
a
N
L
cz
E
v
O
J 0O
C E
? L
? Q
c
m
w
N
J
U LW
N
0 N
C) O
O r,
O

? rn
w
0
J
co
O
m

O

'
O

u?
W
J
CO
co

O

M
O
U

N
i

q
o
?
?
N
O (n

v ?

u
E ru
, n,
o N r
Z

Q _
v
E Ln

?u

Ln u
t-,
a
N
v
?
M

I- ?
J
H
Ln
O
00 m 00 N LOO lV) V' M N O
IH
E
E

x
E
v
00
0
E
E
N
M
Ln
0
E
E
OI
N
c
?E
v
00
0
Ueul JDUIJ % 'JOA DA14elnwnD
L
U
fa
4J
E
m
in (n
E
E
O
J to
a
C L
V)
c ?
C ?
H
J
U W
0 ?
00 OOi 00 O ? O O O O O O
,-i
Uey4 J@Uij % •10A ani4ejnwnD
C) O
O
O

W
J
O
CO

O
O

u?
w
J
CD
CO

O

O
U

N
i

A
U
j

l s
n

N
O (n
v N

$ E ?

E
N
z
Q a
E U')
v

U) v
N

? a

,-a
M

j

Ln
J
H
cn

O
?D
E
E
O
m
X
E
`r
0
E
E
0
0
E
E
U)
N
O
c
00
00
0
s
U
(E
U
U
(d N
E
L uU
v ?
0
J Q
C ?
7
? c
C ?
c
0
C
H
J
U W
0 N
V)
O C)
O r,
O

w
J
D
CP
O
co

O
O

t?

Lf1

w 1
J
co

co

O ct

i

O
U

N
i

?
V d
O In
(U
U
B ru
n

N .
Z
Q v
E V)
4J

(n U
t-
N
? M

j
?-

J

O ?D
CD C) v a
C) OOi 000 O ? O O O p O fy)
1.4
Ueg4 J@Uij % •10A @Al4elnwnD
E
E
Ln
O
X
J
00
W
0
E
E
V
O
E
E
N
2
co
0