19991065 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19991006

A
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
1 .1
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
November 16, 1999
McDowell County
DWQ Project #: 991065
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIO AL CONDITIONS
R'avne and Linda Pittman
Route 1, Box 162
Marion, North Carolina 28752
Dear Mr. and Ms. Pittman:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, restore 1,=300 feet of streams for
the purpose of restoring Young's Fork Creek in McDowell County as, described in your application dated October 6. 1999. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3109. This
cenification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 27 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get
anv other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Water shed regulations. This approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Cenification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as modified below. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all
conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required
as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the
attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
If this project is used at a later date for compensatory mitigation. a 50 foot wide wooded buffer will have to be planted and
protected
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, which conforms-to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings. P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7447. 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 John Domey at 919-733-9636.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
John Domey
Central Files
Britt Bin_ham,
Isothermal Planning & Development Commission
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27669-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50%a recycled/10% post consumer paper
MEMORANDUM
}
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact: Michael R_ Parker
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor: Forrest Westa.ll
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Wayne & Linda/ Timmy & Linda Pittman
Project Number 99 1065
Recvd From APP
Received Date 10/6/99 Recvd By Region
Project Type stream stabilization
County McDowell
County2
Region Asheville
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
27 F__ PT @)N 11-4 F -c Tr 3x0,830. r
F_ F__ FT-0 N F_ F_-F_F_ 1 -F_
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? 0 Y * N Did you request more info? 0 Y 0 N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 Y 0 N
Is Mitigation required? 0 Y 0 N Recommendation: 0 Issue DQ Issue/fond 0 Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 353838 Longitude (ddmmss) 815629
Comments:
Project is to restore heavily eroded and eroding steep stream banks. This is the first part of
as large project to restore streams in the Muddy Greek drainage area to reduce the sediment load
to the Catawba River,
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
Facility Name Wayne & Linda/ Timmy & Linda Pittman County McDowell
Project Number 99 1065 Regional Contact: Michael R. Parker
Date: 11/9/99
Comments (continued from page 1):
cc: Regional Office Page Number 2
Central Office
t
DEM ID:
Y
"VV GJ 77 Lx--VV sju. VVJ f V,i
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 27
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE FIELD OFFICE
OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE
SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
1. OWNERS NAME; see attachment 1
2. MAILING ADDRESS: see attachment 1;
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY:
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE): N/A
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME) : see attachment 1 (WORK)
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, 3
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER: _County of McDowell c/g Britt Bingham: Isothermal Planning and
Development Commission; P.O. Box 841; Rutherfordton, NC 28139
phone: [phone]
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USES TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
CousTY; McDowell NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Marion
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.) From I-40 exit 86, approximate]
1.7 miles south on NC Highway 226; site is on right just before 226 crosses Muddy
Creek.
STATE: ZIP CODE:
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Youngs Fork Creek
RIVER BASIN: Catawba
Y
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS IROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER SUPPLY
(WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [x ) IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A 'NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ARE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES[ ) NO [x )
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST OF COASTAL
COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION: N/A
Sa. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS PROPERTY?
YES [ ] NO [ XI IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401 CERTIFICATION);
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES [ ] NO ( X) IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9A. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: see attachment 1
9S. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE: 2 Ac.
10A. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: EXCAVATION: 2 Ac.
FLOODING: OTHER:
s.
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
10B. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF RELOCATED, PROVIDE
DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: 1440 FT AFTER: 1440 FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): 36 F'r
WIDTH AFTER: Avg. 45 FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: 4.2 FT AFTER: 1.5 FT
(2) EAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL R STtT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNELr
CHANNEL ELEVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: x STREAM RESTORATION
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED DRAINING
TO TaE POND? NIA
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
-- ----- - ------- ar -??•??a+VVV ..VV rV JJ ar VJ ..V •VVV vV
J ?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
TO Bfi USED (ATTACH PLANS: 834" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY): Restore approximately 1440 feet
of stream channel to a Ros en type Bc channel. Des _g: - bn a a on Rclsgen? ic3,plas
is vrovlded by Natura Resoi es Conservation SQrvira, WaynPCvillp,_ NC_!Flni=mant
planned: Hydraulic Excavator
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Stabilize stream banks and reduce sediment load delivered
to stream.
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN
WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS) : Wetland. impacted
is Young's Fork Creek. This activity is necesary to stabilize banks and reduce
sedimentation.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USF?WS) AND/OR
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING
THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR
THREATENED SPECIES OR CIRTICAL HABIfiAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: 09/01/99 (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
I6. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO) (SEE
AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE
PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: 09/01/99
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF PUBLIC
(STATE) LAND? YES [ x] NO [ ) (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [ ) NO [x )
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT -
OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE? YES [ ) NO [ )
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MS.
CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE
(919)•733-6369.
- - --- ?• - ?•? r - i vL V... 1". VJV nvv LJ %:l 1 L • V J I.V . V V V 1 . V I
r
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED ACTIVITY
INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS:

u
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES AND PONDS ON THE
PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29, AND 38). ALL
STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAR.
MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR I INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR
EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
O. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS RELEVANT
TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Woodland, pasture. cropland
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED BY AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE:.WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY--NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT, AND
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION.
1/ 1
OWNER'S/AGENT'"IdkATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18G.))
902'99
DATE
g-

Attachment 1--Application for`Nationwide Permit #27, Young's Fork Creek, Pittman Site
1) Wayne and.Linda Pittman
2) Route 1 Box 162
Marion, NC 28752
3) [phone]
9a) 11.5 Acres
Timmy and Linda W. Pittman
Route 1 Box 161
Marion, NC 28752
[phone]
4.6 Acres
Floyd,E. Smith
Life Estate
P.O. Box983
Marion, NC 28752
52.75 Acres
-?.?, ?? :?:? '?f ? ? ?:: 1, ?? ? '?? ?;.?t ? --_=-
.?'• +II I / % ? 117 5 iF // ? ? 1
I
'n,\? %,
cl?
1472
F ! O ° arkers?: .o` ?.• ?. ea.siytHil$ Cem?\
127
/South ar66n
141
14
- / fA?/ / _? ?_ \ _?i' 1 • ChaPe:,Hil1?
.\, ?•-/? "\, 0'406
8991X 140.. -? •? . o? ?? f
j(? S \?\ 1---?1) •\ X32/ r
/ ( ' ' ?? /\; \?? `???/ ^? rte. ?, ... \. / //l ?? DisPosal?? I? _.? I\?\? ? O?
j, °?_ ?= ????? ?= ?-\? . Young's Fork Streambank Stabilization
Project
? ?1600 Project Location -Pittman Site
Uses k
&OU
,ems " ? \ t ^r ?' // .??- /? ?? i'?\? ? t ? l,-.? ? ? ?: /i
<O
'378 ?i' \? /: !/?/ ???. '?/??I/1/`?%\/ J//`` ,??? , Sl.'??: ,1 y' \,?-? \
/.?`' ,? l,/ / _ .- ; • .?`\, "`?/ '-?/?\ ? %. <\\. ? ,`/i , r;^,?,... `i\`6(00/,, irll-/? ' ? / ? i , ' ? ? 1j
1213
J \? ,? ?, / w a Cti? 111
\J C)
"v \\\ /aoo
u
it ENWO6L
11559
',- FEET GLENWOOD 0.9 N,1. 1112 413' 57130" - 1414
?RUTH£RFORDTON 18 NI..
ea, and published by the Geological Survey , SC
i T
S ar,c USC&GS * ?-
Mt4 1000 0 3000 2000
Dh0;cgrammetric methods from aerial photographs 1, I
.IIGN i~ 5
'ieio checked 1962
sEP 24 99 02:53PM MCDOWELL COUNTY
Agreement
w
r..4
Whereas McDowell County (the "County") F "nd which i'will funds teamUanke
N.C. Glean Water Management
stabilization measures on designated streams within the County, and
whereas the "County" and Wayne Pittman, Linda Pittman, and Tim Pittman
(the "Pit#rnans") have executed a signed agreement
Pittmans with
stabilization measures to be performed on
("Project"), located on Corpening Creek.
In furtherance of the Project the County and the Pittmans agree as follows:
1. The Pittmans agree that the County shall act as their agent to acquire
all needed permits from all units of government, including, but not
limited to, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Mate of North
Carolina.
2. The Pittmans agree to designate areas for debris
it on
Iocatedl at and
either side of the channel. These areas are
shown on the attached site plan. Written direction to sites:
3. Once the project is started, the Pittmans agree to allow it to be
completed in full.
4, The contractor assigned to the stabilization project will be allowed to
move junked cars on the property as needed.
SEP 24 '99 02:53PM MCDOWELL COUNTY
r ..J
will be allowed to burn as much debris burn site 'wl? be
. The contractor debris from the site. The
and will haul any rernaining
and shown on attached site map. Written directions to urn
located at
sites:
th re
?. The contract Or will be allowed to move fencing round horse shed pastu
as needed. Contractor will reconnect the fence whe project.
down.
will peep all Ache and Walnut tree{ cuare cut t on their
7. The Putmans any and a trees
The Pittmans have the right to keel
property.
r pate
Wayne Pittman
. ? Dated
J
Linda Pittman
to
1 Date
4?-I?M-p--Itt an
• Date
s ; :berngthy
??--
Charle
!McDowell County Manger
Restoration Proposal
Young's Fork Creek
McDowell County
(Pittman Site)
Background Information
Young's Fork Creek is a tributary of North Muddy Creek. Muddy Creek is a tributary of the
Catawba River. This section of Young's Fork Creek has problems scattered up and down its length
associated with streambank erosion. The excessive streambank erosion in this stream is typical of a
stream that is entrenched and can no longer access its historic floodplain in a 1.3 -1.5 year storm
event.
The typical stream one would expect to find in this valley type, would be a meandering stream made
up of riffles and pools. This stream would have a water slope of less than 1 percent and would have
well defined point bars on the inside of the meanders. This stream would typically reach the bankfull
flow every 1.3 -1.5 years. This storm event would place water flow at or near the top of the low
bank. Storm events or flows greater than the 1.3 -1.5 year storm would spill over onto the
floodplain of the stream. This type of stream would be classified as a "Type C" stream, according to
Dave Rosgen's stream classification. Type "C" streams are stable and are able to maintain a stable
pattern, dimension, and profile. Young's Fork Creek was more than likely a "Type C" stream many
years ago, however due to changes in the watershed this stream is now a "Type F' stream. Streams
of this type can no longer reach their historic floodplain. Therefore higher velocity flow are
contained with the stream channel. The low bank to bankfull height ratio is greater than 1.2:1. This
results in excessive erosion of the streambanks and excessive amounts of sediment being delivered
directly into the stream. Streams of this type are not stable because they are trying to return to their
original (stable) stream type. These streams do this by widening themselves to develop a floodprone
area at a lower elevation.
This is the current situation on the Pittman property. The stream is attempting to re-establish its
pattern. These meanders and sequences of riffles and pools is the stream mechanism for reducing
energy in the stream channel. This stream will eventually return to the stable type "C" stream on its
own however many tons of sediment will be introduced to the stream system, which will have a _
negative impact on water quality. Our proposal would re-establish a type "Bc" or type "C" stream
in a planned effort that would reduce the amount of sediment delivered to the stream.
Restoration Priorities
There are four priorities to consider when undertaking a stream restoration/stabilization project. (1)
Construct the proper stream type in order to reconnect the stream to its historic floodplain, (2)
Manually assist the stream to develop a floodprone area at a lower elevation so the stream can
maintain its proper pattern, profile, and dimension, (3) Convert the stream to a different stream type
at the existing elevation in order to maintain stability, (5) Harden the existing conditions in place
(this option has the highest cost and the highest risk of failure because the existing stream type is
unstable). Of course there is always the option to leave the stream alone and let nature take it course
so the stream can correct itself.
A priority (1) restoration is the most desirable, however with this stream, property lines, and
differences in elevation we have not included this option as an alternative.
A priority (3) restoration/stabilization can also be accomplished for this stream. This would involve
converting this stream to a "Type B" stream at the existing elevation. This type of conversion would
require more in-stream structures such as cross-vanes, rock vanes, and log vanes. Some earthwork
would also need to be done on the streambanks to establish the proper dimension, pattern, profile
and stable streambanks for this stream type. Due to assumed property lines and elevation changes
this priority of restoration is very viable. The entire stream can be converted to a type "Bc" stream
Restoration Proposal
The proposal we
are submitting relies on the natural channel design concept This concept involves restoring a stream
to its natural pattern, dimension, and profile based on similar stable stream types in the same
physiographic region. The pattern of the stream relates to the sinuosity of the stream and the
relationships that exist between bankfuIl width and other items such as radius of curvature, belt
width, and meander wavelength. The dimensions of a stream relate to the cross-sectional area at
bankfull, width, mean depth, max. depth and various other measurements taken at the bankfull
elevation. The profile of the stream is a map of the tbalweg (deepest portion of the stream) in
relation to bankfull. The dissipation of energy with the stream is very important to the stability of
the stream. The proposed design information shows the relationship of existing data compared to the
proposed restoration design data.
Young's Fork Creek is a stream with a fairly urbanized watershed, with this in mind we needed to
examine data from similar streams. We reviewed data from Charlotte and Raleigh, where people
have developed relationships between drainage area and bankfull cross-sectional area. Once the
proper cross-sectional area of the stream is known the data from similar streams can be used to plan
a restoration project The reference reach streams we used were Richland Creek (surveyed by the
NCSU water quality group) and Basin Creek surveyed by MRCS in Yadkinville.
This restoration plan involves establishing the correct bankfull dimensions for the proposed stream
type, establishing the proper low bank height to bankfull ratio (1:1), and establishing the proper
width of the floodprone area based on the entrenchment ration needed for the proposed stream type:
The design also proposes to establish the proper radius of curvature and pool to pool spacing for the
desired stream type. The placement of the cross-vane upstream of the bridge is designed to reduce
the stress on the streambank at the bridge.
The restoration plan we propose involves the placement of in-stream structures such as cross-vanes,
rock vanes and root wads to reduce the stress on the streambanks and assist the stream to maintain
its proper dimension, pattern, and profile. Drawings of these structures are attached to this design
for information. These drawings were made by Dave Rosgen of Wildland Hydrology in Pagosa
Springs, Colorado.
MATERIALS
ROCK VANES
EACH VANE AND ITS FOOTER ROCKS WILL CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY 35 ROCKS.
THESE ROCKS SHOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 2.5'X 1.5'X 1.5' IN SIZE. THESE ROCKS
WILL-WEIGHT APPROXIMATELY 600 LBS. EACH. THESE ROCKS SHOULD BE ANGULAR
SHAPED AND AS FLAT AS POSSIBLE ALONG THE LONGEST SIDE OF THE ROCK
CROSS VANES
EACH VANE AND ITS FOOTER ROCKS WILL CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY 75 ROCKS.
THESE ROCKS SHOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 2.5'X 1.5'X 1.5' IN SIZE. THESE ROCKS
WILL WEIGHT APPROXIMATELY 600 LBS. EACH. THESE ROCKS SHOULD BE ANGULAR
SHAPED AND AS FLAT AS POSSIBLE ALONG THE LONGEST SIDE OF THE ROCK
LOG VANES
EACH VANE SHOULD CONSIST OF A LOG APPROXIMATELY 24 INCHES DIAMETER AND
APPROXIMATELY 45 FEET LONG.
The cost estimates on this project were based on preliminary survey data collected by local and area
,Soil and Water Conservation District personnel along with NRCS. The cost estimates are based on
using rock vanes, however logs may be substituted in some places allowing for a possible reduction in
::cost. The amount of excavation and fill were based on our survey data. These amounts are our best
estimates in the absence of a very detailed survey. The amount and placement of structures such as
cross vanes, rock vanes, and root wads may change during construction. However, the concept and
procedure for restoring this stream to a stable stream type will not change. The placement of the in
stream structures such as rock vanes, cross vanes and root wads are interconnected and dependant
.on the location of the thalweg. Qualified personnel on site during construction will determine exact
placement of the structures. These structures are designed to reduce the stress on streambanks and
protect streambank areas upstream and downstream of the structure. Restoring these sections of
stream will greatly decrease the amount of sediment leaving this stream and entering Muddy Creek. _
Other benefits to this stream will include a lower water temperature due to the development of a
forested riparian buffer along the stream to provide shade, improved water quality, and improved
aquatic habitat.
The attached survey information, restoration information and drawings are provided for your
information. If you have additional questions please give me a call.
Lower Site at Muddy Creek
04r. Pittman Property)
Priority (2) Establish "Type Bc" Stream
Amount Estimates Cost Estimates
Excavation. 4,200 cu.yds. $ 8,400.00
.:Cross Vanes 7 @ $1,700/ea. 0$11,900.00 .
Root Wads 40 @ $30/ea. $ 11200.00
Rock Vanes 8 @ $800/ea $ 6,400.00
Vegetation 2.0 acres @ $516/ac $ 1,032.00
(approx. area to re-seeded after construction)
Forested Riparian Buffer (4x4 spacing for 1440 ft.
(35 ft. ea. Side) Approx. 6300 trees @ 0.50/ea) $ 3.150.00
Total $32,082.00
This estimate counts for time and materials only. This estimate is
approximately $22.28/Ft. for the 1440 Ft. estimate of the. reach.
MORPHOLOGICAL. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED
CHANNEL WITH REFERENCE REACH DATA
(After Rosgen, 1996)
Restoration Site: YOUNG'S FORK CREEK (PITTMAN SITE)
Reference Site: Richland & Basin Creeks
E VARIABLES EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED. ' REFERENCE
CHANNEL REACH REACH REACH
1. Stream Type F5 B4c C5 C4
2. Drainage Area
(Sq. Mi.) 9.15 9.15 9.15 8
3. Bankfull Width Mean: 45 fL Mean: 45 fL Mean: 37.5
(W/bkf) 36 fL Range: 43,- 47 ft. Range: 43 - 47 fL Range:
4. Bankfull Mean Depth Mean: 3.5 fL Mean: 3.5 ft Mean: 1.9
(d/bkf) 4.16 ft Range: 3.4 - 3.6 fL Range: 3.4 - 3.6 ft. Range:
5. Width/Depth Ratio Mean: 12.9 Mean: 12:9 Mean: -
(W/bkf/dbkf) 8.7 Range: 12.6 -13.1 Range: 12.6 -13.1 Range:
6. Bankfull Cross- Mean: 156 sq. fL Mean: 156 sq. ft. Mean:
sectional Area (Abkf) 149.6 sq. fL Range: 150 -162 sq.fL Range: 150 -162 sq.fL Range:
7. Bankfull Mean
Velocity (V/bkf) 4.8 ft/sec 4.8 ft/sec 4.8 ft/see
8. Bankfull Discharge,
cfs (Q/bkf) 746 cfs 746 cis 746 cfs
9. Bankfull Maximum Mean: 5.2 ft Mean: 5.2 ft. Mean:
Depth (d/max) 5.3 fL Range: 4.8 - 5.4 ft. Range: 4.8 - 5.4 fL Range:
10. Max. drift/dbkf Ratio Mean: 1.5 Mean: 1.5 Mean: 1.5 -
. 1.3 Range: 1.4 -1.6 Range: 1.4 - 1.6 Range: 1.4 -1.6
11. Low Bank Height Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.2
to Max. dbkf Ratio 1.7 Range: 1.0 -1.1 Range: 1.0 -1.1 Range:
12. Width of the Flood Mean: 81 fL Mean: 126 fL Mean: 329 ft
Prone Area (Wfpa) 70 fL Range: 73 - 89 fL Range: 108 -140 fL Range:
13. Entrenchment Mean: 1.8 Mean: 2.8 Mean: 8.8
Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf) 1.9 Range: 1.7 -1.9 Range: 2.5 - 3.0 Range:
14. Meander Length Mean: 285 fL Mean: 285 ft. Mean:
(LM) 285 fL Range: 194 - 378 ft. Range: 194 - 378 fL Range:
15. Ratio of Meander Mean: 6.3 Mean: 6.3 Mean:
Length to Bankfull 7.9
Width (Lm/Wbkf) Range: 5.5 - 8.0 Range: 5.5 - 8.0 Range:
16. Radius of Curvature Mean: 63 Mean: 63 Mean: 51
(Re) 31 Range: 47 - 85 Range: 47 - 85 Range: 40 - 69
17. Ratio of Radius of Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4
Curvature to Bank-
full Width (Rc/Wbkf) 0.9 Range: 1.1 -1.8 Range: 1.1 -1.8 Range: 1.1 -1.8
Page 1 of 4
MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED
CHANNEL WITH REFERENCE REACH DATA
(After Rosgen, 1996)
18. Belt Width
T Mean: 180 fL Mean: 180 fL Mean:
(Wbit)
78 - 210 fL Range: 120 - 240 fL Range: 120 - 240 fL Range:
19. Meander Width Mean: 4 Mean: 4 Mean: 1.7
Ratio (WbM/Wbkf) 2.2-5.8 Range: 2.8 - 5.1 Range: 2.8 - 5.1 Range:
20. Sinuosity (stream
length/valley length)
(k) 1.7 1.8 1.8
21. Valley Slope (ft./ft.) 0.004
22. Average Slope
.(Savg) = (Svauey/k) 0.0026
23. Pool Slope Mean:.0005 Mean:.0005 Mean:
(Spool 0.0003 Range:.0004 - .0006 Range:.0004 -.0006 Range:
24. Ratio of Pool Slope Mean: 0.2 Mean: 0.2 Mean:
to Average Slope
(SpooVSavg) 0.12 Range: Range: Range:
25. Maximum Pool Mean: 5.6 fL Mean: 5.6 ft. Mean:
Depth (dmax.pooi) 6 fL Range: 4.8 - 6.5 fL Range: 4.8 - 6.5 fL Range:
26. Ratio of Max.Pool
Depth to Average Mean: 1.6 Mean: 1.6 Mean:
Bankfull Depth
(dmax.pooVdbkf) 1.4 Range: 1.4 -1.8 Range: 1.4 -1.8 Range:
27. Pool Width Mean: 54 fL Mean: 54 fL Mean:
(Wpoo1) 46 fL Range: 47 - 61 fL Range: 47 - 61 IL Range:
28. Ratio of Pool Width Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.2 Mean:
to Bankfull Width
(Wpoot/Wbkf) 1.3 Range: 1.1 -1.3 Range: 1.1 -1.3 Range:
29. Pool Area Mean: 234 sq. ft Mean: 234 sq. fL Mean:
(Apoo1) 160 sq. ft. Range: 180 - 292 sq.fL Range: 180 - 292 sq.fL Range:
30. Ratio of Pool Area Mean: 1.5 Mean: 1.5 Mean:
to Bankfull Area
(ApooVAbkf) 1.1 Range: 1.2 -1.8 Range: 1.2 -1.8 Range:
31. Pool to Pool Mean: 135 fL Mean: 135 fL Mean:
Spacing (p-p) 55 - 235 fL Range: 86 - 235 fL Range: 86 - 235 fL Range:
32. Ratio of Pool to Pool Mean: 3 Mean: 3 Mean:
Spacing to Bankfull
Width ( -p/Wbkf) 1.5-6.5 Range: 2 - 5 Range: 2 - 5 Range:
33. Ratio of Pool Length Mean: 1.4 Mean: 1.4 Mean:
to Bankfuli Width
(Plength/Wbkf) 1.3 Range: 1.0 - 1.8 Range: 1.0 -1.8 Range:
Page 2 of 4
MORPHOLOGICAL- CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED
CHANNEL WITH REFERENCE REACH DATA
(After Rosgen, 1996)
34. Average Riffle Slope 0.003 0.0091 0.0065
35. Average Run Slope 0.002 0.0018 0.0013
36. Average Glide Slope 0.001 0.0013 0.0008
37. Ratio of Riffle Slope .
to Average Slope Mean: 3.5 Mean: 2.5 Mean: 2.5
(Sriff/Savg) 1.2 Range: 3 - 4 Range: 2 - 3 Range: 2 - 3
38. Ratio of Max. Riffle Mean: 1.55 Mean:. 1.55 Mean: 1.55
Depth to Mean Depth
(dmax dff/dbkf) 1.3 Range: 1.5 -1.6 Range: 1.5 -1.6 Range: 1.5 -1.6
39.•Ratio of Run Slope Mean: 0.7 Maan• n 5 W-- n r
to Average Slope
(Srun/Savg) 0.8 Range: 0.6 - 0.8 Range: 0.4 - 0.6 Range: 0.4 - 0.6
10. Ratio of Max. Run Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.2
Depth to Mean Depth
(dnm.run/dbko 1.2 Range: 1.1 -1.3 Range: 1.1 -1.3 Range: 1.1 -1.3
.1. Ratio of Run W/D to Mean: 0.85 Mean: 0.85 Mean:
Riffle W/D 0.8 Range: 0.8 - 0.9 Range: 0.8-0.9 Range:
Ratio of Run Length Mean: 1.45 Mean: 1.45 Mean: 1.45
to Bankfull Width
(RienguMbkf) 0.3-3.0 Range: 1.4 -1.5 Range: 1.4 -1.5 Range: 1.4 -1.5
3. Ratio of Glide Slope Mean: 0.5 Mean: 0.3 Mean: 0.3
to Average Slope
(Sgiide/Savg) 0.4 Range: 0.4 - 0.6 Range: 0.2 - 0.4 Range: 0.2 - 0.4
3. Ratio of Max. Glide Mean: 1.25 Mean: 1.25 Mean: 1.25
Depth to Mean Depth
(dmax.glide/dbko 1.4 Range: 1.1 -1.4 Range: 1.1 -1.4 Range: 1.1 -1.4
i. Ratio of Glide Width Mean: 1.2 Mean: 1.2 Mean:
to Bankfull Width
(Wglide/Wbkf) 1 Range: 1.1 -1.3 Range: 1.1 -1.3 Range:
i. Ratio of Glide W/D to Mean: 1.0 Mean: 1.0 Mean:
Riffle W/D 0.8 Range: 0.95 -1.05 Range: 0.95 -1.05 Range:
Ratio of Glide Length Mean: 0.5 Mean: 0.5 Mean: 0.5
to Bankfull Width
(Glength/Wbkf) 0.3 Range: 0.2 - 0.8 Range: 0.2 - 0.8 Range: 0.2 - 0.8
Page 3 of 4
MORPHOLOGICAL. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED
CHANNEL WITH REFERENCE REACH DATA
(After Rosgen, 1996)
MATERIALS
1. Particle Size
Distribution of
Channel Material
D,s 0.5 mm
D35 1.2 mm
D50 1.9 mm
restoration is Nnonty 2. Due land constraints a Priority 3 is considered also. This will require more instream
structures and a higher cost.
These Values and Ratios were Calculated and Proposed by:
Name: M. Alan Walker
Title: Resource Conservationist
Page 4 of 4
Remarks: This stream is currently attempting to establish a more meandering type "C" stream at a lower
elevation. The reference reach data came from streams surveyed by Will Harmon, NCSU & Angela Jessup,
NRCS. The restoration planned in this design calls for a Priority 2 & 3 restoration. The oreferd nrinrity
:.DIJ?,:sIQ u014DAJasu00 oulloJ00 N:?uoN
ua4,oM '8 1!oS 1laMoQoW TIVOS :oafo jd uop.ozilp-o:?S A:?unoo llamoQoW
aq:? pun S3dN - vase 01 ION a:?IS uow4-4.Id was A4.S > Aod s,6uno? uolsslww00 A4 uno0
:Aq papino.Jd aouo;sissy :alo:)s :uoi:?ooo*1 ::pafoid :}ua!lo
?i
?a u
_
€
a jet
' M R?BxS
C
0 1'1 u '_°uoy°r
_o
O Y i N ` « M«
C 4O L ti w
d m `, ?br
;. ?u
ea , u «o
d vs'
Ho d L F??4
V G1
41
CJ 41
4 3 'a-
C \ b
o N +? e
L) rn4-
d i N
NN Li°
L a 0 V d
7 L j
V Oy
1
u ow
C
d d
? 0 L N
41 i d Z 0'od
O v ON G L EHY
d f
> Ofd < d N'"ya
i NO p1 G di d
14-0 o. d 3 v m > d :p
Ric
o? o N L o 7
L v
4 a ~ x ~ a d0.d0v
X a d i a 5 §N d
QQ J ?-°a
S " LL Lem_
Q LA OI i y N L.0
G i p m _ru?
O Ql N 3 3
IJ d r 1- L Q
C5 O zZ N L
3 S
l
° > 3 >
tn
-Y 4? Ln
u o 0
0 o L
Q w U
5
3
u?t
a
C
3
a
3
f
"s
Sa
S
`sk
uC °S
fif
c
1
t N
= O
f U
e
L-j 4
a
a

c
o
s , 41
u
3 O
E L
U
o
' o
' a
' a
u
t
8
f
i
F
F
F 8 ?
$ = Y
i
I
9
S
t
f
a
Y
O
N
o,
L
4J
L
W
u
p
O
Y
c
0
Ln
L
N
L
O
U
ti
J,k-r' ?? d?
• 2
• ?k- u
CROSS SECTION VIEW
?.0

LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
O G
2030.
DESIGN SPECIFICATION FOR THE CROSS-VANE
STRUCTURE

w
?d
rocks
A ?ank
_+8
J l am..
(APO
Coss - Sri-?-10 y? . ?I2 W
© Dave Rosgen of Wildland Hydrology, 199,
ROCK VANE
A
w

DESIGN SPECIFICATION SHOWING PLAN VIEW
DESIGN FOR PLACEMENT OF NATIVE MATERIAL.
REVETMENT.
© Dave Rosaen of WMand Hydrology, 1996
p,
D
h /
l; S
I a
o
d i
CA V `? ??ca
z
a'

Q

. a
a-a
cam.
a4
m .

s
z

o

Y Z
U
G.7
a
x
H
i
o
x
w
a o
tx
rx:l
o Ca
J
O
Q
tD
W,Q
F U
z z z
W
,co 2
z- W
U
?Qz
Q
O z -z
P W W
U?Q
j
C) W Q
0.. _
U) J =
Q
zCC(J)
W
CO Q Z
o2¢

7
Dpi- WAD
WI T'o 0-r? Lo G

V
. r +n.

NMI` © Dave Rosgen of Wildland Hydrology, 1996