20050419 Ver 1_Complete File_20050303

t
I 'd SGNd-113M-OMO:3WUN 2689222-6I6:191 vs:io Idd s©02-22-7nr
NCDENR 1
G
From'
F?? COVER SHEEI

Division_
5zction:
bate: ???? ..
To.
Fax Number: 1?d1??3?"? R3
Number of Pages (including cover) c-
Subject: ??JU - ?r :d' ?? "ClJ Qlyw
-U
POL A
110 East Center Avanue, Suite 301, Mooresvilie, North Carolina 2e115
'hone: 704-663-1699 \ FAX: [phone] \ Interne';; www.enr.stale.nc.us
l0'd 117:6 500Z ZZ Inr Ob09999VOL:XeO
On.
7r'v f-r / .n //-, 08,111
ar?3a0t?
k
bS Z© Ia3 seea-zz-nnr
Z 'd SONti_113M-0MG:3WUN 26892216%:_131
MORANDUM ... ..
ional Contact: P i
R

OBJECT:
e
John DOMY W4 Supervisor:
Date:
Non-Discharge Branch.
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WETLAND
ltestoration/Pineb
Name Pinebrook Stream rook Sw?m
_Ft?cl{itx
project Number f)_`_ 041
.APP.. _
Recvd-From
Re-cvd Bx Region
eceived ppto 3131
projectTypa Stream restoration .
County Gastou
County2
Region.._. .
Class A
Gerti s cx?
Wetland Wetland Stream Supp Basin Req.
index Prim.
Permit Wetland Impact Score
Type 'Cy PC

Stream Impacts (it.)
Feet
Req.
MitigatfonTyPe Type Acres Feet
otiand Rating Sheet Attachod? o y *N Did YOU request moro info? O y ®N
is W
Ilcant? O Y ® N
Have Projoct ChangosJConditions Beon Discussed With App ond 0Deny
lsSUalC
Is Mitigation roquired? QY @N Recommendation: O ISSUC
Longitude (ddmmss) 810323
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 351415
Comments: icz nroo _ Tha
Page Number 1
cc: Regional Office
Central Office
ZO'd 117:6 9002 ZZ Inf 0V09099V0L:xej
0aw aFi3a?tl
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact:
Non-Discharge Branch WQ Supervisor:
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Polly Lespinasse
RPx Glpasnn
Facility Name Pinebrook Stream Restoration/Pinebrook Swim County Gaston
Project Number 05 0419
Recvd From APP
County2
Region Nlooresville
Received Date 3/3/05 Recvd By Region
Project Type Stream restoration
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
NW 27 Stream O Y O N F- 11-129-(15. WSV 30,836. F_- 400.00
F-F-O Y O N F__ F__ F_ F__ F_ F__
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? Q Y O N Did you request more info? Q Y O N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? Q Y 0 N
Is Mitigation required? p Y Oo N Recommendation: Q Issue O Issue/Cond O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 351415 Longitude (ddmmss) 810323
Comments:
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number ,1
Triage Check List
Date: 3/10/05 Project Name: Pinebrook Stream Restoration/Pinebrook
Swim Club
DWQ#: 05-0419
County: Gaston
To: Alan Johnson, Mooresville Regional Office
30-day Processing Time: 3/2/05 to 3/31/05
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone : [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to your 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 (Neuse, 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!
r'
MAR 0 3 2005

Office Use Only: DE" 0 nForm Version May 2002
ily
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide Permit # 27
Wetland and Riparian Restoration and Creation Activities
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 (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Pinebrook Swim Club
Mailing Address: PO Box 291, Belmont NC 28012
Telephone Number: 704 825 1457 Steve Barnette - President
Telephone Number: 704 866 3976 Patrick Armstrong, - Advisor/Boardmember
Email addresses: Steve Barnette: [e-mail]
Email addresses: Patrick Armstrong: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant 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: signed by owner
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Page I
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map (Figure 1. Vicinity Map in the Stream Restoration Plan for Unnamed
Tributary of South Fork Catawba at Pinebrook Swim Club Belmont, North Carolina)
clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local landmarks such as towns,
rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan (Figure 6. Restoration 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 (Figure 1. Vicinity Map)
and NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 3. NRCS Soil Survey) with the property boundaries outlined.
Plan drawings, (Figure 6. Restoration Site Plan, Figure 8. Rock Vane Detail, Figure 9 Step
Pool Detail) 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: Pinebrook Stream Restoration
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 3584-67-0850
4. Location
County: Gaston County Nearest Town: Belmont
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): I-85 to exit 26 Belmont Abbey
go south on to Central, take right fork in road after McDonalds, right on Main St, right on
Eagle Road left into Pinebrook Swim Club drivewav. Stream at bottom of hill.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35°14' 15.64"N, 81°03'23.82"W
(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. Property size (acres): 4.9 acres with restoration area approximately 0.35 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): unnamed tributary of the South
Fork Catawba River
8. River Basin: Catawba Basin Sub-watershed (HU-8 030 50102 South Fork Santee)
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at littp:Hii2o.enr.state.nc.us/adniin/maps/.)
Page 2
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Pinebrook Swim Club is a not for profit private recreational
facility built in 1965. The property is currently used as a swimming pool and a parking area
for its members. The unnamed tributary designated as Pinebrook in this application was
moved over in 1963 to accommodate building the swimming pool on a high plateau or fill
area. Over the years extensive erosion cause by incorrect dimension, pattern, and profile of
the stream has caused severe incision in the upper reach and excessive sedimentation in the
lower reach causing, multiple locations of sub surface flow that have destroyed the aquatic
habitat.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: This stream
was awarded a 319 Grant from North Carolina Division of Water Quality on August 30,
2004. The project will address restoration of the stable form with proper dimension, pattern
and profile of the stream utilizing_ erphic design principles. In stream structures and the
establishment of native riparian vegetation will help protect banks from erosion and promote
stability. The total area to be disturbed by restoration during construction is approximately
0.35 acres
A Daewoo Track hoe 220 LCS, 953C Track loader, D3c 6 way blade Bulldozer and Mac
Tandem Dump truck will be used on site for construction.
The upper reach of the restoration stream will follow a similar dimension, pattern and profile
based on reference reach data collected directly upstream of the beginning of the restoration.
This reach is designated a B stream type classification based on the Rosgen stream type
classification system will have a sinuosity of about 1.04. It will have a slope of
approximately 3.9% and will contain a series of step pools created from rock structures by
using boulders currently stock piled on site. The middle section of this stream is classified as
a G stream type and will be reconnected to its floodplain, slope will be decreased to 2.0%,
sinuosity will be increased form 1.02 to 1.34 making it an E stream type. A driveway bisects
the stream creating a constriction to the flow during runoff events. This constriction will be
alleviated by the proper placement of a 42" culvert and the addition of a 36" bankfull
floodplain drain. The remaining 70' section of this stream will have the dimension, pattern
and profile of a E stream type. The slope on this section will be .009 with a sinuosity of 1.36.
Construction of the stream will begin at the upper reach (Figure 6. Restoration Site Plan)
At each stage of the construction the stream will be ponded above the construction and the
flow will be pumped around to the lower reach. This staging will continue until the entire
reach has been restored. The construction for the upper B reach is anticipated to have a
duration of 2 working days. The stream will then be ponded at the end of the newly
constructed B reach and pumped around the mid section of stream into the lower E section of
stream. The construction of this middle section of E stream type is anticipated to take one
working day. Rock vanes will be installed in this reach to enhance in stream habitat. Finally
the stream will be ponded at the culvert and pumped around while the new culvert and
bankfull culverts are installed. Following the installation of the culverts the lower reach will
be constructed increasing slope from .0003 to 0.009, increasing sinuosity from 1.01 to 1.36
this construction is anticipated to take 1 working day. Duration of construction should not
exceed 5 working days.
Page 3
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: This stream restoration is undertaken to improve
water quality in the Catawba River Basin by reducing the contribution of sediment due to
excessive bank erosion and to improve stream habitat and establish a riparian buffer.
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.
No jurisdictional determinations were performed however a site survey was performed to ensure
that no wetlands are present. Results of the field investigation is attached to this application .
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.
There are no future permit requests anticipated for this project.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters 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.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
Approximately 400 feet of this stream will be restored to a erphically sound dimension,
pattern and profile.
Page 4
Individually list wetland impacts below:
Area
Wetland Impact of Located within Distance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Impa Fl 100-year Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
(indicate on map) (acre (yes/no) (linear feet)
s
See attachments
#2, 93, #4 and #5
No wetlands on Routine Wetland
this site. Determinations, narrative
and USACE Wetland
Delineation Certificate of
Donna Duke

* 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 tloodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://w%vNv.feina.cov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.00
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.00
2. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please seci
Figure 6. Site
Plan Map
Restoration
400 Unnamed tributary of
South Fork Catawba
River
8.5'
Perennial

* 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 shoving the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
Page 5
** 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 are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.eov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
w\vw.mapquest.coin, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: approximately 400 linear
3. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name Waterbody
)
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
No open water on
this site

* 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.): no pond will be created
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): no pond will be created
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 numose of this imnact is to restore the annroximate 400 linear feet of severelv incised.
degrading, entrenched, and ag rg adina stream to a properly functioning stream with the ability to
transport sediment. This restoration along with establishment of a riparian buffer will enhanced
aquatic habitat by alleviating the subsurface flows which are detrimental to aquatic habitat.
Page 6
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://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnnaide.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.
This is a restoration project that is not part of a mitigation plan. The project is less than 500
feet in total length.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.11tm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): Restoration project no mitigation
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): Restoration project no mitigation
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): Restoration project no
mitigation
Page 7
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): Restoration project no
mitigation
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): Restoration project no
mitiuation
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) 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
Alex Marks of DWQ stated that stream restorations do not require SEPA
documentation.
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 (required by DWQ)
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 213 .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
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 8
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* 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.
This is a stream restoration nroiect that will establish a 50' riparian buffer; total restoration
construction area approximately 0.35 acres
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
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.
Existina imnervious acreage = 0.69 acres No change in impervious acreage
Proposed impervious acreage = 0.69 acres No change in impervious acreage
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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.
No sewage disposal associated with this project.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
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 9
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).
There are a number of constraints associated with this project and we humbly request that
USACE and DWQ take these into consideration when processing this application:
1) This project will establish a much needed riparian buffer to protect and enhance water quality.
therefore plantine`must be done as early in the spring as possible to ensure survival of the live
stakes.
2) This is a not for profit public swimming pool that opens in May. Construction must be
completed no later than May 1st, 2005. It will take 5 days to construct and another 2 days to
Ip ant.
3) The 319 Grant funds associated with this project must be utilized by June 2005.
Page 10
Appucant/Agenus signature liate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
SOILS
Mao Unit Name
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Gaston County Swim Club Date: 01/13/2005
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County County: Gaston
Investigator: D.Duke State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X NO Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Common Name Stratum Indicator Species
1 Japanese Honeysuckl e Shrub FAC- Lonicera japonica
2 Eastern Red Cedar Tree FACU- Junioerus virginiana
3 Cane Grass Grass FACW Arundinaria gigantea
4 Golden Rod, Tall Grass FACU+ Solidago altissma
5 Saw greenbrier V FAC Smilax bona-nox L.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
40%
Percent Cover (%)
15
4
15
50
15
HYDROLOGY
tecorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
-Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_X_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: _0 (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: _0 (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: _0 (in.)
Remarks:
roloov Indicators:
Primary Indicators: None
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type' Yes No
Profile Descr' ti° ion:
Texture, Concretions,
Depth Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/ Size/ Contrast Structure, etc.
0-1 inches A 10 YR 3/2 None sandy-silt
1-12 inches B 10 YR 4/4 4/6 10 YR silty-sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon - High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic Order - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophlic Vegetation Present? X Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X-No Is this Sampling Point Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland?
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Gaston County Swim Club Date: 01/13/2005
Applicant/Owner: Gaston County County: Gaston
Investigator: D.Duke State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Common Name Stratum Indicator Species Percent Cover (%)
1 Willow Oak Shrub FACW- Quercus phellos 10
2 Eastern Red Cedar Tree FACU- Junioerus virginiana 25
3 Flowering Dogwood Tree FACU Cornus florida 3
4 Common greenbriar Vine FAC Smilax rotundifolia 10
5 White Oak Tree FACU Quercus alba 25
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
40%
HYDROLOGY
__X_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_X_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators: None
_0 (in.)
_0 (in.)
_0 (in.)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type' Yes No
Profile Description:
Texture, Concretions,
Depth Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist) Mottle Abundance/ Size/ Contrast Structure, etc.
0-1 inches A 7.5 YR 2.5/2 None clayey-silt
1-12 inches B 7.5 YR 3/4 None sandy-silt
Hydric Soil Indicators: None
_ Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic Order _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: The soil was very dry. Collecting samples was difficult.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophlic Vegetation Present? X Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X-No Is this Sampling Point Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland?
Remarks:
R1CI1d1"d C1,llllll ElllIll'OIpllElltGil T1'Al11110, IIIC.
certiies that
Do1u1a Duke
has successfully comyleted a
?s xoin• Arniy eolys of Eloixeels ?vetlm?d Delixentiox & Ntnxnjeliieiit Trnilino Proynln
issucil certificate No. 3005 and 3.S CEUS on tljJ twernty-ninth play of January, 2004, in Metairie, Lotusiana
? ?F1
RicltA Chian, S, CET,
Richanl Chtuu Environmental Trai?fu?g, 111C. ?. ,
804 Cottage Hill Way, Bradoll, FL 33511-SO98
1.S00.427.0307 0 FAX: 1.SSS.457.6331 0 it [e-mail] o lttty://lvnvlv.richanlcltuui.coln ?-V% Iv-
This training lids been based to yart on the U. S. Anuy Colys of Eigineers ivetlaluL Deltlleatioll Maltnal 7eeluiieal Reyort Y-S7-t (19S7 manual), as yruble?l for in the training
materials i{eveloyeri ui eonlfunction with Section 307(e) of the water ReSonrces Develoymeut Act of 1990 for the WetlmuJ Delineator Certification Program.
Wetland Delineation
On January 13, 2005 a wetland delineation was conducted along Pinebrook stream that
runs parallel to the Gaston County Swim Club. The area around the stream appeared to
be a forested woodland with areas positioned mostly upland from the stream. Eight
locations in low-lying areas were selected as sample points where soil, vegetation, and
hydrology data were gathered. The area surrounding the stream consisted mostly of
upland plants. No obligate plants were noted, however; the Willow oak (FACW-),
American elm (FACW), and the Christmas fern (FAC) were found around several of the
sampling points. Although some plants indicative of a wetland were present, soil and/or
hydrology requirements were not met at any of the sampling points. It has therefore been
determined that no wetlands immediately surround Pinebrook stream.
c?G)?11GC
February 24, 2005 4 n;t
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
001
Re: Pre Construction Notification Application and
"Stream Restoration Plan for Unnamed Tributary of South Fork Catawba River"
Dear: Sir/Madame;
Enclosed please find 3 copies of the Pre Construction Notification Application and "Stream
Restoration Plan for Unnamed Tributary of South Fork Catawba River at Pinebrook Swim Club,
Belmont North Carolina". This project is funded by a 319 Grant for Stream Restoration.
Conversations with Mr. Alan Johnson of the Mooresville office of DWQ and review of the WQC
# 3399 lead us to believe that this project in size and nature, does not require formal submittal
nor formal approval from the Division of Water Quality however, we wish to advise you of our
intentions and pending actions by providing you with the Pre Construction Notification
Application and Restoration Plan for your acceptance and/or review. We welcome your input if
you desire. Mr. Johnson has stated that he would speak directly with you about this project if
you wish to clarify his position or you may contact me at 704.875.3570 or via email at
[e-mail].
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. of North Carolina
CVO_C?
Karri Cecil Blackmon
Project Manager/Staff Engineer
Cam; ?
00
Earth & Environmental, Inc.
9800 West Kincey Avenue, Suite 190 Tel +[phone]
Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 www.amec.com Fax+[phone]
a M a e ? 5
jU-r19
February 24, 2005
Mr. Steven Chapin
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
USACE
151 Patton Avenue
Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Re: Pre Construction Notification Application and
"Stream Restoration Plan for Unnamed Tributary of South Fork Catawba River at
Pinebrook Swim Club Belmont, North Carolina"
Dear Mr. Chapin:
Enclosed please find a Pre Construction Notice Application and AMEC's "Stream Restoration
Plan for Unnamed Tributary of the South Fork Catawba River at Pinebrook Swim Club Belmont,
North Carolina".
Conversations with you, Mr. Alan Johnson of the Division of Water Quality, and review of WQC
#3399 lead us to believe that this project does not require formal submittal to nor formal
approval from the Department of Water Quality however, we have provided 3 copies to the
DWQ for their review and input if they so desire, simultaneously with this submittal to you. This
project is funded by a 319 Grant for Stream Restoration and is less than 500 linear feet in
length.
I trust that the restoration plan and the Pre Construction Notification Application are clear and
concise and I have provided you with the information you require to grant a permit for
restoration. However, if you require more information or wish to discuss any aspect of the plan
or application, please do not hesitate to contact me at 704.875.3570 or via email at
[e-mail].
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your favorable response.
Sincerely,
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. of North Carolina
Karri Cecil Blackmon
Project Manager/Staff Engineer
Earth & Environmental, Inc.
9800 West Kincey Avenue, Suite 190 Tel +[phone]
Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 www.amec.com Fax+[phone]
0'504 1
FILE
Stream Restora ion Pfan
for
an Unnamed Tributary of the South Fork Catawba River
at Pinebrook Swim Club Belmont, North Carolina
Prepared by F? ri r 17
ame MAR
DENR - .M
for YYETUANDSnoSTQi VWAiL:h8R'ANCH
Gaston County Department of Natural Resources
Pinebrook Swim Club, Inc. a not for profit public recreational facility
February 2005

7
Executive Summary
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality under Section 319 of the Clear Water Act of 1987
has accepted a proposal from the Gaston County Department of Natural Resources to restore
and repair an unnamed tributary of the South Fork Catawba River Basin Catawba River Sub-
watershed (HU-8 3050102 South Fork Santee). The Catawba River Watershed has been
designated as a high priority for Best Management Practices installations in the "Catawba River
Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan" report. The study found that urban storm water
runoff is of particular concern for nonpoint source pollution.
This project is not part of a mitigation plan and is less than 500 linear feet. It is anticipated that
the area disturbed by construction during the restoration will be 0.35 acres. The project site is in
an urban setting of commercial and residential development. The site contains approximately
450 linear feet of perennial stream of which 400 feet is in exceptionally poor condition. The
upper most section contains approximately 50 feet of reference reach condition B step pool
stream type (based on the Rosgen stream type classification system) which would benefit from
the removal of the large tree limbs and tree trunks littering its slopes. Otherwise this reach is
stable. This reach is followed by a severely incised section of F stream channel. The mid
section of this can be considered a G stream type with multiple locations of sub surface flow
caused by sedimentation from the F channel upstream. The stream passes through a culvert
into a channel that can be classified as an E stream type by cross sectional area and
entrenchment ratio but lacks sinuosity. This reach also contains multiple sub surface flows due
to extensive sedimentation cause by the unstable conditions upstream.
The goals and objectives of this stream restoration project are:
? to reduce the severe stream bank erosion
•:• stop channel degradation
•:• stop channel aggradation
repair the destroyed riparian areas
These objectives will be accomplished by:
reconnecting the stream to its floodplain
establishing proper dimension, pattern and profile
installation of in stream structures (step pools and rock vanes)
•:• creating a riparian buffer of native vegetation
The proposed stream dimension, pattern and profile is based on geomorphological criteria and
hydraulic geometry relationships developed from data collection and analysis of a similar stream
type located in Kings Mountain, North Carolina and from the stable portion of this stream
immediately upstream of the restoration.
The restoration design is a Priority Level 1 approach where a new bankfull channel of the stable
form is being created to re-established the stream within its' floodplain. The new dimension,
pattern and profile will provide the stream stable flow maintenance and effective sediment
transport.
Native woody and herbaceous vegetation will be used to establish a much needed 50 foot
riparian buffer (25 feet on each side of the stream) to provide shade to the channel to improve
aquatic habitat. The vegetation plan was designed by and will be implemented by Dr. Jim
Mathews of Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program (HARP).
As agreed upon in the 319 Grant, Gaston County will monitor the restoration for 10 years.
1
W

Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(if any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
N Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide Permit # 27
Wetland and Riparian Restoration and Creation Activities
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 (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Pinebrook Swim Club
Mailing Address: PO Box 291. Belmont NC 28012
Telephone Number: 704 825 1457 Steve Barnette - President
Telephone Number: 704 866 3976 Patrick Armstrong - Advisor/Boardmember
Email addresses: Steve Barnette: [e-mail]
Email addresses: Patrick Armstrong: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant 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: signed y owner
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
Page 1 of 1
J

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Project Site Location ............................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 General Description ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 USGS and NCDWQ River Basin Designation ............................................................................... 2
2.3 NCDWQ Surface Water Classification ........................................................................................... 2
3.0 Watershed Characterization ................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 General Description ........................................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Drainage Area ........................................................................... .......................................
3.3 Land Use and Development Potential ........................................................................................... 2
2
3.4 Significant Cultural and Natural Resources ................................................................................... 2
3.4.1 Historic Resources ..................................................................................................................
3.4.2 Archaeological Resources ...................................................................................................... 2
3
3.4.3 Rare/Threatened/Endangered Species and Critical Habitats ................................................. 3
4.0 Site Existing Conditions Survey .............................................................................................................. 3
4.1 General Site Description ................................................................................................................ 3
4.2 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................... 3
4.3 Existing Riparian Buffer and Natural Communities ........................................................................ 4
4.4 Existing Stream Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 4
4.4.1 Geomorphological Description ................................................................................................ 4
4.4.2 Channel Successional Stage Scenario ................................................................................... 4
4.4.3 Stability Assessment ............................................................................................................... 5
4.4.4 Bankfull Verification ................................................................................................................ 5
4.5 Project Constraints ......................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 Restoration Design with Reference Reach Criteria ................................................................................ 5
5.1 Stable B Reach .............................................................................................................................. 5
5.2 Upper F Reach with Proposed B Channel Design ......................................................................... 6
5.3 Middle G Reach with Proposed E Channel Design ....................................................................... 6
5.4 Lower E Reach with Proposed E Channel Design ......................................................................... 6
5.5 Riparian Buffer Planting Plan ......................................................................................................... 7
6.0 Sediment Transport Analysis 7
..................................................................................................................
6.1 Competency .............. 7
7.0 10 Year Flow Analysis for Culvert design ............................................................................................... 7
7.1 Method utilized and Determination of 10 year peak flow ............................................................... 7
8.0 Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 8
Figures
for ease of review all figures are located in Appendix V in numerical order
Figure 1. Vicinity Map (USGS Topo Quad w/ delineated Drainage Area)
Figure 2. Watershed Basin Map
Figure 3. NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 4. Site Aerial Photo
Figure 5. Existing Conditions Topo
Figure 6. Restoration Site Plan
Figure S. Rock Vane Details
Figure 9. Step Pool Details
Figure 10. 1938 Aerial Photo
Figure 11. 1951 Aerial Photo
Figure 12. Culvert Design
Appendices
Appendix I - Existing, Design and Reference Channel Geomorphology with Sediment
Transport Calculations, Typical Cross-section Designs and Longitudinal Profiles
(Existing and Proposed Design)
Appendix II- BEHI and Pfankuch data sheets
Appendix III- Photographic Documentation of Existing Site Conditions
Appendix IV- US Piedmont Urban Regional Curves
Appendix V- Figure 1 through Figure 12
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality under Section 319 of the Clear Water Act of 1987
has accepted a proposal from the Gaston County Department of Natural Resources to restore
and repair ah Unnamed Tributary of the Catawba River in the South Fork Catawba River Sub-
watershed (N` U-8 03050102 South Fork Santee) (Figure 2. Watershed Basin Map). This Plan
presents detailed information regarding the existing site and watershed conditions, the
geomorphological design criteria developed from reference reach data and project design
parameters based upon natural channel restoration methodologies.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of this stream restoration project are:
to reduce the severe stream bank erosion
stop channel degradation
? stop channel aggradation
? create habitat in the stream and in a riparian buffer
These objectives will be accomplished by:
? reconnecting the stream with its floodplain
establishing proper dimension, pattern and profile
installation of in stream structures (step pools and rock vanes)
planting native vegetation that will thrive along the stream and riparian buffer
2.0 Project Site Location
2.1 General Description
The unnamed tributary of the South Fork Catawba River for this purpose of this restoration
referred to as Pinebrook, is located in Belmont, North Carolina Gaston County (Figure 1. Vicinity
Map with Delineated Drainage Area). Pinebrook is a first order stream that flows south westerly
towards South Fork Catawba River.
The entire restoration site is contained on the Pinebrook Swim Club property located at 601
Eagle Road, Belmont North Carolina said property is owned by Pinebrook Swim Club, Inc. a not
for profit public recreational facility. The boundaries of the site are Eagle Road to the north and
Eastwood Drive to the west. It is anticipated that the area disturbed by construction during the
restoration will be 0.35 acres.

2.2 USGS and NCDWQ River Basin Designation
The project site is located on Belmont Quadrangle USGS map. (Figure 1. Vicinity Map) The
project reach is located in the Catawba Basin in the South Fork Catawba River Sub-watershed
(HU-8 030 50102 South Fork Santee) (Figure 2. Watershed Basin Map).
2.3 NCDWQ Surface Water Classification
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality assigns surface waters a classification in order to
help protect, maintain and preserve water quality. This stream does not appear on the list of
Water bodies nor does it have a designation. Further, the stream does not appear on FEMA
floodplain maps. However, aerial photos from 1938 (Figure 10) and 1951 (Figure 11) do show
the drainage pattern of the stream.
3.0 Watershed Characterization
3.1 General Description
The project site is located in a urban setting in the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
Topography is characterized as gently rolling hills. The historic dendritic drainage patterns of the
watershed have in areas been replaced by curb and gutter stormwater drainage systems. The
valleys have been narrowed due to the encroachment of residential and commercial
development and associated road ways.
3.2 Drainage Area
The total drainage area for the restoration reach approximately 0.125 miz. (Figure 1. Vicinity
Map with Delineated Drainage Area)
3.3 Land Use and Development Potential
The sub-watershed is approximately 62% urban and residential, 14% commercial, 15% open
space, school parks, playgrounds and cemeteries and 9% urban forested.
3.4 Significant Cultural and Natural Resources
3.4.1 Historic Resources
A review of available records at the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources indicates
that the project site it not within a Historic District.
s
2

3.4.2 Archaeological Resources
A review of available records and coordination with the State Office of Archaeology indicates
that no archaeology sites are recorded within the project area and no archeology survey is
recommended.
3.4.3 Rare/Threatened/Endangered Species and Critical Habitats
A request has been submitted to the North Carolina Heritage Program (NHP) to ensure that no
rare, threatened, or endangered species or critical habitats will be disturbed on this site. Once
the site specific request has been returned, review of the information will be done prior to
construction.
4.0 Site Existing Conditions Survey
4.1 General Site Description
The project site is a not for profit public recreational facility (swimming pool and associated
infrastructure Figure 4. Current Site Aerial) in an urban setting of commercial and residential
development. The site contains approximately 450 linear feet of perennial stream of which 400
feet is in exceptionally poor condition. The upper most section contains approximately 50 feet of
reference reach B step pool stream type (based on the Rosgen stream type classification
system) followed by a severely incised section of F stream channel. The mid section of this
stream can be classified as G stream type with multiple locations of sub surface flow caused by
heavy sedimentation from the F channel upstream. The stream passes through a culvert into a
reach classified as an E stream type by width to depth ratio but lacking sinuosity. This reach
contains multiple sub surface flows due to the extensive sedimentation contributed by the upper
reaches.
4.2 Geology and Soils
The project site is located in the Kings Mountain Belt. The Kings Mountian Belt includes
metasedimentary sequences with interlayered quartzite, metaconglomerate, marble, and schists
derived from borth sedimentary and volcanic protoliths (Keith and Sterrett, 1931; Kesler, 1944;
King, 1955; Horton and Butler, 1977; Supplee, 1986)
According to the NRCS map Gaston County Soil Survey, issued May 1989, the majority of the
project site consists of soils of type Winnsboro Loam (WnD) common to slopes ranging from 8
to 15 percent. The uppermost section of the proposed B reach may encounter Gaston sandy
clay loam (GaB2), common on slopes ranging from 2 - 8 percent, and is described as an eroded
soil.
s
3
II
D 4.3 Existing Riparian Buffer and Natural Communities
The vegetation on this site is predominately privet and elaeagnus along the floodplain area and
yellow pine and sweet gum in the area outside of the anticipated buffer. There are no individual
trees that have been designated as significant along the stream banks therefore, no
consideration for incorporation of existing trees into the restoration plan is presented.
4.4 Existing Stream Characteristics
4.4.1 Geomorphological Description
A Rosgen Level III assessment was conducted in January of 2005 to gather existing stream
dimension, pattern and profile data (i.e., width, depth, cross-sectional area, slope radius of
curvature, belt width, meander length), develop geomorphological parameters, (i.e. width to
depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, radius of curvature to bankfull width ratio, sinuosity) and to
determine the potential for restoration.
The existing project reach is divided into four separate stream types (based on the Rosgen
methodology of stream type classification. These divisions are due to a number of factors
including: valley type change that is in part naturally occurring and in part cause by the
encroachment of road fill from Eagle Road and Eastwood Drive as well as the 1965 construction
of the swimming pool, seen in Figure 4. Current Site Aerial. Further disruption is cause by the
driveway culvert located in the existing stream channel.
The data from the assessments are summarized in Table 1. Existing, Design and Reference
Channel Geomorphology Upper B Reach, Table 2. Existing, Design and Reference Channel
Geomorphology Mid E Reach and Table 3. Existing, Design and Reference Channel
Geomorphology Lower E Reach. These tables are located in Appendix I.
4.4.2 Channel Successional Stage Scenario
Stream instability in an urban environment is often a direct result of human-induced
disturbances such as channelization, floodplain encroachment, stream crossing installation such
as culverts, riparian and bank vegetation removal and watershed development. Based upon
measurements and observations in the field this stream is stable from station 0 to station 50
however, the remaining reaches are in dis-equilibrium. The reach immediately down stream of
the stable B reach is a highly incised and entrenched F channel that continues to provide
excessive bank and channel material to the lower two reaches. The reach immediately
following the incised F is characterized by G channel geomorphology with multiple locations of
sub surface flow cause by the extensive erosional processes taking place immediately up
stream. The lower reach is of E channel geomorphology where sub surface flow is dominate,
caused by the contribution of the channel and bank material from the preceding reaches and the
® reduction of slope to 0.003.
This stream will not repair itself without intervention and correction of the stream's dimension,
pattern and profile and by reconnecting the stream to its floodplain.
,
1
u
n
0
0

[J
C
Fol
LV?
A*k
4.4.3 Stability Assessment
Stability assessments using, Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Pfankuch Channel Stability
stratified by stream type were performed along the length of the existing channel confirming field
observations of the systems. These worksheets can be reviewed in Appendix III.

ten t•
.t

4.4.4 Bankfull Verification
Verification of bankfull is critical in natural channel design
however, in highly unstable systems such as Pinebrook it
is often difficult if not impossible to verify. Therefore, use
of regional curves to estimate bankfull width, cross-
sectional area, bankfull depth and bankfull discharge
followed by intensive field observations is often the only
methodology for bankfull verification. This was the
approach use at Pinebrook.
In the stable B reach above the restoration, bankfull is
evident in the form of low flat benches with established
' vegetation as seen in this photo forefront right (this photo
is also in Appendix III, in color). The cross-section area,
( depth, and width are consistent with the dimensions
I ?c
based on drainage area from the Piedmont Urban
Regional Curves in Appendix IV. Once out of the stable reach field verification is questionable
due to the extensive incision and subsequent aggradation. Therefore, the bankfull design for
Pinebrook is based on a combination of field verification of the upper stable B reach, reference
reach data from Kings Mountain, the NC regional curves and compared to the range of natural
variability as presented by Rosgen, 1996, "Applied River Morphology".
4.5 Project Constraints
There exist a number of constraints within the scope of this project, most notably the
construction schedule. The riparian buffer of 50 feet will be planted with live stakes of silky
willow and silky dogwood, providing much needed shade to the stream to create aquatic habitat.
However, if the buffer is not planted in the late winter or early in the spring the potential for
survival is diminished and success is questionable. For this reason, it is requested that review
of this plan be accelerated.
5.0 Restoration Design with Reference Reach Criteria
5.1 Stable B Reach
As this section is a relativity undisturbed reference reach quality step pool B stream type, no
measures are being taken to alter its dimension, pattern or profile. However, as previously
mentioned there is a considerable amount of unstable large woody debris that is threatening the
5
IJ
system if allowed to decay in place. Therefore, the effort will be put forth to remove the large
woody surface debris from the banks to prevent problems from developing in the future. This
section is the reference for the design in the immediate down stream reach of this stream.
After removal of the unstable large woody material this area will be planted with live stakes of
silky willow and silky dogwood, as recommended by Dr. Jim Mathews of HARP.
5.2 Upper F Reach with Proposed B Channel Design
This section of highly unstable incised and entrenched F channel will be restored using B
stream type geomorphology. A series of step pools (figure 9. Step Pool Detail) will be
constructed using native boulders of similar size and shape. These boulders are on site and
can be accessed without disturbing the stream or its banks. The geomorphic design criteria
was determined by analysis of the stable reach immediately upstream. A summary of the
existing conditions, proposed design parameters and the reference reach data can be viewed in
Table 1. Existing, Design and Reference Channel Geomorphology Upper B Reach and on
Figure 6. Restoration Site Plan.
has the natural slope and valley type that lends itself to a step pool B stream type design similar
to the
5.3 Middle G Reach with Proposed E Channel Design
This section of stream is characterized by G channel geomorphology with multiple locations of
sub surface flow cause by the extensive erosional processes taking place immediately up
stream and the culvert downstream. Correction of dimension, pattern and profile and with the
installation of rock vanes for grade control, E type channel geomorphology will be applied to this
reach. This design criteria was determined from reference reach data collected and analyzed
from Kings Mountain North Carolina and was confirmed to be within the range of natural
variability as presented by Rosgen, 1996, "Applied River Morphology". A sinuosity of 1.34 and
slope of 0.020 will be established during construction. Installation of rock vanes for grade
control and bank stability in addition to the installation of the new culvert configuration which
includes a 42" primary channel culvert and a secondary 36" bankfull culvert (Figure 12. Culvert
Design). installed at a bankfull elevation; 1.2' above the primary channel adjacent to the stream
on the floodplain greatly improves the streams ability to transport its bedload thereby improving
aquatic habitat. A summary of the existing conditions, proposed design parameters and the
reference reach data can be viewed in Table 2. Existing, Design and Reference Channel
Geomorphology Mid E Reach and on Figure 6. Restoration Site Plan.
5.4 Lower E Reach with Proposed E Channel Design
The lower reach is of E stream type width to depth ratio and E stream type entrenchment ratio
but lacking sinuosity. Here sub surface flow is dominate. The sub surface flow is caused by the
contribution of the channel and bank material from the upper two reaches and reduction of slope
to an almost un measurable 0.003. With the installation of the new culvert configuration, which
increases slope and with adjustment to the dimension, pattern and profile to a stable sinuous E
form this stream will convey the minimal amount of sediment the restored system will supply.
Construction includes decreasing width to depth ratio, increasing sinuosity from 1.01 to 1.36,
and increase of slope from 0.003 to 0.009. The installation of a few rock vanes will allow this
section of aggraded stream to transport sediment and will enhance aquatic habitat. A summary
1 6
1I
viewed in Table 3. Existing, Design and Reference Channel Geomorphology Lower E Reach in
Appendix I and on Figure 6. Restoration Site Plan.
5.5 Riparian Buffer Planting Plan
This project is small in size and is located in a narrow valley therefore, Dr. Jim Mathews of
HARP will place live stakes of silky willow and silky dog wood from the toe of the stream banks
to the top of the stream banks with spacing 2.5 foot on center. This will provide much needed
shade to the stream which will improve aquatic habitat
Along the riparian buffer on either side of the stream hardwood bottom land species such as red
maple will be planted from the top of the stream banks to the edge of the riparian buffer (a
distance of twenty five feet to either side of the stream) at a density of 10 feet on center in the
buffer except along the lower E reach. In this area, which is along a power line right of way silky
dogwood and silky willow will be used to avoid interference with the power line. Coordination
with the Gaston County Department of Planning and Code Enforcement reveals there exists no
right of way map for Duke Power for this property.
6.0 Sediment Transport Analysis
6.1 Competency
An analysis of the proposed conditions reveals that the restoration reaches will convey
sediment through the system appropriately based on the new geomorphic parameters
and new slope. These analyses can be seen in Appendix I.
7.0 10 Year Flow Analysis for Culvert design
7.1 Method utilized and Determination of 10 year peak flow
Using the Rational equation of Q = cia.
Drainage area (a) is approximately equal to 80 acres.
The rainfall intensity (i) = 4.16 in/hr based off of a 24 minute time of concentration (TR55
method). This intensity value is from the 1990 Charlotte/Mecklenberg Stormwater Design
Manual.
The runoff coefficient (c) = 0.45. this value comes from a weighted average of 0.5 for R-12, R-
15 residential areas <20,000 sq ft and 0.4 for suburban areas with lots >20,000 sq ft from the
® 1990 Charlotte/Mecklenberg Stormwater Design Manual.
L
e
This method calculates a 10 year peak flow of:
7
e
0 Q = (0.45)(4.16)(80) = 149.76 cfs
8.0 Monitoring and Evaluation
As agreed upon the in the 319 Grant awarded to Gaston County for this stream restoration
project Gaston County will monitor and report on this project for a period of 10 years.
e
1 8
Appendix I
Existing, Design and Reference Channel Geomorphology
with Sediment Transport Calculations
0
Existing Condition Channel Elevations
Station 289 to 333 existing culvert and road elevation
100
j -A Elevation]
98
,'

?0 6b ?`? ?0 h h 4O 40 0`3 h 4"6
°?
0
bb

Design Longitudinal Profile
96
88
86
94
92
90
r
? r
? U
U i
[ 4 Elevation
200 300 400 500 600
Table 1. Existing, Design and Reference Channel Geomorphology Upper F Reach
I
u
L.
Variables Existing Proposed Channel NC Regional Curve Reference Reach
Channel Design Channel
F2 B2 not stratified by stream type B2
1. stream type
0.125 sq mi 0.125 sq ml 0.125 sq mi 0.125 sq mi
2. drainage area
3. bankfull width 8.64 7 6 7
4. bankfull mean depth 59 .82 .9 .82
14.64 8.57 6.66 8.57
5. width/depth ratio
5.11 5.72 5.4 8.57
6. bankfull cross-sectional
area
7. bankfull mean velocity
8. bankfull discharge, cfs 23 cfs 23 cfs 23 cfs 23 cfs
9. bankfull max depth 1.05 1.2 1.2
10. width of floodprone area 16.75 14.65 14.65
11. entrenchment ratio 1.94 2.09 2.09
12. meander length 140 30 30
13. ratio of meander length to 16.20 4.28 4.28
bankfull width
14. Radius of curvature 60 15 15
15. Ratio of radius of curvature 6.94 2.14 2.14
to bankfull width
16. Belt width 25 10.5 10.50
17. Meander width ratio 2.89 1.5 1.5
18. Sinuosity (stream 1.02 1.04 1.04
length/valley length)
19. Valley Slope 0.041 0.041 0.041
20. Stream slope 0.035 0.039 0.039
21. Pool slope 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
22. Ratio of pool slope to 0.0028 0.0025 0.0025
stream slope
23. Maximum pool depth 1.08 1.74 1.74
24. Ratio of pool depth to 1.77 2.12 2.12
average bankfull depth
25. Pool width 8.85 5.0 5.0
26. Ratio of pool width to 1 .71 .71
bankfull width
27. Pool to pool spacing only 1 pool 22 22
28. Ratio of pool to pool n/a 3.14 3.14
spacing to bankfull width
not evident 1.0 1.0
29. Bank Height Ratio
Adapted from: The Internal Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina
u
-------------------RIVERMORPH-CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
----------------------------------------
River Name: Pinebrook
Reach Name: upper Reach
cross section Name: Existing F Sta. 74.12
® Survey Date: 02/23/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS
-------------- ELEV NOTE
-----------
0 0 -----------
95 -------- --------------------------
3.5 0 90.2
7 0 88.9
8 0 87.7
10.2 0 87.3
15.2 0 88.2
20 0 89
23 0 89.5
25.3 0. 91
26.5 0 92
36 0
40 0 93.4
93
4
.
---------
-------
-
----
-
-
-
Sectional Geometry
c
G
e
e
ty
r
--------------------------
----------
--------
------

Channel
Left --------------------
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 89.4 89.4 89.4
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 88.35 88.35 88.35
Floodprone width (ft) 16.75 -
Bankfull width (ft) 8.64 4.32 4.32
Entrenchment Ratio 1.94 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 0.59 0.81 0.38
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.05 1.05 0.77
width/Depth Ratio 14.6 5.37 11.43
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 5.11 3.48 1.63
wetted Perimeter (ft) 9.07 5.45 5.15
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.56 0.64 0.32
Begin BKF Station 7.46 7.46 11.78
End BKF Station 16.1 11.78 16.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen modified shields curve
channel Left side Right side
slope 0.035
shear stress (lb/sq ft) 1.22
Movable Particle (mm) 182.6

-----RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
-------------- -------------------------------------------------
River Name: Pinebrook
Reach Name: upper Reach
Cross Section Name: Existing F Sta 74.12
® Survey Date 02/23/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
-----------------------------
---------
0 --------------
0 ------------------
95
3.5 0 90.2
7 0 88.9
8 0 87.7
10.2 0 87.3
15.2 0 88.2
20 0 89
23 0 89.5
25.3 0 91
26.5 0 92
36 0 93.4
40 0 93.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 89.4 89.4 89.4
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 88.35 88.35 88.35
Floodprone width (ft) 16.75 -
Bankfull width (ft) 8.64 4.32 4.32
Entrenchment Ratio 1.94 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 0.59 0.81 0.38
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.05 1.05 0.77
width/Depth Ratio 14.6 5.37 11.43
Bankfull
Area (sq ft) 5.11 3.48 1.63
.
wetted Perimeter (ft) 9.07 5.45 5.15
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.56 0.64 0.32
Begin BKF-Station 7.46 7.46 11.78
End BKF Station 16.1 11.78 16.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Shields curve
Slope
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
Channel Left Side Right side
0.035
1.22
205.1
s
Upper Reach - Existing F
O Ground Points ? Bankfull Indicators ? Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 8.6 Dbkf = .6 Abkf = 5.1

C-
0
c0
O
W
0.00 4.02 8.04 12.06 16.07 20.09 24.11 28.13 32.15 36.17 40.19
Horizontal Distance (ft)
v

r
L.

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Pinebrook
Reach Name: Upper Reach
cross section Name: Proposed B
Survey Date: 02/21/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
----------
0 -------------
0 -----------------
93.4 ------------------------------
4 0 92
7 0 91 bkf
8.4 0 90.25
9 0 89.85
10.5 0 89.8 tw
12 0 89.85
12.6 0 90.25
14 0 91 bkf
17.1 0 92
22 0 93
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 92.2 92.2 92.2
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 91 91 91
Floodprone width (ft) 14.65 ----- -----
Bankfull width (ft) 7 3.5 3.5
Entrenchment Ratio 2.09 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 0.82 0.82 0.82
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.2 1.2 1.2
width/Depth Ratio 8.57 4.29 4.29
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 5.72 2.86 2.86
wetted Perimeter (ft) 7.62 5.01 5.01
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.75 0.57 0.57
Begin BKF Station 7 7 10.5
End BKF Station 14 10.5 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen modified shields curve
Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0.039
Shear stress (lb/sq ft) 1.83
Movable Particle (mm) 695.0

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
I
River Name: Pinebrook
Reach Name: Upper Reach
Cross Section Name: Proposed B
Survey Date: 02/21/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS ELEV
- NOTE
-------------------------
----
---------
0 ---------------
0 ---------------
93.4 -
4 0 92
7 0 91 bkf
8.4 0 90.25
9 0 89.85
10.5 0 89.8 tw
12 0 89.85
12.6 0 90.25
14 0 91 bkf
17.1 0 92
22 0 93
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 92.2 92.2 92.2
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 91 91 91
Floodprone width (ft) 14.65 ----- -----
Bankfull width (ft) 7 ' 3.5 3.5
Entrenchment Ratio 2.09 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 0.82 0.82 0.82
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.2 1.2 1.2
width/Depth Ratio 8.57 4.29 4.29
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 5.72 2.86 2.86
wetted Perimeter (ft) 7.62 5.01 5.01
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.75 0.57 0.57
Begin BKF Station 7 7 10.5
End BKF Station 14 10.5 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Shields curve
Channel
Slope 0.039
shear stress (lb/sq ft) 1.83
Movable Particle (mm) 695.0
Left Side Right Side
e
Upper Reach - Proposed B
o Ground Points ? Bankfull Indicators ? Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 7 Dbkf = .B Abkf = 5.7

c-
c
Cu
W
0 5 10 15 20 25
Horizontal Distance (ft)
I Table 2. Existing, Design and Reference Channel Geomorphology Mid E Reach
Variables Existing Proposed Design
Reach NC Regional Curve Reference Reach
Channel
G E not stratified by stream E
1. stream type type
0.125 sq mi 0.125 sq mi 0.125 sq mi 0.620 sq mi
2. drainage area
3. bankfull width 6.53 6.0 6.0 12.0
4. bankfull mean depth •77 .84 0.9 1.6
5. width/depth ratio 8.49 7.11 6.66 7.5
6. bankfull cross-sectional 5.02 5.06 5.4 15.96
area
7. bankfull mean velocity
8. bankfull discharge, cfs 23 cfs 23 cfs 23 cfs 60 cfs
9. bankfull max depth 1.04 1.2 1.74
10. width of floodprone area 9.6 54.7 92.0
11. entrenchment ratio 1.47 9.12 7.6
12. meander length - 22-35 44.0-68.4
13. ratio of meander length to - 3.6-5.83 3.66-5.7
bankfull width
14. Radius of curvature - 9.0-15-0 25.0-32.0
15. Ratio of radius of curvature - 1.5-2.5 2.0-2.6
to bankfull width
16. Belt width - 15.0-21.0 31.0-40.0
17. Meander width ratio - 2.5-3.5 2.58-3.3
18. Sinuosity (stream 1.02 1.34 1.29
length/valley length)
19. Valley Slope 0.027 0.023 0.030
20. Stream slope 0.027 0.020 0.025
21. Pool slope
-
0.0001
0.0001
22. Ratio of pool slope to - 0.005 0.004
stream slope
23. Maximum pool depth - 1.58 1.74
24. Ratio of pool depth to - 1.88 1.08
average bankfull depth
25. Pool width - 5 9.96
26. Ratio of pool width to - 0.833 0.83
bankfull width
27. Pool to pool spacing - 22.0-35.0 48.0-67.0
28. Ratio of pool to pool - 3.6-5.8 4.0-5.5
spacing to bankfull width
2.0 1.0 1.0
29. Bank Height Ratio
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Pinebrook
Reach Name: Middle Reach
cross section Name: Existing G sta 49
® Survey Date: 02/23/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
-----------------------------------
---------
0 --------------
0 ------------
603.4
8 0 602.8
15 0 602.5
23 0 601.85
29 0 600.5
33 0 600.7
36 0 600.61
40 0 600.6
45.5 0 598.4
49 0 598.5
50 0 600.7
51 0 600.85
59 0 601.1
63 0 602.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 600.48 600.48 600.48
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 599.44 599.44 599.44
Floodprone width (ft) 9.6 -
Bankfull width (ft) 6.53 3.25 3.28
Entrenchment Ratio 1.47 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 0.77 0.62 0.91
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.04 1.04 1.02
width/Depth Ratio 8.49 5.22 3.59
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 5.02 2.02 3
wetted Perimeter (ft) 7.33 4.47 4.91
Hydraulic Radius .(ft) 0.68 0.45 0.61
Begin BKF Station 42.9 42.9 46.15
End BKF Station 49.43 46.15 49.43
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen modified shields curve
I channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0.027
shear Stress (lb/sq ft) 1.15
Movable Particle (mm) 170.6
a RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
1 River Name: Pinebrook
Reach Name: Middle Reach
Cross Section Name: Existing G Sta 49
® Survey Date: 02/23/05
--------------
Cross Section -------------
Data Entry -------------------------------------------
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
----------------------------------
-------------
0 --------------
0 ---------
603.4
8 0 602.8
15 0 602.5
23 0 601.85
29 0 600.5
33 0 600.7
36 0 600.61
40 0 600.6
45.5 0 598.4
49 0 598.5
50 0 600.7
51 0 600.85
59 0 601.1
A 63 0 602.7
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 600.48 600.48 600.48
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 599.44 599.44 599.44
Floodprone width (ft) 9.6 -
Bankfull width (ft) 6.53 3.25 3.28
Entrenchment Ratio 1.47 -----
mean Depth (ft) 0.77 0.62 0.91
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.04 1.04 1.02
width/Depth Ratio 8.49 5.22 3.59
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 5.02 2.02 3
wetted Perimeter (ft) 7.33 4.47 4.91
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.68 0.45 0.61
Begin BKF Station 42.9 42.9 46.15
End BKF Station
-------------------------- 49.43
---------- 46.15
------------ 49.43
----------------------
Entrainment Calculations
-------------------------- ---------- ------------ ----------------------
Entrainment Formula: Shiel ds Curve
Channel Left Side Right side
slope 0.027
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft) 1.15

I Movable Particle (mm) 142.2
Middle Reach - Existing G
O Ground Points ? Bankfull Indicators ? Water Surface Points
wbkf = 6.5 Dbkf = .8 Abkf - 5

C-
.2
tD
O
W
4.5 0.0 4.5 9.0 13.5 18.1 22.6 27.1 31.6 36.1 40.6 45.1 49.6 54.2 58.7 63.2 67.7
Horizontal Distance (ft)
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Pinebrook
Reach Name: Middle Reach
cross section Name: Proposed E
Survey Date: 02/22/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
- FS ELEV NOTE
---------------------------
-------
--
0 --------------
0 ----------------
88 ---
5.92 0 87
25.22 0 86
29.1 0 85.78 bkf
30.1 0 85
31.1 0 84.63
32.1 0 84.58 tw
33.1 0 84.63
34.1 0 85
35.1 0 85.78 bkf
50.56 0 86
61.22 0 87
65.92 0 88
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 86.98 86.98 86.98
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 85.78 85.78 85.78
Floodprone width (ft) 54.7 ----- -----
Bankfull width (ft) 6 4.16 1.84
Entrenchment Ratio 9.12 -----
mean Depth (ft) 0.84 0.93 0.64
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.2 1.2 1.09
width/bepth Ratio 7.11 4.46 2.88
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 5.06 3.88 1.18
wetted Perimeter (ft) 6.67 5.6 3.25
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.76 0.69 0.36
Begin BKF Station 29.1 29.1 33.26
End BKF Station 35.1 33.26 35.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen modified shields curve
Channel Left side Right side
slope 0.02
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft) 0.95
Movable Particle (mm) 140.0

Q-1
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
- River Name: Pinebrook
Reach Name: Middle Reach
Cross Section Name: Proposed E
Survey Date: 02/22/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS ELEV
- NOTE
--------
----------
0 --------------
0 -------
--------
88 ----------------------
5.92 0 87
25.22 0 86
29.1 0 85.78 bkf
30.1 0 85
31.1 0 84.63
32.1 0 84.58 tw
33.1 0 84.63
34.1 0 85
35.1 0 85.78 bkf
50.56 0 86
61.22 0 87
65.92 0 88
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 86.98 86.98 86.98
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 85.78 85.78 85.78
Floodprone width (ft) 54.7 ----- -----
Bankfull width (ft) 6 4
16 84
1

Entrenchment Ratio
9.12 -
_ _ -
Mean Depth (ft) 0.84 0.93 0.64
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.2 1.2 1.09
width/Depth Ratio
a 7.11 4.46 2.88
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 5.06 3.88 1.18
wetted Perimeter (ft) 6.67 5.6 3.25
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.76 0.69 0.36
Begin BKF Station 29.1 29.1 33.26
End BKF Station 35.1 33.26 35.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Shields curve
Slope
shear stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
Channel Left side Right side
0.02
0.95
75.5
L.
Middle Reach - Proposed E
O Ground Points ? Bankfull Indicators ? Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 6 Dbkf = .8 Abkf = 5.1
C
O
Ca
O
W
1.0 7.8 14.5 21.3 28.0 34.8 41.6 48.3 55.1 61.8 68.6
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Table 3. Existing, Design and Reference Channel Geomorphology Lower E Reach
9
s

?I

U
u
0
r
[1
L
CI
L
L
Variables Existing Proposed Design
Reach NC Regional Curve Reference Reach
Channel
E severely degraded E not stratified by stream E
1. stream type type
2. drainage area 0.125 sq mi 0.125 sq mi 0.125 sq mi
3. bankfull width 8.07 4.8 6.0 12
4. bankfull mean depth 0.74 1.06 0.9 1.6
5. width/depth ratio 10.92 4.52 6.6 7.5
6. bankfull cross-sectional 5.96 5.1 5.4 15.96
area
7. bankfull mean velocity
8. bankfull discharge, cfs 23 cfs 23 cfs 23 cfs 23 cfs
9. bankfull max depth 1.08 1.4 1.74
10. width of floodprone area 14.2 26.46 92.0
11. entrenchment ratio 1.76 5.51 7.6
12. meander length - 19.0-29.0 44.0-68.4
13. ratio of meander length to - 3.9-6.04 3.66-5.7
bankfull width
14. Radius of curvature - 7.0-13.0 25.0-32.0
15. Ratio of radius of curvature - 1.45-2.7 2.0-2.6
to bankfull width
16. Belt width - 17.0-23.0 31.0-40.0
17. Meander width ratio - 3.54-4.79 2.58-3.3
18. Sinuosity (stream 1.01 1.36 1.29
length/valley length)
19. Valley Slope 0.003 0.009 0.030
20. Average slope 0.0029 0.0069 0.025
21. Pool slope - 0.0001 0.0001
22. Ratio of pool slope to - 0.014 0.004
stream slope
23. Maximum pool depth - 1.08 1.74
24. Ratio of pool depth to - 1.01 1.08
average bankfull depth
25. Pool width - 4 9.96
26. Ratio of pool width to - 0.83 0.83
bankfull width
27. Pool to pool spacing - 19.0-29.0 48.0-67.0
28. Ratio of pool to pool - 3.9-6.04 4.0-5.5
spacing to bankfull width
29. Ratio of lowest bank height 1 1.0 1.0
to bankfull height (or max
bankfull depth)
C
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Pinebrook
Reach Name: Lower Reach
cross section Name: Existing E
Survey Date: 02/22/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS ELEV
----------- NOTE
------------------------------
----------
0 --------------
0 -----
85.95
2.44 0 85
3.84 0 84.44 LEW
4.48 0 84.18
5.83 0 84.15 tw
7.41 0 84.18
7.92 0 84.26 REw
9.86 0 85.22 RLB
14.2 0 86
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 86.31 86.31 86.31
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 85.23 23
85 23
85
Floodprone width (ft) 14.2 _ _
Bankfull width (ft) 8.07 4.02 4.05
Entrenchment Ratio 1.76
Mean Depth (ft) 0.74 0.71 0.77
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.08 1.08 1.08
width/Depth Ratio 10.92 5.67 5.27
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 5.96 2.85 3.11
wetted Perimeter (ft) 8.5 5.3 5.36
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.7 0.54 0.58
Begin BKF Station 1.85 1.85 5.87
End BKF Station 9.92 5.87 9.92
--------:-------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Shields curve
channel Left Side Right side
slope 0.003
Shear stress (lb/sq ft) 0.13
Movable Particle (mm) 8.3
i
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Pinebrook
Reach Name: Lower Reach
Cross Section Name: Existing E
® Survey Date: 02/22/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
.¦ Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
----------------------
--------------------------
0 0 -----------
85.95 ------- ----
2.44 0 85
3.84 0 84.44 LEW
4.48 0 84.18
5.83 0 84.15 tw
7.41 0 84.18
7.92 0 84.26 REW
9.86 0 85.22 RLB
14.2 0 86
-------------------------- ----------- ------- --------------------------
Cross sectional Geometry
-------------------------- ----------- ------- --------------------------
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 86.31 86.31 86.31
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 85.23 85
23 23
85
Floodprone width (ft) 14.2 _ _
Bankfull width (ft) 8.07 4.02 4.05
Entrenchment Ratio 1.76 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 0.74 0.71 0.77
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.08 1.08 1.08
Width/Depth Ratio 10.92 5.67 5.27
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 5.96 2.85 3.11
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 8.5 5.3 5.36
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.7 0.54 0.58
® Begin BKF Station 1.85 1.85 5.87
® End BKF Station 9.92 5.87 9.92

Ent-----rai----nme--nt Calculations
- --
--- -----------

----------- -------

------- --------------------------

--------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen modified shields curve
channel Left side Right Side
Slope 0.003
shear stress (lb/sq ft) 0.13
Movable Particle (mm) 13.2
e
w-
C
O
c>3
Q)
W
0.0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0 7.2 8.4 9.6 10.8 12.0
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Lower Reach - Existing E
O Ground Points ? Bankfull Indicators V Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 8.1 Db}:f = .7 Abkf = 6
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Pinebrook
Reach Name: Lower Reach
Cross Section Name: Proposed E
.
Survey Date: 02/22/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
-
----------
0 --------------
0 ----------------
88 -------------------
----------
13.88 0 84.93 bkf
14.83 0 83.65
16.23 0 83.53 tw
17.73 0 83.65
18.68 0 84.93 bkf
30.47 0 85
38.46 0 88
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 86.33 86.33 86.33
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 84.93 84.93 84.93
Floodprone width (ft) 26.46 ----- -----
Bankfull width (ft) 4.8 2.4 2.4
Entrenchment Ratio 5.51 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 1.06 1.06 1.06
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.4 1.4 1.4
width/Depth Ratio 4.52 2.26 2.26
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 5.1 2.55 2.55
wetted Perimeter (ft) 6.1 4.45 4.44
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.84 0.57 0.57
Begin BKF Station 13.88 13.88 16.28
End BKF Station 18.68 16.28 18.68
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen modified shields curve
1 Channel Left side Right Side
Slope 0.0069.
Shear stress (lb/sq ft) 0.36
Movable Particle (mm) 49.0

1
0 RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Pinebrook
Reach Name: Lower Reach
Cross Section Name: Proposed E
® Survey Date: 02/22/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
----------
0 --------------
0 ----------------
88 ------------------------------
13.88 0 84.93 bkf
14.83 0 83.65
16.23 0 83.53 tw
17.73 0 83.65
18.68 0 84.93 bkf
30.47 0 85
38.46 0 88
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 86.33 86.33 86.33
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 84.93 84.93 84.93
Floodprone width (ft) 26.46 ----- -----
Bankfull width (ft) 4.8 2.4 2.4
Entrenchment Ratio 5.51 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 1.06 1.06 1.06
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.4 1.4 1.4
width/Depth Ratio 4.52 2.26 2.26
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 5.1 2.55 2.55
® wetted Perimeter (ft) 6.1 4.45 4.44
® Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.84 0.57 0.57
Begin BKF Station 13.88 13.88 16.28
End BKF Station
-------------------------- 18.68
---------- 16.28
------------ 18.68
----------------------
Entrainment Calculations
--------------------------
----------
------------
----------------------
Entrainment Formula: Shiel ds curve
h
l f
id
c
anne Le
t S
e Right side
slope 0.0069
shear stress (lb/sq ft) 0.36
Movable Particle (mm) 19.1
CI
L
e
e
9
9
D
9
B

0
c?
w
Lower Reach - Proposed E
o Ground Points • Bankfull Indicators v Water Surface
Points
Wbkf = 4.8 Dbkf = 1.1 Abkf = 5.1
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Slream:
?l ?
Q \ u y
1? Reach: S ! ?-/ Lo
-6 Pfan?kuch Chant.
Dale: 1 1 1`h j OS Ob
1C abilit y Form
servers:
-gip- Comments:
Location IC Excellent
ey Category Good

Description
Rating
i Description
Ralin
9 Fair

D Poor
j Lan 11orm Slope Bank slope gradient <30,6 -
2 escription Rating Uescriplion R
ti

.
Bank slope gradient 30-40%,
q

Clank slope gradient 40
60 a
o
9

V)
2
Mass Wasting
No evidence of past or future mass wasting.
- 3
Infrequent. Mostly healed over
Low futu -
90. G Bank slope gradient GO'Sb+.

? .
re
polenliaL 6 Frequent or large, causing sediment nearly 9 Frequent or large, causing sediment I,early

fA year long,
yearlong OR Imminent danger of same

`
3
Rcbris Jam
Polenlial
Essentially absent from Immediate channel
area
area.
2
Present, bill mostly small lv+igs and limbs.
4
(.Moderate to heavy amounts
mostly larger

? .

M
d 12

n ,
size o
erate to heavy antounls, predominantly

CL
4
Vrgetalive Bank
9096+ plant density, Vigor and variety
3
70-9096 density. Fewer species or less vi
or
6 s.
5 larger sizes. e

Proleclion
suggest a deep, dense soil binding root g
suggest less dense or deep root mass 0.7096 density. Lower vigor and fewer 9 <5096 density plus fewer species S less vigor

-

`-
mass. . species from a shallow, discontinuous fool

mass indicating poor, discontinuous, and shallow 12
5 Channel Am
le f . cool mass

C
it
/
p
or present plus soure increases.
1
Adequate. Clank overflows are rare.
2 .
_
apac
y Peak flows contained, (W/D)/(W/Drel) < (WD)/(W/Drel) = 1.1.1.2
BI IR - 1
1-1
3 rb
)1 peaks. Occasional 3 Inadequale. Overbook (Ions common.
Cttlargemcnl BHR = 1.0-1.1 ,
.
. ook floods. (W/D. (W/D
ove
)/(W/Dreq
811
= (W!D)/(W/Dref) > G. BFIR >1.5
4
G Bank Rock 65,6+ w/ large angular boulders, 12"+ Q 40-65%. Mostly boulders and small cobbles 4 R
1.3-1.5
20
4096
"

Y
Content
coalition,

6-12 ' -
. Willi most in lire 3-6
diameter 6 <2D96 rock fragmetils of gravel sizes
1-3" or

7
Ohslruclions to
Rocks and logs firmly Imbedded. Flow
Some present causing erosive cross class. ,
ess.
8
L1]
L Flow pattern w/o culling or deposition. Stable bed, currents and minor pool filling. Obstructions 4 Moderately frequent, unstable obstructions 6 Frequent obstructions and deflectors cause

N
?
fewer and less firm. move with nigh flows causing bank culling
and pool fillin bank erosion yearlong. Sediment traps full,
9

S
? 0 Collin
g
Little or none. Infrequent raw banks <6%
O
Some, Intennilienlly at oulcurves and g. channel mipralion occurring.

J

conslriclions. Raw banks may be up to 12". 6 Significant. Cuts 12-24"
high. Root mat
overhangs and sloughing evidenl
12
Almost continuous cuts, some over 24" high.
. Fnil ire of overhangs frequent.
16
9 Deposition Lillie or no enlargement of channel or point 4 Some new bar increase
mostly lrom coarse 8

bars, ,
gravel. Moderate deposilion of new ravel and
9
12
Extensive deposit or predominantly fine
coarse sand on old and some new bars, particles. Acceleraled bar development.
16-
10 Rock Angularit Shar
d
d
y p e
ges an
corners. Plane surfaces 1 Rounded corners and edges
surfaces 2 C

rough, ,
srrtoo8t, gat. orners and edges well rounded in 2

d 3
Well rounded in all dimensions, unlaces
11 Urlyhbtess Surfaces dull, dark or stained. Generally not O Moslly dull, but may have <3596 britJht 2 fi
M o 4
bright.
surfaces. xture dull
ixture dull
and bright, Le. 35-6-596 mixture 3 Pre
m
Predominantly briylrl. 65°6+, exposed or

2

onsolidalion of

ssorted sizes lightly packed or overlapping,

Q

oderately packed with some overlap
in

4 range.

hl

coured
sui faces.

4

E
Panicles p
g oslly )Dose assortment wish no apparent G No packing ng evident.
Loose assorhnenl
easil

"

1:1

iloliont Size

No size change evident. Stable material 80-

4

Distribution shift light
Stable material 50
overlap, ,
y
moved.
6

Uislribufiun
100%. .
-
8 D 8 Moderate change in sizes. Stable materials 12 Marked distribution change. Stable materials 0-

14

Scouring and

<5% of bottom affected by scour or

6

5-30°6 affected- Scour at constrictions a
d 20-50%.
20 ;6. 10

Deposition
deposition. n
where grades steepen. Some deposilion In 12 30-5096 affected. Deposits and scour at
obstructions, constrictions and bends
So 18 More than 50",6 of the bottom in a slate of flux

pools, .
me
filling of pools
or change nearly yearlong.
24

15
Aquallc
Vegclalion
Abundant growth moss-like, dark green
1
Common, Algae forms in low velocity and /'\
((2
(D .
Present but spotty
mostly in backwat

perennial. In swill water, too,
pool areas. Moss here, loo. ,
er.
Seasonal algae growth makes rocks slick 3 Perennial types scarce or absent. Yellow-
-- . green, short term bloom may be present.

Excellent Total= 3 Good Total=

F
i
T
r

?
----------------------------------
a
r
olai =1 `u Poor Total =

ream Type _

Good (Stable)
_A1

:18-43
A2

38-43
AJ

54-90
A4

60-95
AS

60-95
A6

50-80
at

38
45
82

3
83
84
D5
A6
C1
CZ
C3
C4

C5

C6

D3

D4

D5

D6 r

Fair (Mod.unslabh;
11.41
44-47
91.129
9G•132
96-142
81-110 .
46-58 8-45
46--58 40-60
61-78 40-64
65-64 48-68
69-08 40-60
61-78 38-50
51-61 311-50
51-61 60-85
86-105 70-90
91
1 70-90 f,0-65 65-107 65-107 OS-107 67-90 Grand Total = u3
r
Poor(Unslable.)

tream Type
G
d
S 48r
_

IA3
_
-_ 48+

A4 130+

A5 133+

AS 143E

3 111+

4
59+

S
59+

6
79+

1
65+

2

89+

F3

79+

F4

62r

F5

62;

F6

106+

6-7 -
10
111+

6-2 91-110

111+ 86-105

1064 108-132

133+ 108.132

133+ 100-132 99-125

193+ 126-+
Existing Stream n
-LKJ
Type =

oo
le)
(
ill
Fair (1.1od, wtslablc
Poor (Unstable) 40
6-3
-
lit-U6-
87r 40 -6-3

64-86
87+ 40 63

-
64-86
87+ 40 6-3

-
64-66
87+ 40 -63

64-86-
67+ 5U 75

-
76-96-
97+ 50

-75
76-96
97+

40-63
6-4-8G
87+

60-85
86.105
106+

60-OS
86-105
106+

85.110
111-125
126-+

85-110
111-1251
120

90-115
116-1301
131+

60-95
96-110
111+

40-60
61.78
79+

40-60
61-78
79+ 6-3

85-107
108-120
121+
6-4
85-107
100-120
121+
6-5
90-112
113-1251
126+
6-6
85-107
108-1201
121+

I

I
potential Slrcam (-?
Typem :: J?`iJ?
Modi(iedChannel I
Stability Ralin = I
• Rating should be adjusted to Polenlial Stream Type, not existing. t? 0
C41 f-- - S- - - - ..._ J
© 2002 Wildland Hydrology Jesh:c/Any nocumenls/class
File^'RAra.'rield A,lmuml.r3id fi?lrl ?hv,•ls
ITS ?
BEHI F
Stream: `? n 2 olC Reach: Q SCE Cross Section: 5k,. g• Date: Crew:
Erodibility Variable/Value Index Erosion
Potential
Bank Height/f3ankfu11 Helaht
Bank Bankfull
Height (ft) Height (ft) A/B
1 S
>rn o?
B
1.2 •8 S
Root
Depth (ft) C/A 1 V CN1ti
C y ALO
?.2 W
Weighted Root Density
Root
Densily D"(C/A)
(%) D ?'.
50 so
Bank Angle
Bank
Angle
(degrees)
Surface Protection
Surface
Protection
(%)
2 S ,
o
S o
Materials: Upper-sandy loam.
Lower-gravel with sand matrix
Stratification: Boundary between
sandy loam and gravel ©
.
TOTAL SCORE: _
_
3 •(P i L-o I
Rnn4 Gr u., -a ?__,_
Bank Erosion Potential
Very Low Low , Moderate High Very High Extreme
Bank Height/ Value
----------- 1.0 - 1.1
----------- 1.11 - 1.19
--- 1.2 - 1.5 1.6 - 2.0 2.1 - 2.8 >2 8

'
Bankfuil Height Index
1.0-1.9 -------
2.0-3.9 ----------
4.0-5.9

--- ---
6
.0 - 7.9

-------
8.0-9.0

0
-
o Root Depth/ - Value -- 1.0-0.9
..... 0.89 ; 0.5
-----••--- 0.49 - 0.3
- 0.29 - 0.15
0.2 0.14 - 0.05 <0.05

>" Bank Height Index 1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 ---------
4.0-5.9 - --
6.0-7.9
8.0 - 9.0
10 -
T Weighted -Value _ 100 - 80
-- -- --- 79 - 55
-- ---- 54 - 30 29 - 15 14 - 5.0 <
5
0

_

:n

Root Density Index

1.0 - 1.9
--
2.0 - 3.9
----------
4.0-5.9
- -
6.0-7.9

8.0-9.0 _
.
_
10
v
o Value
Bank Angle ----------- 0-20
---------- 21 - 60
---------- 61 - 80
------ 81 - 90 91-119 > 119

w

Index

1.0-1.9

2.0-3.9 ---
-
4.0-5.9
----------
6.0-7.9
-----------
8.0-9.0
----------
10
Surface --- Value -- 100 - 80
----------- 79 - 55
---------- 4-30
--- 29-1 5 4-10 <10

Protection Index

1.0-1.9

2.0-3.9
--- -._
4.0-5.9
----------
6.0-7.9
------
8.0-9.0 _ _ _ _
_
10
Bank Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bunk erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material. then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending on percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points If sand Is exposed to erosional processes)
Sill/Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Stratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers In relation to bankfull stage
Total Score
Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
5-9.5 10-19.5 20-29.5 30-39.5 40-45 46-50
C18 © 2003 Wildland Hydrology Josh:C/My Documents/Class
Files/RAM/Field Manual/3rd field day.xls
s
e
e
1

1

0
1

a
e
1
Table 1. Documentation of Ratios and drived values for near-bank stress
determination by method type and level of?estimate.
''II ?i
stream: ? %? bczSk Location: ?-G `t' Date: 11 i 1' O? Crew: ?-?
Transverse and/or central bars - short and/or discontinuous. NBS = HighNery High
Method 1 Extensive deposition (continuous, cross channel). NBS =.Extreme
Chute cutoffs, down-valley meander migration, converging flow (Figure X). NBS = Extreme
Radius of Bankfull Ratio Pool Slope Average Ratio
Curvature Width Slope
Method 2 Rc (feet) Wbkf (feet) Rc/W Method 3 Sp S SdS

Pool Slope Riffle Slope Ratio Near-Bank Mean Ratio
Max Depth Depth
Method 4 Sp Sa SdSrff Method 5 deb (feet) d (feet) dnb/d
k 1, Z "R
-
Near-Bank Near-Bank Near-Bank Mean Average Bankfull .
Ratio
Max Depth Slope Shear. Depth Slope Channel
Method 6 dnb (feet) Snb Tnb (lb/ft2) d (feet) S r (lb/ft)
Tnb/T

Velocity Gradient
Method 7 - (ft/s/ft)

Table 2. Convertinq Ratio Values to an Overall Near--dank Stress Ratinq
Method Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating*
Very Low >3.0 < 0.20 < 0.4 <1.0 <0.8 <1.0
Low N/A 2.21-3.0 0.20-0.40 0.41-0.60 1.0-1.5 0.8-1.05 1.0-1.2
Moderate 2.01 - 2.2 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 -0.80 1.51-1.8 1.06-1.14
1.21 - 1.6
t 1.81-2.0 0.61-0.80 .81-1. 1.81-2.5 1.15-1.19 1.61-2.0
e-r Y- See (1)
Abo 1.5-1.8 0.81-1.0 1.01-1.2 2.51-3.0 1.20-1.60 2.01-2.3

Extreme ve
< 1.5
> 1.0
> 3.0
> 1.6
>
23
*Circle the dominant near-bank stress rating selected.
Methods for Estimating Near-Bank Stress
1. Transverse bar or split channel/central bar creating NBS/high velocity gradient: Level I - Reconnaissance.
2. Channel pattern (Rc/W): Level II - General Prediction.
3. Ratio of pool slope to average water surface slope (S)S): Level If - General Prediction.
4. Ratio of pool slope to riffle slope (S? Srif): Level II - General Prediction.
5. Ratio of near-bank maximum depth to bankfull mean depth (dnb/dekf): Level III - Detailed Prediction.
6. Ratio of near-bank shear stress to bankfull shear stress (tnb/tbkf): Level III - Detailed Prediction.
7. Velocity profiles/Isovels/Velocity gradient: Level IV - Validation.
Note: Only select the method(s) appropriate for level of assessment and site conditions. It is not necessary to
select all methods to obtain an average near-bank stress rating.
c:VMy Documents/Class Fifes/RAM/ C19
Field Manual/2nd feld day.x!s-nbs form (2) O 2003 Wildland Hydrology

_ Pfankuch Chant;, ability Form
Stream:

Reach:
Dale; 1 III d
S
Observers:
Me>

Co
t
--- mmen
s:
Location Key Category Excellent Good

_
_
1

_
Description

Rating

Description

aling Fair

Descri
tion
Poor

Landlonn Slope
Bank slope gradient <3016,
2

Oink slope gradient 30-40",;

4 p Ratin
0
Description
Riling

r/)
'Y
2
Mass Wasting
No evidence of past or future mass wasting.
3 .
Infrequent Mostly healed over
Low fut yank slope gradient 40-60i6. 6 --
Bank slope gradient G0/6+,
0 -

C .
ure
potential. 6 Frequent or large, causing sediment nearly
0
Frequent or large, causing sediment neatly

[Ll year long.
Yearlong OR imminent danger of same.
12
Qt 3 Debris Jarn Essentially absent from Irnrnediale channel 2 Present, bill mostly small (wigs and limbs

n•
Potential
area. . 4 Moderate to heavy amounts,
mostly larger
i

G

Moderate to heavy amounts, predominantly

CL

4

Vegetative Dank

9096+ plant density. Vigor and variety

3

70-90;6 density, Fewer species or less vigor

6 s
zes.
5 larger sites.

er
8

Proteclion
suggest a deep, dense soil binding root
suggest less dense or deep root mass 0-7016 density. Lower vigor and fewer
9 <50
density plus fewer species & less vigor
- mass. . species from a shallow, discontinuous roof indicating
g poor, discontinuous, and shallow 1

5

Channel

Ample fur present plus some increases.

1

Adequate. Dank oveinows are rare

2 ma
mass.
tool mass. Z
Cnpacily/ Peak flows contained. W/D / W/Dref <
() ( ) .
(W!D)/(W/Urel) = 1.1-1.2
UI IR = 1
1-1
3 Barely contains present peaks. Occasional 3 Inadequate. Overbank Ilorrs cornnrrt

Enlargement
13IIR=1.0.1.1 ,
.
. overbank goods. (W!D)/(W/Dicf)
(W/D)/(W/Dref)>1
6
U)IR>1
5

G
(lank Rock
6516+ w/ large angular boulders. 12"+

40-65%, Mostly boulders and small cobbl
U11R = 1.3-1.5 ,
,
. q

Y
Content
common. es
6-12" q 20-40°;. With most (n the 3-6" diameter 6 <20% rock fragments of gravel sizes
1.3" or
r
CU
7
Ohslruclions to
Racks and toys firmly Imbedded. Flow
2
Some present causing erosive cross class, ,
less. G
C11
c- Flow pattern w/o cutting or deposition. Stable bed. currents and minor pool filling. Obsbuclions

fewer and less firm 4 Moderately frequent, unstable obslnrcllons
move wilt high flows causing bank cutting 6 Frequent obstructions and deflectors cause
bank erosion yearlong. Sediment traps rule

8
Culli , and pool filling.
h 8

O ng Little or none. Infrequent raw banks <6% 4 Some, Intermittently al0UtCUrvca and c
annel migration occurring.

-1
constriclions. Raw banks may be up to 12" 6 Significant. Cuts 12-24" high. Root mat
h 12 Almost continuous cuts, some over 24" high,
, over
angs and sloughing evident, Fallufe of
h
over
angs frequent.
16
0 Deposition Little or no enlargement of channel or point 4 Some new bar increase
mostly from coarse G

bars. ,
gravel. Moderate deposition of new gravel and 12 Extensive deposit or predominantly fine
coarse sand on old and some new bars. particles. Accelerated bar ifevelopment.
G
10 Ruck Angularity _
Sharp edges and corners. Plane surfaces 1 Rounded corners and edges
surfaces 2

11

Ihighlness
rough.
Surfaces d
ll
d ,
smooth, 8a(, Corners and edges well rounded in 2
dimensions. 3 Well rounded in all dimensions, sufaces O

4
u
,
ark or stained. Generally not 1 Mostly dull, but may have <35% bri h(
y 0 2 Mi
t
d
l smooth.

bright.
surfaces. x
ure
u
l and bright, Le. 35-651,6 mixture ( 3/ Predominantly bright, 65;6+, exposed or

12
Consolidation of
Assorted sizes lightly packed or overlapping.
2
Moderately packed with some overlap
in
4 range,
M scoured surfaces. 4

E
Panicles p
g. ostly loose assortment with no apparent G No packing evident. Loose assortment
easily

1:1
Ilollom Size
No size change evident. Stable material 00-
4
Distribution shill light
Stable inalerial 5o- overlap, ,
moved. 0

0
Dislribuliun
100116. .

801/,, B Moderate change in sizes. Stable materials 12 Marked distribution change. Stable materials 0-

14
Scouring and
<51/, of bottom affected by scour or
6
5-30% affected. Scour at constrictions and
12 20-50%. 1 G

Uepushion
deposition,
where grades steepen. Some deposition lit 30-50% affected. Deposits and scour at
b 18 More than 5016 of the bottom in a stale of flux

pools. o
structions, constrictions and bends. Some or change nearly yearlon
G'

15
AqualIC
Abundant growth moss-like, dark green
1
Common. Algae forms in low velocit
and
2 filling of pools.
P 24

Vngclalion
perennial. Iu swill water, loo, y
pool areas. Moss here
loo resent but spolly, mostly in backwater. 3 Perennial types scarce or absent. Yellow-
,
.
Seasonal algae growth makes rocks slick.
green, short lean bloom may be present.

4
Excellent Total= 3 Good Total
F
i
T
t
l C
,
a
r
o
a
= ?7 Poor Total = r ZQ
Stream 1y", Al A2 AJ A4 A5 46 81
_ E32 83 U4 U5 136
C1
C2
C3

Gord(Slable)
:1U-43
38-43
54-90
60-95
60-95
50-80
•38-45
38.45
40-60
40-64
4a-68
40-Go
38-50
38-50
60
85 C4 CS C6 D3 D4 DS D6
Grand Tot
l= ?
?
Fair (Mod. unslablc, •14-47 44-47 91.129 913-132 96.142 81-110 46-58 46-58 61.78 65-84 69-68 61-78 51
61 5 - 70-90 70-00 60-05 85-107 85-107 65-tU7 G7-98 a
3

Poor (Unstable)
4D+
48+
130,
133+
143+
111+

59+

59+

79+

85+ - 1-61 86-105 91-110 91-118 66-105 108-132 108-132 100-132 99-125

Existing Stream

Stream Type _
DAJ
DA4
DA5
DA6
E3
E4

E5

E6 89+ 79+ 62-+ 62F 106+ 111* 111+ 106+ 133E 133E
133+
12Gr
Type=
G F1 F2 F3 F4 FS F6 G1 G2

oud(Slable)
10-G3
40-63
q0-63
40-63
40-63
50-75
50-75
40-63
GO-85
60-85
85.110
85-110
90-115
95
80 G3 G4 GS G6
e,lrcam
Prle
Fair (fdod.unslablc
l 1;4-03 64-80 64-86 64-86 64-86 76-90 76-96 64-86 86-105 66-105 111-125 111-125 116-130 -
96
110 40 60
6 40-60 85-107 85-107 90-112 85-107 Ty?
nj
f
oor (Unstabla) 117+ 87+ 87+ 87+ 87+ 97+ 97+ 87+ 106+ 106+
126+
123+
131+ - 1-78 61-78 108-120 108-120 113-125 108-120 o
l
111+ 79+ 79+
121+
121+
126+
121+
? S
ability sting
l
a
bll
l
ty Rating =
f
?
?
f
• Rating should be adjusted to Potential Stream T
e
not
i
ti

C41 yp
, ex
s
ng.
L____..____..-_1
© 2002 Wildland Hydrology Jost:C/My Documents/Clnss
. .. File^,/Rn.ralrietd A.Innunl.r3rd G,Irf rlnv.Aa

Stream: ? t w_c DCL'5A
Erodibility VariabieNalue
t
Reach: t SQL
Bank
Index Erosion
Potential
BEHI F
1 Lk Cross Section: 5 Date: I \1y? D ? Crew: ?Ll!J
Rank Frncinn W--4
?.,.1....
Bank Erosion Potential
• Very Low ' Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
Bank Height/ Value _- 1.0-1.1
--------- 1.11
1.19 1.2-1.5 1.6 - 2.0 2.1-2.8 >2.8

Bankfull Height Index --
1.0 - 1.9 1
-
6.-
2.3.9 -----------
4.0-5.9 ----------
6.0-7.9 ----------
8.0-9.0 ----------
10
73 Root Depth/ -.- Value -- 1.0 - 0.9
.----- 0.89 L 0.5
---------- 0.49 - 0.3 0.29-0.15 0.14-0.05 <0.05

Height Index
1.0-1.9
2.0-3.9 -----------
4.0-5.9 ----------
6.0-7.9 ...........
8.0-9.0 ............
10
>
>' Weighted Value

----------- 100 - 80

--------- 79 - 55 54 - 30 29-1
5
14 - 5.0
<5.0

Root Density Index --
1.0 - 1.9 -
- _2_.0_'-' 3-.9- -- -
_4_._0_ -- 5.9 - --------
6
0 - 7
9 ---- - ---
8
0 ----------
10
A .
. .
v
o Value
Bank Angle ----- ----- 0-20
----------- 21 _-60-- 61 - 80 -
------ 81 - 90
---------- 91-119
- - -- --- >119
-

w`
Index
1.0-1.9
2.0-3.9
4.0-5.9
6.0-7.9
8.0 0-9.0 ---------
10
Surface Value

17 100 - 80

----------- 79-

----------

-----
-
29-15
14 -10
<1
0

Protection Index

1.0 - 1.9

2.0-3.9 -
----
4.0-5.9 ---

-6.0---7.9 -----------

8.0 - 9.0 -
--------
-
10
Bank Bankfull
Height (ft) Height (ft) A/B .? g EX
A B

Kiwi uaNuur?crnrc ncryin
Root
Depth (ft)
C C/A t \
Q-0 •?,5
Weighted Root Densit y
Root
Density D"(C/A)
t ID x
(%) D

Bank Angle
Bank
Angle
(degrees)
Son
Surface Protection
Surface
Protection M
`' W[
N
SO ?
Materials: Upper-sandy loam.
Lower-gravel with sand matrix
Stratification: Boundary between O
sandy loam and gravel
TOTAL SCORE: a?

Bank fdaterials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending on percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points If sand is exposed to erosional processes)
Silt/Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Stratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers In relation to bankfull stage
Total Score
Very Low - Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
5-9.5 10-19.5 20-29.5 30-39.5 40-45 46-50
C18 Josh:C/My Documents/Class
0 2003 Wildland Hydrology Files/RAM/Field Manuall3rd field day.xls
t

F

C
1
0
G
L!

Table 1. Documentation of Ratios and drived values for near-bank stress
determination bypm?eth`ord type and level of eestiimaten..
Stream: 1 I n o FJ[iSU 1? Loration- ! i .10.-'V" ,n r)nfP'
Transverse and/or central bars - short and/or discontinuous. NBS = High ery High
Method 1 Extensive deposition (continuous, cross channel). NBS =.Extreme
Chute cutoffs, down-valley meander migration, converging flow (Figure X). NBS = Extreme
Radius of Bankfull Ratio Pool Slope Average Ratio

Method 2 Curvature Width
Method 3 Slope
Rc (feet) Wbkf (feet) Rc/W SP S SwS

Pool Slope -Riffle Slope Ratio Near-Bank Mean Ratio
Method 4 Method 5 Max Depth Depth
Sp Sa S? Srif dnb (feet) d (feet) dnb/d
-1.'1 S 45 .
- Near-Bank Near-Bank Near-Bank Mean Average Bankfull Ratio
Max Depth Slope Shear Depth Slope Channel
Method 6 dnb (feet) Snb .
-rnb (lb/ft2) d (feet) S r (lb/ft) Tnb/T

Velocity Gradient
Method 7 (ft/s/ft)

Table 2. Convertinq Ratio Values to an Overall Near-Bank Stress Ratina
Method Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating*
Very Low >3.0 < 0.20 < 0.4 <1.0 <0.8 <1.0
Low N/A 2.21-3.0 0.20-0.40 0.41-0.60 1.0-1.5 0.8-1.05 1.0-1.2
Moderate 2.01-2.2 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.80 1.51-1.8 1.06-1.14 1,21-1.6
High • 1.81-2.0 0.61-0.80 0.81 -1.0 1.81-2.5 1.15-1.19 1.61-2.0
See (1)
Ab 1.5-1.8 0.81-1.0 1.01-1.2 2.51:3.0 1.20-1.60 2.01-2.3
Extreme ove < 1.5 > 1.0 > 1.2 3. > 1.6 > 2.3
*Circ a e-dominant near-bank stress rating selected.
Methods for Estimating Near-Bank Stress
1. Transverse bar or split channel/central bar creating NBS/high velocity gradient: Level I - Reconnaissance.
2. Channel pattern (Rc/W): Level II - General Prediction.
3. Ratio of pool slope to average water surface slope (S? S): Level II - General Prediction.
4. Ratio of pool slope to riffle slope (SWS,jr): Level II - General Prediction.
5. Ratio of near-bank maximum depth to bank-full mean depth (d,,Vdbv): Level III - Detailed Prediction.
6. Ratio of near-bank shear stress to bankfull shear stress (tnb/thu): Level III - Detailed Prediction.
7. Velocity profiles/Isovels/Velocity gradient: Level IV - Validation.
Note: Only select the method(s) appropriate for level of assessment and site conditions. It is not necessary to
select all methods to obtain an average near-bank stress rating.
Crew: ?_Cr)_->
c:VMy Documents/Class Files/RAM/ C19
Field Manual/2nd field day.x!s-nbs form (2) © 2003 Wildland Hydrology
\ Pfankuch Chant. ability Form
S6eant: Reach: G ` Dale: _1 )I OS- Observers: tL
Comments:

Location Key Category Excellent
EE? Good
Description Rating i Description Rating
1 Lmidlonn Slo
e D
k
l
p an
s
ope gradient <30°6. 2 Dank slope gradient 30-40;6. 4
V) 2 Mass Wasting No evidence of past or future mass wasting. 3 Infrequent. Mostly healed over. Low future 6
C potential.
U]
` 3 Debris Jain Essentially absent front immediate channel 2 Present, bill mostly Sinai] Iwigs and limbs 4
CL
Polenlial
area. .
CL 4 Vr-gelalive Dank 90;6+ plant density. Vigor and variety 3 70-90;6 density. Fewer species or less vigor 6
Proleclion suggesta deep, dense soil binding root suggest less dense or deep root mass.
mass.
5 Channel Ample for present plus some increases. 1 Adequate. Dank overflows are rare 2
Cnpacily/ Peak Rows contained. (W/D)/(W/Dref) < 1. 1. .
(W/D)/(W/Dreq = 1.1.1.2
DI IR = 1
1-1
3
Enlargement DHR = 1.0-1.1 ,
.
.
U) G Dank Rock 65%+ wl large angular boulders. 12"+ 2 40-651,6. Mostly boulders and small cobbles 4

-Y Conlcnt common.
6-12".
7 Obslntctions to Rocks and logs firmly Imbedded. Flour 2 Some present causing erosive cross
4
m
c' Flow pattern w/o culling or deposition. Stable bed, currents and minor pool filling. Obstructions
fewer and less firm.

6 0 Culling Little or none. Infrequent raw banks c6", 4 Some, intermiifenlly at outcurves and 6
J constrictions. Raw banks may be up 10 12".
0 Deposilion Little or no enlargement of channel or point 4 Some new bar increase, mostly from coarse 8
bars.
gravel.
10 Rock Angularity Sharp edges and corners. Plane surfaces 1 Rounded corners and edges, surfaces 2
rough, smooth, flat.
11 brightness Surfaces dull, dark or stained. Generally not 1 Mostly dull, but may have <35% bright 2
bright. surfaces.
12 Consolidation of
' Assorted sizes lightly packed or overlapping. 2 Moderately packed with some overlapping. 4
E I
allicles
0
" 13 Ilnllom Size No size change evident. Stable material 60- 4 Distribution shift light. Stable material 50- a

O Distribution 100;6.
00;6.
W 14 Scouring and <5% of bottom affected by scour or 6 5-30°6 affected. Scour at constrictions and 12
Deposition deposition. where grades steepen. Some deposition In
pools.
15 Aquatic Abundant growth moss-like, dark green 1 Common. Algae forms in low velocity and 2
Vegetation perennial. In swift water, loo, pool areas. Moss here, loo.
Fair Poor
Description Rating Description Rating
Bank slope gradient 40-GO-,i. 6 Dank slope gradient GO"6 r

Frequent or large, causing sediment nearly
year long.

O .

Frequent or large, causing sediment nearly
8
yearlong OR Imminent danger of same.
.
12
Moderate to heavy amounts, mostly larger
i ©6 Moderate Io heavy amounts, predominantly
s
zes.
5 larger sizes. 8
0-70:6 density. Lower vigor and fewer Qg <50;6 density plus fewer species 3 less vigor
species from a shallow, discontlnuous root indicating poor, discontinuous
and shallow

pass. ,
tool mass. i Z
3arely contains
re
t
p
sen
peaks. Occasional 3 Inadequale. Ovetbarrk Bows common

aved,ank floods. (W/D)/(W/Dyer) ,
(W/D)/ MO(cf) > 1.6, DIIR >1
5

811f2 = 1.3-1.5 . O
4
20-40;6. With most in tire 3-6" diameter 6 <20% rock fragments of gravel sizes
1.3" or

.lass. ,
less. ///???
?, u )
`loderalely rrequenl, unstable obstnrcllons 6 Frequent obstructions and deflectors cause v
nove with high flows causing bank cutting bank erosion yearlong. Serlimenl Iraps full

and pool filling. ,

channel migration occurring.
6
5ignifrcam. Cuts 12-24" 111911. Root mat 12 Almost continuous cuts, some over 24" high.
wedtangs and sloughing evident. Failure of overhangs frequent.
16
.loderate deposition of new gravel and 12 Extensive deposit of predominantly fine
:oarse sand on old and some new bars. particles. Accelernled bar Jevelopmenl.
i6-
fiorners and edges well rounded fn 2 3 Welt rounded in all dimensions
surfaces
fimenslans. ,
smooth 4
MXII.Ire dull and bright. Le. 35-65°6 mixture ??
((3) .
Predominantly bright, 65;6+, exposed or
ange. ??? scoured surfaces. 4
Aoslly loose assortment with no apparent G f1o packing evident. Loose assclimrnl
easily /?

)vedap' ,
moved. ,
6
,todeiate change in sizes. Stable materials 12 Marked distribution change. Stable materials 0.
!0-50°6. 201/6.
1 G
t0-50% affected. Deposits and scour at 18 More than 50% of the bottom In a slate of flux
rbstructions, constrictions and bends. Some or change nearly yearlong.
fling or pools. 24
'resent but spolly, mostly in backwater. 3 Perennial types scarce or absent
Yellow-
ieasonal algae growth makes rocks stick, .
green, short term bloom may he present.
4
Excellent Total
=I
I
u
Good
Total=
tO

I.

-T. tal=
Sr_
p

Poor Total=

?O
Stream Type

Good (Stable)
Fair (Mod.unstable
Poor(Uns(able) -`
At
38-43
X14-47
41.1+ A2

38-43
44-47
4B+ A3

54-90
91-129
130+ A4

60-95
96.132
133+ A5

60-95
96-142
-143+ 46

50-80
81-110

111+ 81

38.45
46--58

59+ D2

3845
46-58

59+ 03

40-60
61-78

79+ D4

40-64
G5-84

.85+ DS

48-68
69-68

09+ 136

40-Go
61-78.

79+
Cl
30-50
51-61

Gtr
C2
38-50
51.61

6-2+
C3
60-85
86-105

106-+
C4
70-90
91.110

111*
CS
70-90
91-110
C6
f,0-85
06-105
D7
65-107
1UB-132
U4
65-107
108•
132
DS
05-1U7

108-132
D6
67-90

09-125

Grand Total = 12 o

Exisfing Stream

Stream Type
UA3
DA4
DA5
DA6
E3
E4

ES

E6 111+ 106+ 133+ 133r 133+
12Gr
Type =

Good (Slat>Ie) _..
40-6-3
40-63
40-63
4U-63
40-63
50-75
50.75
40
63 F1
5
6 F2 F3 r4 r5 F6 G1 G2 G3 _ G4 G5 G6 _
Polenll Stream

Fair (Mod.unslable
Poor (Unstable.)
6-4-86
07+
64-86
87+
64-80
87+
64-OG
87+
64-86-
87+
76-96
97+
76-96
97+ -
64-66
87+ 0-8
BG-105
106-+ 60-05
86-105
106+ B5•
110
111-125
126+ 85-110
111-125

126-+ 90-115
116-130

131+ 80-95
90-110

111+ 40-60
61-78

79+ 40-00
61-78

79+ 85-107
108-120 85-107
108-120 90.112
1113-1251 65-107
1108-1201

I Type*.:

hlodifioil Inel ^
121+ 121+ 126+ 121+ I Stability Rating = II
• Rating should b e adjuste d to Polen ilaf Strea m Type, not existing. r
C41 L ---------j
2002 Wildland Hydrology Josh:C/My Docurnenis/Class
rile srRAJ:vrirtd r,tonunL lid arm tav.Al
BEHI F
Stream: P.. I,-p 00V15& Reach: Cross Section: 6k-rA, O
Bank
Erodibility VariableNalue Index Erosion
Date: \1 N1 OS Crew: F--r-Z
Potential Bank Erosion Hazard Index
Bank Bankfull
Height (ft) Height (ft) A/B U
A B S S c??

nvv/ "upil Uual in "w gin
Root
Depth (ft) C/A
Ai V1,
Weighted Root Density
Root
Density D*(C/A)
(%) D
50
Bank Angle
Bank
Angle 1
(degrees)
O°
Surface Protection
Surface
Protection

*
(0
N 5
0
Materials: Upper-sandy loam. 0
Lower-gravel with sand matrix
Stratification: Boundary between O
sandy loam and gravel •

TOTAL SCORE: _ _
_
i L? 1 _
I U e
Bank Erosion Potential
Very Low • Low , Moderate High VeryHigh Extreme
Bank Height) Value
----------- 1.0-1.1
---- 1.11 - 1.19 1.2-1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.6 >2.8

Bankfud Height Index -------
1.0-1.9 ----------
2.0 - 3.9 ----------
4.0-5.9 ---- -----
6.0-7.9 ---.-_..---
8.0-9.0 ----------
10
Root Depth) Value

----------- 1.0-0.9

-----------
1
0.89 0.5
--------- 0.49 - 0.3 0.29 - 0.15 0.14 - 0.05 <0.05

Bank "eight Index
1.0-1.9 -
2.0-3.9 -----------
4.0-5.9 ----------
6.0-7.9 -----------
8.0-9.0 -•--------
10
> Weighted Value '
-------
-- 100 - 80

--
- 79 - 55
.
------- ------
- 54 - 30

------ -- 29 - 15 14 - 5.0 <5.0

Root
Density Index

1
.0 - 1.9 i.6

2.0 - --

4.0-5.9 -------- -

6
0-7
9 -----------

0
0-9
0 ------
-
10
.
. .
.
v
o Value
Bank Angle ----------- 0-20
-----------
.
21 - 60-- 61 - 80
---------- 81 - 90
---------- 91-119
------- -- >119

ui

Index

1.0-1.9

2.0-3.9

4.0-5.9

6.0-7.9 --

8.0-9.0
----------
10
Surface .-• Value 100 - 80 79 - 55 54 - 30 29 - 15 14 - 10 <10
Protection Index 1.0 - 1.9 2.0 3.9 4.0-5.9 6.0 7.9 8.0 9.0 10
Bank Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending on percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points If sand Is exposed to erosional processes)
Sill./Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Stratificatlon
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers In relation to bankfull stage
Total Score
Very Low - Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
5-9.5 10-19.5 20.29.5 30-39.5 40-45 46-50

C18 Josh:C/My Documents/Class
© 2003 Wlldland Hydrology Files/RAM/Field Manual/3rd field day.xls
C!
Table 1. Documentation of Ratios and drivel values for near-bank stress
® determination by method type and level of estimate.
tl - Stream: Location: Date: Crew:
L?

i-1
C
P
I -
r.
i
Transverse and/or central bars - short and/or discontinuous. NBS = High/Very High
Method 1 Extensive deposition (continuous, cross channel). NBS =.Extreme
Chute cutoffs, down-valley meander migration, converging flow (Figure X). NBS = Extreme
Radius of Bankfull
Ratio
Pool Slope Average
Ratio
Curvature Width Slope
Method 2 Rc (feet) Wbkf (feet) Rc/W Method 3 SP S SwS

Pool Slope Riffle Slope Ratio Near-Bank Mean Ratio
Max Depth Depth
Method 4 SP SW SdSRf Method S drib (feet) d (feet) drib/d
3.0 1.2 2-S
- Near-Bank 'Near=Bank Near-Bank Mean Average Bankfull Ratio
Max Depth Slope Shear, Depth Slope Channel
Method 6 drib (feet) Srib Tnb (lb/ft2) d (feet) S T (lb/ft) Tnb/T

Velocity Gradient
Method 7 (fus/ft)

Tshle 2. Convertina Ratio Values to an Overall Near-Bank Strsss Rating
Method Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating*
Very Low >3.0 < 0.20 < 0.4 <1.0 <0.8 <1.0
Low N/A 2.21-3.0 0.20-0.40 0.41-0.60 1.0-1.5 0.8-1.05 1.0-1.2
Moderate 2.01 - 2.2 0.41 - 0060 0.61-0.80 1.51-1.8 1.06-1.14 1.21-1.6
High. 1.81-2.0 0.61-0.80 0.81-1.0 1. 1.15-1.19 1.61-2.0
(very Hi h See (1)
Ab 1.5-1.8 0.81 - 1.0 1.01-1.2 2.51 = 3.0 1.20-1.60 2.01'- 2.3
e ove < 1.5 > 1.0 > 1.2 > 3.0 > 1.6 > 2.3
*Circle the-dominant near-bank stress rating selected.
Methods for Estimating Near-Bank Stress
1. Transverse bar or split channel/central bar creating NBS/high velocity gradient: Level I -Reconnaissance.
2. Channel pattern (Rc/W): Level II - General Prediction.
3. Ratio of pool slope to average water surface slope (SVS): Level II - General Prediction.
4. Ratio of pool slope to riffle slope (SVS,jr): Level II - General Prediction.
5. Ratio of near-bank ma.Yimum depth to bankfull mean depth (doVdbld): Level III - Detailed Prediction.
6. Ratio of near-bank shear stress to banldull shear stress (tS1b/tbkf): Level III - Detailed Prediction.
7. Velocity profiles/Isovels/Velocity gradient: Level IV -Validation.
t Note: Only select the method(s) appropriate for level of assessment and site conditions. It is not necessary to
select all methods to obtain an average near-bank stress rating.
s'
c:VMy Documents/Class Files/RANV C19
Field Manual/2nd field day.x!s-nbs form (2) O 2003 Wildland Hydrology
BEHI F?- .?
Stream: Reach: U. Cross Section: sky-A, LA
Bank
Erodibility VariabletValue index Erosion
.13 13 13 13 a M M
Date: II ILtIt.>S Craw-
Potential Bank Erosion Hazard Index
Bank Heiaht/Bankfull Heirrht
Bank Bankfull
Height (ft) Height (ft) A/B t1.
Z . 3 1 .3 1-'1 c?
rAuvr uc/nnicJdnn nuryrrr
Root
Depth (it) C/A
C 17? qU('?'
-5 1
2
Weighted Root Density
Root
Density D'(C/A) 5 ?" 1
(%) D
'J0 to . S
Bank Angle,
Bank
Angle
(degrees) Tq
Surface
Protection
( U/O )

Materials: Upper-sandy loam.
Lower-gravel with sand matrix
Stratification: Boundary between
sandy loam and gravel
TOTAL SCORE: (p ^\A-N

Bank Erosion Potential
Very Low Low , Moderate High Very High Extreme
Bank Height/ - Value - 1.0-1.1 1.11
1 19 1.2 - 1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.8 >2.8

Bankfull Height Index
1.0-1.9 _-
2.0-3.9 ----------
4.0-5.9 ----------
6.0-7.9 ---------
8.0-9.0 - --
10
Root Depth/ - Value _ 1.0-0.9
----------- 0.89 - 0.5
------------ 0.49 - 0.3
----- 0.29 - 0.15 0.14 - 0.05 <0.
05

Bank Height Index

1.0-1.9

2.0-3.9
------
4.0 - 5.9
----------
6.0-7.9
-----------
8.0 - 9.0 --
---
----- 10
>
>` Weighted Value
- - - - - 100 - 80
- -- - 79 - 55
- - 54 - 30 29 - 15 14 - 5.0 <5.0

Root Density Index
1.0 - 1.9 - -
2.0 - 3.9 - - -- -
4.0 - 5.9 --------
6.0 - 7.9 -- - ----
8.0 - 9.0 - -- ---
10
o Bank Angle Value
----------- 0-20
---------- 21=-60 61 - 80
------- -- 81 - 90
-------- - 91-119
--------- >119

w`
Index
1.0-1.9
2.0-3.9
4.0-5.9
6.0-7.9 -
8.0=9.0 ----------
10
Surface Value
----------- 100 - 80
---------- - 79. 55 54 - 30
---------- 29 - 15 14- 10 <10

Protection Index
10-19 .
2.0 - 3.9
4.0 - 5.9 ----------
6.0 - 7.9 -----------
8.0 - 9.0 ----------
10
Bank Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending on percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points If sand is exposed to erosional processes)
Silt/Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Stratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers In relation to bankfull stage
Total Score
Very Low , Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
5-9.5 10-19.5 20-29.5 30-39.5 40-45 46-50
m m m
It- r
CD r
cD
3
w p
o °
n
O
C
ro
3
.=r O
O
CL O
v %B
ro 4;,
W O
u1
o ¢ a
O
< fl-
a' CL
O CD•
CD CL
<
w ?
D cD
0
O ro
ro iv
m Q.
0
7e,'
N
ro
in
n
m
Josh:C/My Documents/Class
C?? ©2003 Wlldland Hydrology Files/RAM/Field Manual/3rd field day.xis
it Ir isr Ir irr irr r ws r . _ i®r irr rr Ir Ilr irr r
`^ 1r '' Pfankuch Chani, .ability Form
Stream: V (? --
a t\ Reach: ? Date: ( I 075observers:
I ?
Comments

_
r
:
Location ICey Category Excellent Good

Description
Ratin
9

Descri
ti Fair
Poor

1
L p
on Baling Description Ralin
9
andform Slope Bank slope gradient <3o90. 2
Bank slope gradient 30-40".5
4 Description Rating

N
,y
2
Mass Wasling
No evidence of past or future mass wasting.
g.

3 .
-
Infrequent. Mostly healed over
Low future Bank slope gradient 40-6095. 6
Bank slope gradient 60;6+.
.
pctartial• O Frequent or large, causing sediment nearly 9 Frequent or large, causing sediment nearly
m year long. yealong OR in;minent danger of salve

`

3

Debris Jam

Essenlia:ly absent from immediate channel

2

Present, but mostly small twigs and limbs

4

M
d .
12

n-
Potential
area. . o
erate to heavy amounts, mostly larger
sizes
6
Moderate to heavy amounts, predominantly

CL
4
Vagelalive Bank
9096+ plant density. Vigor and variety
3
70-9095 densily. Fewer species or less vigor
6 .
50
70% d ,tom larger sizes. 8

Protection
suggest a deep, dense soil binding root
suggest less dense or deep root mass -
ensity. Lower vigor and fewer n g / <50?16 density plus fewer species 3 less vigor

mass. . species from a shallow, discontinuous root `J
indicaling poor, disconlinuous, and shallow
1

5

Channel

Ample for present plus some increases.

1

Adequate. Bank oveinows are rare

2
mass,
root mass. 2
Ca aril !
P y
Peak rows contained. (W/D)/(W/DreO < 1.1, .
(W/D)/(WlUreQ = 1.1.1,2
p1 4R Barely contains present peaks. Occasional 3 Inadequate. Uverbank flows common.

Enlargement
BHR = 1.0-1.1 , overbank roods. (W/D)/(W/Dreq = 1.2.1.6,

(W!D)/(W/Dieq > 1
6
pf IR >1
5

N
6
Bank Rock
659;+ w/ large angular boulders. 12"+'
2
40-6596. Mostly boulders and small cobbles
q pHR = 1.3.1.5
2 .
,
. 4

-Y
Content
common.

6-12 ' 0-4096. With most in the 3-6" diameter 6 <2096 rock fragments of gravel sizes, 1-3" or
^

ro
.
7
Obstructions to
Rocks and logs firmly Imbedded. Flow
2
Some present causing erosive cross class.
ess. 8

m Flow
pattern w/o culling or deposition. Stable bed.
currents and minor pool filling
Obstructions 4 Moderately frequent, unstable obstructions 6 Frequent obstructions and deflectors cause
.
fewer and less firm move with high rows causing bank cultin
9
bank erosion yearlong. Sediment (raps full ;?... t

?y
O

8

Culling

Little or none. Infrequent raw banks <6".

4 .

Some, intermittently at oulcurves and
and pool filling. .
channel migration occurring. g y
LJ
J conslriclions. Raw banks may be up to 12" 6 Significant. Cuts 12-24" high. Root mat 12 Almost continuous cuts, some over 24" high

,
overhangs and sloughing evident. .
Failure of overhangs frequent

9

Deposition

Little or no enlargement of channel or point

4

Some new bar increase
moslly from coarse

8

M .
16

bars, ,
gravel. oderate deposition cf new gravel and 12,
Extensive deposit of predominantly fine

--- coarse sand on old and some new bars. particles. Accelerated bar development.
1G
10 Rock Angularily Sharp edges and corners. Plane surfaces 1 Rounded corners and edges
surfaces 2

rough, ,
smooth
rel Corners and edges well rounded in 2 3 WeII rounded in all dimensions
sufaces

11
Brightness
Surfaces dull, dark or stained. Generally not
b
i
h
1 ,
.
Mostly dull, but may have <3596 bri h(
g

2 dimensions.

Mixture dull and bright
i
e
35-6596
i
t ,
smooth. q

r
g
t.
surfaces. ,
.
.
m
x
ure ( 3 )
`d Predominantly bright, 65Yo+, exposed or

12
Consolidation of
Assorted sizes tightly packed or ovedapping.
2
Moderately packed with some ove
la
i range. scoured sunaces. 4

E
Panicles pp
r
ng. 4 Mostly loose assortment with no apparent 6 No packing evident. Loose assortment, easily

O
13
nollom Size
No size change evident. Stable material 80-
4
Distribution shift light. Stable nialedal 50-
8 overlap,
M moved, 8

Uislribulion
10096.
80% oderate change in sizes. Stable materials 12 Marked distribution change. Stable materials 0-

M

14

Scouring and

<5,6 of boltorn affected by scour or

6 .

5-30% affected. Scour at constrictions and

12
20-5096.
30
20',5.
8

Deposition
deposition.
where grades steepen. Some deposition In -5096 affected. Deposits and scour at
obslnrclions, constrictions and bends
Som 18 More than 50;; of the bottom in a state of flux

pools. .
e
f
lli
f
l or change nearly yearlon
9'
24
15 Aquatic Abundant growth moss-like, dark green 1 Common. Algae forms in low velocity and 2 i
ng o
poo
s,
P

Vegetation
perennial. In swirl water, too.
pool areas. Moss here
too resent but spotty, mostly in backwater. 3 Perennial types scarce or absent. Yellow-

- ,
.
Seasonal algae growth makes rocks slick.
green, short lean bloom may be present. ^
U
4
Excellent Total =
Good Total = G Fair Total = 30
VJ
Poor ToWl=

`
Stream Type A I A2 A3 A4 A5 46 B1 B2 03 B4 B5 B6 C1 C2 C3
Good
(Stable) 43 38-43 54-90 60-95 60-95 50-60 38
45 38
5 C4 CS C6 D3 O4
-
-4
40-60
40-64
48-68
40-G0
38-50
38-50
60-85
70-90
70
90
Grand Total
Fair(Mod. unstable 44-47 44-47 91-129 96.132 96-142 81-110 4G-58 4G-58 61-78 G5-84 69-88 61-78 51-61 51-61 86 - 60-85 85-107 85.107 8
Poor (Unstable) 46+ 48+ 130+ 133+ 143+ 111+ 59+ 59+ 79+
85+ -105 91-110 91-110 86105 IOB-132 108.132 Exlsling Slrcam
Stream Type DAJ DA4 DA5 DAG E3 E4 E5 89+ 79+ 62+ 62+ 1C6+ 111+ 111+ 106+ 133* 133r Type =
- E6 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 G1 G

Good (Stable)
ID-G3
40-G3
40-63
40-63
40-63
50-75
50-75
40-63
60-85
60-85
85.110
85-110
90-115
60
95 2 G3. G4 GS G6 Potential Stream

Fair (Mod, unslablr.

G4-00

&1-86

64-86

64-8G

64-86

76-96

76-96

64-86

86-105

86-105

111-1251

111-125

116-130 -

96
110 40-60

6 40-fi0
85-107
85-107
90-112
85-107
Type•
?
Poor(Unslable) 87+ 87+ 87+ 87+ 87+ 97+ 97+ 87+ 106+ 106+
126+
126+ - 1-78 61-78 108-120 108-120 113-125 108-120 Modified Channel
131+ 111+ 79+ 79+ 121+ 121+ 126+ 121+ ? Stability Rating =
??
?
• Rating should be adjusted to Polenlial Stre am Type, not existing.
S

©2002 Wildland Hydrology Josh:CJMMy Documenls/Class
rile. grRn.ra.Tield h,lmumlCird rrld ?lav,la

BEH1 I n
Stream: ??Q(LSL?? Reach: C Cross Section: tQAu-1 CLJ OC \ Date: Crew:
Erodibility VariableNalue I Index I Erosion I
Potential
Bank Height/Bankfull Height
Bank Bankfull
Height (ft) Height (ft) A/B ?J
A B I . © Ldu?
(.v 1.0
1•c7
KOO[ ueprnirsanK rteignr
Root
Depth (ft) C/A
C
• 5
S
3-? vJ
Weighted Root Densit y
Root
Density D+(C/A)
b S
(%) D
SID 11 0 as
Bank Angle
Bank
Angle
?
(degrees) -
O `I/D
Surface Protection
Bank Erosion Hazard Index
Bank Erosion Potential
Very Low Low , Moderate High Very High Extreme
Bank Height -- Value 1.0-1.1 1.11 1 19 1.2 - 1.5 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.8 >2.8
--
Bankfull Height Index -----------
1.0-1.9 ------------
2.0-3.9 -----------
4.0-5.9 -----------
6.0-7.9 -----------
8.0-9.0 ----------
10
Root Depthl value
---- ----- 1.0-0.9
--- --- 0.89 - 0.5
- -- -
-
7
7
- 0.49 - 0.3
-- --- 0.29 - 0.15
- ----- 0.14-0.05 <0.05

Bank Height Index
1.0-1.9
2.0
.0-3.9
-
3.6
4.0-5.9
6.0-7.9 - -- -
9.0 ----- --
10
> Weighted value 100 - 80 79 - 55 54 - 30 29 - 15 14 - 5
0 <5
0
----------- ------- --- --------
- -- - - --- ---------- .
--- - -- .
---------

Root Density Index
1- 1.9
2.0 - 3.9
6
4.0 - 5.9
6.0 - 7.9
8.0 - 9.0 -
10
•2
v
Value
0-
20
21
60
61 - 80
81 - 90
91 - 119
>119
0 Bank Angle --- -------- -
---
------- _-
--
-- ----------- ---------- ----------- ----------
w Index 1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 4.0-5.9 6.0-7.9 8.0-9.0 10
Surface Value
----------- 100 - 80
----------- 79 - 55
----------
__54-30_-
-__29_-_15_
- 14 - 10
-----
-7 <10

Protection Index
1.0-1.9
2.0-3.9
4.0-5.9
6.0-7.9 ---
1
8.0-9.0- ----------
1 10
Bank hlaterials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending on percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points if sand is exposed to erosional processes)
Silt/Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Surface
Protection
(%)
.;1022
Materials: Upper-sandy loam.
Lower-gravel with sand matrix
Stratification: Boundary between FF??
C
sandy loam and gravel

TOTAL SCORE: _
ff i fication
dd 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
Total Score
Very Low - Low Moderate High Very High Extreme
5-9.5 10-19.5 20-29.5 30-39.5 40-45 46-50
Josh:C/My Documents/Class
C18 © 2003 Wildland Hydrology Files/RAM/Field Manual/3rd field day.xis
0
e
e
e
Table 1. Documentation of Ratios and drived values for near-bank stress
determination by method type and level of estimate.
Stream: Location: Date:
Transverse and/or central bars - short and/or discontinuous. NBS = HighNery High
Method 1 Extensive deposition (continuous, cross channel). NBS =.Extreme
Chute cutoffs, down-valley meander migration, converging flow (Figure X). NBS = Extreme
Radius of Bankfull Ratio Pool Slope Average Ratio
Curvature Width Slope
Method 2 Rc (feet) Wbkf (feet) Rc/W Method 3 Sp S S? S

Pool Slope Riffle Slope Ratio Near-Bank Mean Ratio
Max Depth Depth
Method 4 Sp Shf SdSrif Method 5 dnb (feet) d (feet) dnb/d
k.o t.c:? t-0
Near Bank Near-Bank Near-Bank Mean Average Bankfull Ratio
Max Depth Slope Shear, Depth Slope. Channel
Method 6 dnb (feet) Snb Tnb (lb/ft2) d (feet) S T (lb/ft2) Tnb/T

Velocity Gradient
Method 7 (ft/s/ft)

Tahle 2- Convertina Ratio Values to an Overall Near-Bank Stress Rating
Method Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rating*
Very Low >3.0 < 0.20 < 0.4 <0.8 <1.0
Low N/A 2.21-3.0 0.20-0.40 0.41-0.60 1.0-1.5 0.8-1.05 1.0-1.2
Moderate 2.01-2.2 0.41 -0.60 0.61 -0.80 r51-- 1`9 1.06-1.14 1.21-1.6
High 1.81-2.0 0.61 -0.80 0.81 -1.0 1.81 -2.5 1.15-1.19 1.61-2.0
Very High See (1)
Ab 1.5-1.8 0.81 -1.0 1.01-1.2 2.51-3.0 1.20-1.60 2.01-2.3
Extreme ove < 1.5 > 1.0 > 1.2 > 3.0 > 1.6 > 2.3
*Circle the dominant near-bank stress rating selected.
Methods for Estimating Near-Bank Stress
1. Transverse bar or split channel/central bar creating NBS/high velocity gradient: Level I - Reconnaissance.
2. Channel pattern (Rc/W): Level II - General Prediction.
3. Ratio of pool slope to average water surface slope (Sp S): Level II - General Prediction.
4. Ratio of pool slope to riffle slope (Sp/S if): Level II - General Prediction.
5. Ratio of near-bank maximum depth to bankfull mean depth (dab/dekf): Level III - Detailed Prediction.
6. Ratio of near-bank shear stress to banldull shear stress (tnb/tbkf): Level III - Detailed Prediction.
7. Velocity profiles/Isovels/Velocity gradient: Level IV - Validation.
Note: Only select the method(s) appropriate for level of assessment and site conditions. It is not necessary to
select all methods to obtain an average near-bank stress rating.
® c:VMy Documents/Class Files/RAM/
Field Manual/2nd field day.xls-nbs form (2) O 2003 Wlldland Hydrology
Crew:
C19
Bankfull verification in stable B reach. Vegetated flat bench right forefront.
�� ,fie
.... ^"R »��.
'n :r
`®*
� ' ,�
�� ,fie
.... ^"R »��.
'n :r
`®*

F Channel
G Channel

1

E Channel

Typical debris jam in stream
Available floodplain

I 1

Available floodplain

Driveway Culvert
Appendix IV
NC Urban Piedmont Regional Curves
f

North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve
nnnn
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Drainage Area (sq.ini)
* Urban Data s Rural Data -- Power (Rural Leta) Urban Regression
ww ww w w? w ?w w ?w w w w w w w w ?w w ?w w?
File Edit Viev:j Favorites Tools Help
Tack - ` Search ?jj Favorites `,&! ,Iedia --
---------------------
- -
Address Z http:jiwww.bae.ncsu.edujprogramsfextensiorifwggjsrifreg_curve_graph.html
North Carolina Piedmont RecTional Curve
tn?
1000
c;
ell
40
10[
r,
a
:/3
a
1[
P.
r.
l
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Drainage Airea (ini 2
• Urban Data • RiLwal Data Power (Rural Data) L
1000.0
Regression

_ a a a ra as a a as a a s a a a a? a ?a ¦a a??
4- Back
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve
1000
100
V
10
Urban
_ 24.39x0.33
R2 = 0.83
Rural
= 14.5 1x0.3
R? = 0.x)1
1 +
0.1
•iorites Tools Help
-- - - - _
SearrhFa'v Favorites; ?f"ledia -? ??• -___._
a
bae.n .u.cdu;? r:a ari ie ter,siun?!••ggi curve graph.htmi
• Urban Data. ¦ Rural Data - Power (Rt ral Data) - Urban Re
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Drahtage area (sq tni)
• Urban Data • Rural Data - Power (Rural Data) - Urban Regression
nation Conver-,nns 1 aural vs. Urban Englis?-?
- - -- .? -
• Urban Data A, Rural Data - Power (Rimal Data) - Urban Regressi
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve
10.0
' 1.0
v
A
0.1
i i
E
I ?
+ LTrball
2.43 0.33
=
---I L R2 8`
Rmal
i
I I y = 1.64x0.29 '
R2 0.86
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Drainage.A.rea (sq ini)
• Urban Data 1 Rural Data - Power (Rural Data) - Urban Regressiol
ondersions R.Ural.vs Urban English
Internet

Appendix V
Figures 1 through Figures 12

f?? t s ti r

r.-

J
DJ ?
ECT AF1??

_. g

J J
r

s'
Ma '71
SCALE
T!m
1000 FT 0 1000 FT
BBLYONT QUADRANGLE
NORTH CAROLINA, 1973
VICINITY MAP
WITH DELINEATED DRAINAGE AREA
ORAWNG W ME X.\f004PM\VAS\Ml DATE: vmy/^
SGILE ! rmca f,0oo ml mmr ° jw r
PROM ED FM
CAMN COUNTY NATURAL ACSOUMNS PZPAR 2Mff
A" PZWZBJ " SW Af CLDR, J
a?Ar?n W. RGUW-
EARTH t BIYROI?fA4<
FIGURE >
r

m
A
w.+.wan = FRENCH BROAD L?-j PASCAJOrrAs1WC
BASM HWASSEE C:?) RDK90KE
BROAD 71 LITTLETE4MSSEE SAVANNAH
CAPE FEAR LUMBER TAR-PAMLICO
CATAVoU A NEUSE f---jWATAUGA
CHMVAN NEW -'u,HITEOAK

CATAWBA BASIN I
HUCODE-8 (03050102) -
SOUTH FORK SANTEE
WA TER SHED BASIN MAP
sm f mm - 1.00 nsr -mw -re -
anE OM Foie
"MN COUNff JUMP. L MSOMCSS DaPiLl"" ff
AM r wiumz sm civs, mc.
-lne- wusct;s:
PREMED er:
HYDROLOGIC BASINS - USACB ywa?

n
y ue
,

6t M7MW^ T" I F kk±±-'' 4
_ _,?I £ f
.. .Y ?4 ?4
t AY .?

sK
'
by
?+ '' _ F'.:.kr
Ai
? ? I?.4
,
t ? _
,
r? ?
.
f?
1'µ
?I ?Y1r'AS I`C PONDS W •
? ?
;? [}?'

?M1
A s
SCALE

C rr s - 1000 FT O 1000 FT
, CIM
F lf NRCS SOIL SURVEY
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, 1989

.:
NRCS SOIL SURVEY
LEGEND
MOM WYE X. \C18\M= OATS s/Yybs
Wn8 & WhD) = Winnsboro Loam scm c i n = - r.m mr fim m"
'GaS2) = Gast on Sandy Loam
PINPAM FM
CAMN COUNTY NATURU RsSODRCiS DSPARTMOT
Z aVVa?i
M?II?YII; MC'?/,
4 0A
SCALE
200 FT O 200 FT
NCMlPNBT _ 2005
r-
http-//www-ncmapnet.corn/
CURRENT SITE AERIAL
MMM NAME N \M4PM\GL9\nM I DATE:
SCALE'. f nuts - "D PUT I "Mr IJB
PREPARED FM
CAMN COUNTY NATURAL RBSOURCBS DIPART"NT
AND PMXBROOa Swnf CLUB, INC.
PREPARED W. I FORCE:
un,"
FIGURE 4e u�slmaE■m

I TOP PIPE= 86.81'
< NV. (IN)= 82.90
1 i 94
(EXISTING B CNANNELI
som
+w2-
'
EVR 90.93
+iR
+
9323
nR +
41
n
94.97 EXISTING F r /
+? + CHANNEL
+9729
Ts +9166 +
Gs
+W
+?
+94M
Gs
NOTES:
1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND
DECIMAL THEREOF UNLESS OTHERWISE
INDICATED.
2. NO BOUNDRY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED
UNDER THE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY.
3. ONLY ABOVE GROUND APPURTENANCES
OF THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WERE
LOCATED UNDER THE SCOPE OF THIS
SURVEY.
4. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON GIVEN
BENCHMARK INFORMATION AS SHOWN.
5. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS ONE FOOT.
BASE MAP SURVEYED BY.-
?A?
mww
?1 o-Caylbn%
AVx
704-6 -? 704-655-7791 (imc)

LEGEND
POINT DESCRIPTIONS HWCL HEAD WALL CENTERLINE
BS BOTTOM OF SLOPE
LLB LEFT LOWER BANK TS TOP OF SLOPE
RLB RIGHT LOWER BANK BBR BOTTOM BANK RIGHT
TBR TOP BANK RIGHT BBL BOTTOM BANK LEFT
TBL TOP BANK LEFT CD CENTERLINE DITCH
TW THAWAG (CL CREEK) TBM TEMPORARY BENCHMARK
GS GROUND SHOT BB BOTTOM BANK
EWL EDGE WATER LEFT TB TOP BANK
EWR EDGE WATER RIGHT TRV TRAVERSE
EP EDGE OF POOL
EPAV EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EG EDGE OF GRAVEL LINETYPE DESCRIPTIONS:
WWCL WING WALL CENTERLINE
CLRD CENTERLINE ROAD ------- MINOR CONTOUR INTERVALS
INV PIPE INVERT MAJOR CONTOUR INTERVALS
PP POWER POLE EDGE OF WATER
RCP REINFORCED CONC. PIPE - - - PIPE
+a
RA
+UL ,--_-
6 `
+UL
8885 EG
-, r HE e`6t9 BS7z EP?v
sag us e6zu? ?? ' 4
74
fTON1N00D 3>\ ?m +n
TREE 'J
+S•
+?
GS \
+87.01 ,
EXISTING G CHANNEL
+
9976 8937
+GE
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 10 20
1 inch = 20 fL
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
SCAM r 61W . b l8P I•npIsm I•
PREPAM FOR:
C MN COORrl JUMAAL "SOURMS MPIRTAMVr
A" MIRROOI S?Bf CLIIR, ZVC.
PREPAM W. FKRMW-
FIGURE 5
""°' SHEET I OF 2
+9L20
+ oODPLAIN CULVERT
i PIPE= 88.10'
1 [NV. (IN)= 85.10'
` TLET ELEV. = 84.7
I 1 Rnan_ an UY

94
+9*m
+97M
UPPER REACH
PROPOSED B
slope=0.039
LINETYPE DESCRIPTIONS
------ - MINOR CONTOUR INTERVALS
MAJOR CONTOUR INTERVALS
NOTES: EDGE OF WATER
PIPE
1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMAL THEREOF UNLESS OTHERWISE OQ STEP POOL
INDICATED. O
n
2. NO BOUNDRY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED UNDER THE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY. `I
3. ONLY ABOVE GROUND APPURTENANCES OF THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WERE r ROCK VANE
LOCATED UNDER THE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY.
4. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON GIVEN BENCHMARK INFORMATION AS SHOWN. POOL
5. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS ONE FOOT.
BASE MAP SURVEYED BY: ---- PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
INTERVALS
14F A= ?
?? PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
-M90 s'- 7M (f.) INTERVALS
BANKFULL ELEVATION
(36" ADS)
-11,11 INV. INV.
??? g??g7??r +Gs'
+? ??+GS
MIDDLE REACH
PROPOSED E
GRAPHIC SCALE
2D 0 m YO
1 inch = 20 ft
+a
THALWEG CULVERT (42'
TOP PIPE= 87.40'
INV. (IN)= 83.90'
TOP ROAD= 90.59'
num rT = R3_sr
RESTORATION SITE PLAN
STAVE: / MW • m F=7 I-m r I-" I-
PftBVwm FM
Q1.4l17N COUATl IUMUL BYSOUMCS DZP161MOT
AM PZWZBJ Or SEX CLUB, DIE.
pflov m W. FXPJW-
FIGURE 6
?' SHEET i OF 2
PN0010 LOT
. oTS2'
OPLAIN CULVERT LINETWE DESCRIPTIONS
PIPE= 88.10'
(IN)= 85'10' - MINOR CONTOUR INTERVALS
ET ELEV. = 84.79 _
WwED : .
Y '?89.99.•?
EPAV . . .
+
BASE MAP SURVEYED BY.-
?4111i=A?
1 +o- a-. Lff 2-11.65.20. t.'
978 ss-? 708-ess-rm1 (ftO
RESTORATION SITE PLAN
HEADWALL iviHJVAwiv1vuB llv1DAvL1L%
VEGETATED ENERGY EDGE OF WATER
DISSAPATION AREA - - PIPE
(BURIED ROCK WITH SOIL COVER) REZT--l
JINVMAW M73
HWae
ROCK VANE
-- __-----?---
15
66 " C M P
INV. EWL _?
? POOL

?%
- " . s
8&7e
a
wwm
---- PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
b EW INTERVALS
Tw
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR

\ + INTERVALS
R ii?+
.\` X77 8310
+?41

NOTES:
a \}T +

1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMAL

+ LOWER REACH THEREOF UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
R PROPOSED E
slope=0.0045
2. NO BOUNDRY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED UNDER THE
SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY.
3. ONLY ABOVE GROUND APPURTENANCES OF THE
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WERE LOCATED UNDER THE
SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY.
THALWEG CULVERT (42' ADS)
TOP PIPE= 87.40'
INV
(IN)= 83
90' 4. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON GIVEN BENCHMARK
.
.
TOP ROAD= 90.59' INFORMATION AS SHOWN.
OUTLET = 83.67' 5. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS ONE FOOT.
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 0 10 20
1 inch = 20 &
sa1r:: r jm • I.#" Aw I-nr I-is I?
PREPAM FM
G/S70N COUNTP NATURAL RBSOURCIS DMARTAIRNT
AND PZWRBR00B SWnf CLUB, INC.
FIGURE 6
, ' "" SHEET 2 OF 2
HEADWALL
°G78
TOP PIPE= 86.73
IXISiING G giANNEL n v,66cw
? 9
INV. OUT )= 82.85 - -
66 CMP

__. %

8431

ii1L ?.. 9AS6
fIYCL 8
Wm a

m em T Vnp
r-
85fd t}-J - .
N.. EPAV J +9625
+

h: ? ggp7? ?
FPI1V 90
+ "
+OC76
+ +, `

-- +8625,
Gs

216 97,56
+W +6S
p:AllE? : ? . +? - -
W6A.. OWER
:
POLE

v. +
L U6
V
+&74
+ 7
EPAV EPAV
NOTES: LEGEND
POINT DESCRIPTIONS
HWCL
HEAD WALL CENTERLINE
DEGALLMAL THEREOF DIMENSIONS ARE UNLESS S FEET AND OTHERWISE BS BOTTOM OF SLOPE
INDICATED. LLB LEFT LOWER BANK TS TOP OF SLOPE GRAPHIC SCALE
2. NO BOUNDRY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED

RLB

RIGHT LOWER BANK

BBR

BOTTOM BANK RIGHT
20
o fo 20
UNDER THE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY. TBR TOP BANK RIGHT BBL BOTTOM BANK LEFT
3. ONLY ABOVE GROUND APPURTENANCES TBL TOP BANK LEFT CD CENTERLINE DITCH
1 inch = 20 fh
OF THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WERE TW THAWAG (CL CREEK) TBM TEMPORARY BENCHMARK
LOCATED UNDER THE SCOPE OF THIS
SURVEY.
GS
GROUND SHOT
BB
BOTTOM BANK
EWL EDGE WATER LEFT TB TOP BANK
4. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON GIVEN
BENCHMARK INFORMATION AS SHOWN
. EWR EDGE WATER RIGHT TRV TRAVERSE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
EP EDGE OF POOL
5. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS ONE FOOT. EPAV EDGE OF PAVEMENT MVMM WAF-A _\&MZW00"W m%m- maids
EG EDGE OF GRAVEL LINETYPE DESCRIPTIONS:
WWCL WING WALL CENTERLINE " FOIL
asmp coa
rr
BASE MAP SURVEYED BY.- CLRD CENTERLINE ROAD

--

MINOR CONTOUR INTERVALS x
X
MsnuAM
AM pnoserxooa smr aae, MV.

0
A INV
PP PIPE INVERT
POWER POLE MAJOR CONTOUR INTERVALS
EDGE OF WATER
PREPARED W. FIGURE
-
ggkqkw lvwvao
S
0 03 729, (f.)
RCP
REINFORCED CONC. PIPE
- -
PIPE MAW FIGURE 5
-?

?nw
amed
(Amwswo SHNNT 2 OF 2
a

SILL ROCK
(FOOTERS NOT REQUIRED)
ANGLE
i 2-7 PERCENT
F=
ME M'SM ?
------ ?---, -I-r
S- 3w
xw of or
STREAM
SCE W VJM:7
w
)UR HOLE EXCAVATED
RING CONSTRUCTION
DWAiL more-3c
MAE= W ww
SCOUR HOLE
VANE DETAILS
PREPARED FM
CAMN COUNTY RAMA L RsSOU=S DXPIRT=M
IND PJNXBROOt SWM CLUB, INC.
PREPARED E1Y: now_
EMMM0 SNWAM ?OT10Y
STREAM FLOW I
\mar cum a wr ww f
m
OOS7Mf' SIREAY BOTTOM • - /-
SWIFM FLOW
A>
911E FLOW
CLASS : RIP RAF OZ ?+' ~ t =- _ '
1-3, OM
1.0 0.5
war
160? SECTION B-B
PORK AFM30
SECTION A-A sLL' POOR E saunas-,
ICE OF SLOPE---\
r
r 0lASQ'T
SMEAM FLOW
L?-
1E W
l UNEAR 5TEP POOL
ll? N.T1
D
0 A
MULTFU SCUM
HOLES FORM AFM
Cpi51N1CIM
oEPENOW ON
OOi1OR im AS
DMECRD MY
COA/1T
If
? DO?s
I 1. CLUSRRS AE OM•IRIED OF 9
Rauneli Yll OSBomm Sr
A LONG S? ME PLACE) IN
SIMEAM.
1 SLLRnFlO SHOULD Wr ME PLACED
N POLLS
4. MLLRnaS SIOCLD PMMFAW SK
MQlS AMOK NAME RON UAIM LEWL
yI AFT. .1r?r lE or MOPE
7
MOUDE ONOMMO WWAL
TMPICAL CLEARANCE
I ?? 1
/ I
1 I
STEP POOL DETAILS
PREPARED FM
CAMN COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARI"NT
PREPARED BY:

SCALE
400 FT 0 400 FT
AERIAL PHOTO - 1951
1938 SITE AERIAL
SCALE: 1 MW - too FIRT
PREPARED FOR
CA87M COUNTY ALM." MSOMWIS DsPIRMS"
UPD PMrMoor SW" CLUB, mc.
PRFPARm 9Yc F MWIF-
a.,?.W .?
FIGURE 10

195 1 SITE AERIAL
DF*XM NM 9- M%V- s/m/rs
SM F* I MM 4" MT "Mp '.m r
PIW MAD mm
AM PDVZBROOI SYM CUM WG
PAEPMFD BY: FlGURE:
?.,»..?
FIGURE 11

100
95
90
85
80
75
100
95
90
85
80
75
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
CULVERT CROSS-SECTION
100
95
90
85
80
75
40
100
95
90
85
80
75
PROPOSED DRIVEW Y GRADE 59
ADS \ )42* ADS
LE.? 10
22 '
-40 -30 -20
STRUCTURE 38' ADS k 42' ADS
SKEW 90 DEGREES
DRAINAGE AREA 80 AC
OVERTOPPING ELEV. 90.48
ALLOWABLE HEADWATER ELEV. 90.48
DESIGN DISCHARGE (0 BANK FLOW) 2100 CPS
DESIGN DISCHARGE (010) 150.00 CFS
VELOCITY (010)
INLET ELEV. (FOR 38' RCP) 53.90
OUTLET ELEV. (FOR 38' RCP) 83.87
INLET ELEV. (FOR 29'x45' HERCP) 8510
OUTLET ELEV. (FOR 29'x48' HERCP) 84.79
-10 0 10 20 30
CULVERT CROSS-SECTION AT
HEADWALL AND PROPOSED
STREAM CENTERLINE
40
SCALE
mmog
15 FT 0 15 FT
CULVERT DESIGN
WAWM NME J•?1L77I«C?8«?lIC1! DATE: dfR6/d6
SCALE f 11108 - 16 JIM l0P 'm ~
FWAM M ft
C"TON C0VWff JUMBU ACS0URCES
"J) Pl"B"X STM cure.