20051919 Ver 1_Complete File_20051014 (84)

Office Use Only: Form Version October 2001
0 05?919
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
??
1. Processing D ???r=1 r=3
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project: l Q
? Section 404 Permit OCT 1 4 2005
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification DENR - WATER QUALITY
r??wosnNNDSTORMwgrERSwv?cH
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
"As of September 2005, USACE requires the Restoration Plans to be submitted without the
PCN"
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCEcosystem Enhancement Program
Mailing Address: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone Number: 919-715-1157 Fax Number: 919-715-2219
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Goose Park Stream Restoration Plan
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): _
4. Location
County: Durham Nearest Town: Durham
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The project is divided into two
reaches: Eastway Elementary School extending from just north of Taylor Street to Liberty
Street. The Longmeadow Park reach including the area along the Goose Creek between
Liberty Street and Holloway Street.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application: Urban
project. Park, school and residential area.
7. Property size (acres): The construction property area is 3.8 acres.
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Goose Creek
9. River Basin: Neuse River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 6 of 12
Describe the purpose of the proposed work: The project involves restoration of an existing
1,500 LF urban stream. The goals of the project:
(1) Provide stable stream channel to maintain dimension, pattern, profile and
capacity to transport flow and incoming sediment.
(2) Improve water quality.
(3) Create a new floodplain at a lower elevation to allow access of bankfull flows.
(4) Improve aquatic habitat.
(5) Create natural riparian buffers and enhance existing riparian buffers.
List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track Hoes,
10. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Inner city, Park, Elementary School,
Residential
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.
According to the National Wetland Inventory maps and field studies, there are no wetlands
within the project construction area.
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: None
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.
Page 7 of 12
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.p-ov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0.0 ac.
Total area of wetland impact proposed: none
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams: None
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 secify)
Upper/School Restoration 860 Goose Creek 53 if Perennial
Longmeadow Pk Restoration 640 Goose Creek 28 if 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 showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.p,ov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.toi)ozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 0.0 LF
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Page 8of12
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.)

* 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 (N/A)
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.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
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 project goal is to improve the ecological functions of the existing stream and not
impacting the stream.
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
Page 9 of 12
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwettands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Please see the existing site layout and the proposed grading and wetland planting plans
attached with the PCN application.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at hitp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Page 10 of 12
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 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.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 0 3 0
2 0 1.5 0
Total 0
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; "Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or. 0260.
Page 11 of 12
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from the
property. Not applicable to this project
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
EEP requested that the designing firm provide the locations of any sewer lines located in the
vicinity of the construction area so that the contractor would be notified of their presence and
be held responsible for their protection.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
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).
?o hP1L ) It i-?
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
RECEIVED
0 C 1 14 205
NCECOSYSTEM
NTOtAM
Goose creel
OCT
JOn.5
DENR
t re a m K e s t o ra.}. Lio ?4NDS glyD SHCRe `-
5eptemker 2005
Ag-
Biol mbitats

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................1
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ 3
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1
1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................... 3
' 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................... 4
3.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 7
' 3.1 DOCUMENT REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 7
3.2
3.3 FIELD EVALUATION OF STUDY AREA ................................................................................ S
STREAM CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................................. 9
' 3.4
3.5 STREAM REFERENCE REACH IDENTIFICATION .................................................................. 9
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC MODELING AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

3.6 REQUIREMENTS ...............................................................................................................
SELECTION OF DESIGN DISCHARGE
................................................................................ 10
12
3.
3. 61 Bankfull Discharge Background ...............................................................................
62 Calibration of Bankfull and Peak Flows .................................................................. 13
14
' 3.7 SEISMIC REFRACTION ..................................................................................................... 17
4.0 GENERAL WATERSHED INFORMATION ............................................................. 19
4.1 TOPOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 19
4.2
4.3 LAND USE .......................................................................................................................
SOII.,S .............................................................................................................................. 19
21
4.4
5.0 STREAM CLASSIFICATION AND WATER QUALITY .............................................................
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING STREAM CONDITIONS ....................................... 22
24
1 5.1 EASTWAY'ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REACH ....................................................................... 24
5.2 LONGMEADOW PARK REACH .......................................................................................... 25

1

5.3 EXISTING PLANT COMMUNITIES IN RIPARIAN BUFFER AREAS ......................................... 25
5.5 THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES REPORT ................................................................ 28
6.0 STREAM REFERENCE RESTORATION STUDIES ............................................... 31
7.0 .STREAM RESTORATION PLAN ............................................................................... 33
7:1 PROPOSED STREAM CLASSIFICATION .............................................................................. 33
7.2 MORPHOLOGICAL SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 34
7.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ................................................................................................... 34
7.4 PROPOSED PLANT COMMUNITIES .................................................................................... 36
7.5 IN-STREAM DESIGN ELEMENTS ........................................................................................ 38
7.5.1 Structural Elements ................................................................................................... 38
7.5.2 Soil Bioengineering Elements ................................................................................... 39
8.0 STREAM MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................. 40
9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................43

LIST OF TABLES
' Table 1 Durham Future Land Use Abbreviations ........................................................... 21
Table 2 Existing Vegetation Species, Eastway Elementary School Reach ..................... 27
Table 3 Existing Vegetation Species, Longmeadow Park Reach .................................... 28
Table 4 Federally Protected Species in Durham County ................................................. 29
' Table 5 Federal Species of Concern for Durham County ............................................... 29
Table 6 Sediment Transport Results from Shields Equation ........................................... 36
Table 7 Proposed Vegetation Communities .....................................................................37
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Limits and Associated Watershed ............................................................5
' Figure 2 Locations of Project Reaches ................................................................................6
Figure 3 Comparison of Bankfull and Modeled Discharges with Selected Design
Di
h
15
sc
arges ...........................................................................................................
Figure 4
Fi
5 Soils Map ............................................................................................................20
F
t
L
M
d U
23
gure u
ure
an
se
ap .........................................................................................
Figure 6 Land/Vegetation Cover Map ...............................................................................26

' APPENDICES
Appendix A Photographs of Project Area
' Appendix B
Appendix C Field Cross Sections and Pebble Count from Project Area
Photographs of Reference Reaches
Appendix D Field Cross Sections and Pebble Counts from Reference Reaches
Appendix E
Appendix F HEC-RAS Output File
Summary Morphological Table
Appendix G Planform Layout and Details

' Appendix H
A
di
I Typical Design Cross Sections
P
d L
it
di
l P
fil
ppen
x ropose
ong
u
na
ro
es
11

1

J
F

11

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is undertaking a stream
restoration project for Goose Creek, located in northeast central Durham, North Carolina,
in the Neuse River watershed, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Cataloguing Unit
03020201. The project is composed of two reaches (Eastway Elementary and
Longmeadow Park), separated by a culvert, in an urbanized area. The length of the
existing Goose Creek channel within the proposed project area is 1500 linear feet. The
length of the proposed Goose Creek channel restoration is 1518 linear feet. The total
proposed construction area is 3.8 acres (a table summarizing project information is
included at the end of this section).
This stream is degraded due to urban development in the contributing watershed. The
City of Durham documented degraded water quality in Goose Creek in its "State of Our
Streams Report" published in 2005 by the Water Quality Monitoring Program. The water
quality monitoring station on Goose Creek, located on Holloway Street, at the
downstream end of the proposed project, had an overall Water Quality Index score of 62-
65 out of a possible range of 54-92, the second lowest scoring area in the report. This
station had the second highest concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria of the 33
monitoring stations, and had elevated water quality concerns related to the total nitrogen,
BOD, and copper parameters measured. Just upstream of the proposed project,
approximately 1,180 feet of stream is contained in culverts. In the project area, the
stream banks have been hardened by concrete and vertical masonry walls. The degraded
condition of the channel, extensive bank armoring, onset of neighborhood revitalization
efforts, and presence of willing stakeholders make this an excellent site for stream
restoration.
The existing stream buffer is very limited in the upstream Eastway Elementary School
Reach and even more limited in the Longmeadow Park Reach. In the Eastway
Elementary Reach, the bankfull channel is bordered by mowed areas. A Natural
1

0

I

11
Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) stream project installed log vanes in the channel
in 1998, and herbaceous species and small woody saplings of black willow (Salix nigra),
princess tree (Paulownia tomemtosa), and red mulberry (Morus rubra) have occupied the
alternate bar deposits. The natural (unmowed) buffer varies in width from 5-15 feet in
width. In the Longmeadow Park reach, the existing stream is bracketed by stone walls,
beyond which are mowed areas with scattered, planted, large (3-4 foot) diameter trees,
mainly willow oaks (Quercus phellos). Except for the large oaks, there is no woody
vegetative buffer on the Longmeadow Park Reach. Accordingly, the terrestrial and
aquatic habitat that the existing buffers offer is very limited.
Biohabitats, Inc. was retained to develop the stream restoration design and investigate the
potential for on-site stormwater management facilities. This design effort builds on the
"Goose Creek Stream Restoration Feasibility Study" dated July 2004, prepared jointly by
CDM and Biohabitats, Inc. In the feasibility report, restoration potential was identified
but with limitations posed by existing infrastructure. This Restoration Plan presents
existing channel conditions and an overview of the proposed stream restoration design.
The proposed restoration would include reconfiguration of the planform, cross-sectional,
IN
and profile properties of the channel to a stable form under the existing hydrologic 1 -t ° ` Y" 7
vuwnl. .?,r cl?arr
conditions and limited sediment supply regime. The design would also provide the ky.4"I'sY
present incised channel with a new, lower floodplain surface and reestablish an adjacent
native riparian buffer.
Summary of Goose Creek Restoration Project Information
Length of Existing Stream = 15001f
Length of Proposed Restoration =15181f
(Eastway Elementary- 8601f + Longmeadow Park 640 If)

LJ

1
Total Area of Construction Disturbance = 3.8 ac
Location- Upper Neuse USGS CU 03020201
2
1
Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan

1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The stream restoration practices proposed along Goose Creek are intended to achieve the
following goals and objectives:

1. Provide a stable stream channel that maintains its dimension, pattern, and profile
' over the long term, with the capacity to transport flow and incoming sediment
load.
2. Improve water quality. - '? W*
3. Create a new floodplain at a lower elevation to allow access of bankfull flows
' (since reconnecting the stream to its original floodplain area is not feasible due to
flooding and road crossings).
4. Improve aquatic habitats by redesign of the longitudinal profile, removal of
channel hardening structures, and installation of in-channel structures that
stabilize the channel and enhance variability in its geometry.
5. Create natural riparian buffers and enhance existing riparian buffers, including
retaining existing healthy oaks in Longmeadow Park.

G

C

1 3
I'N
u

1

L

0
r

1

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION
Goose Creek flows through a residential community of the City of Durham in Durham
County. The Goose Creek watershed is an old, well-established, low-income
neighborhood with limited opportunities for modifications to alter runoff quantity or
quality. The project area extends from where the creek exits a culvert, just north
(downstream) of Taylor Street downstream to Holloway Street (Figure 1). The stream
flows by Eastway Elementary School, the Barnes Avenue Community Redevelopment
Project and the City of Durham's Longmeadow Park (Figure 2).
The project is divided into two reaches for the purpose of the stream restoration project
(Figure 2). The Eastway Elementary School Reach or Upper Reach extends from just
north of Taylor Street to Liberty Street. The Longmeadow Park Reach includes the area
along Goose Creek between Liberty Street and Holloway Street. Approximately 1,180
feet of Goose Creek is currently enclosed in a box culvert just upstream of the proposed phi 2
project within the Few Gardens/Holman Holmes HOPE VI public housing project area,
under Taylor Street, and through the Eastway Elementary School parking lot. The creek
is enclosed in another box culvert under Liberty Street.
Goose Creek is part of the Neuse River Basin (Upper Neuse, Subbasin 03-04-01) and is a
tributary to Ellerbe Creek, which flows into Falls Lake. Because Falls Lake is a water
supply source, the Goose Creek watershed is considered a water supply watershed. The
project area falls within the USGS Cataloging Unit 03020201. The North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Stream Index Number for Goose Creek is 27-5-1.
Goose Creek is located in North Carolina's relatively narrow Triassic Basin geologic
area, along the eastern edge of the more generalized Piedmont physiographic province.
The Triassic Basin is filled with sedimentary rocks that formed about 200-190 million
years ago when streams carried mud, silt, sand and gravel from adjacent highlands into
rift valleys. Streams in the Triassic Basin tend to have finer bed material and lower
summer flow conditions (due to quick infiltration into sandy soils).
4

' AN,? .-F Ir i
el f; MAO. Downstream End of Project Area
;? -
AT-
A AMM A If
4LARM it
?..
27
son
npm
Vii' ?` .R3j?..,` f .,,?,`-=`•:"r}}f : Y 't
y 5, .r - . ?...
10 fil.
•?? q? ?1 ? /r y ,,i 41 ??.?{'I, ?,? t???? ??. 8? k` ?•..? ?'? SI ` d :177
WAR
08, 11
6•, f / f l ? I ? ? ••
'° + J1 f I s
. , ,fib? °
If,
IM '00? -
ups ? 7 ti x ? ? ? '? ? ?• ?_ • ? .?, ''"'';??tt r r- ? r
rJ?``?-?'X i't?' iT ? i- ?...??r? - ?? •r •1? "? ??`?F ?^S?1k{: ?J?R '`i\ ??L ?4? { i.
w A 1 6p-: °•1,.. ' ??? • t. k? I: Y ? ,: "SAP 1 L ? ? [ ti ? '?'?
1+S ? y l-r ?
1 ? ? ??.,??°?•!? ?'. - fi, *?P?? v F v?'1 ,,, 1?' .. r rr jy,l ?"r ? .' '`.:??°M •' r l •` ? r / ? ? ,?
M'-
"'??iy''f.- 1 t?.j I I ??? iG. ?"lP, p?N L /f -'i??'Cp + ?`•''.? '.? X
cx. ?' 1 Tr r .i ?Wr.-n"R'-.'T'?.'•.? •J'.'G.". ?•.:+sa a. r?4'Y.` -?.:-
Al
?? +??jJf 1 P r ? ?i r.. -/ y,o' ??' d'???"ti,E.ie'?t`s',? " 4,{ . ~?n?f a. `'•-ro ??` ? e ? h
I ?. a I'+L?.kyy`g''?', `=,. , ,? ,t{!'';1<•, ''' "?f *y-Ta'r' „r+.: r.iC'1Y. .-',. ?.i!/ i' -`'`!r,1? • . '+?.
• ? ! ? 1?l -? (?'. V ? Ft all Jr .tau l'?kT .?'
Data Source: Southwest Durham USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle. " 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
Goose Creek Restoration
Durham County, North Carolina
??Feosstem Biohabitats Project No. 04802.02
I1 ia? enic Figure 1 ?lO bl
PROGRAM iapsrai
Project Limits and Associated Watershed
September 2005
Carlton Ave n m
65 y - Gilbert St Y m Fiske St
c
m m _E
w t U cn a
Longmeadow Park
S Eva St
' w
65 Liberty
z
t LONGMEADOW PARK REACH Lathrop St

I

0 z
m° H kin
St w < t,ibe
1 I"?
EASTWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REACH
' '6006 St IS, 6` Iv
g?mar gt ?? ?F .Fran
- m' St
N (D _Z5
C Q) a
Barnes Avenue Community Developm ent
S TaY/Or
/ St
St
o ( .orfh s z
S Elm st ° MO?:?9 t z ;
z Q
N ?. N m 0 c
rn
palest m m m
QO N z Long S
?Oo„ ?,Fewc ;ardenslHolmap Homes C; z
Ho3 e Vi Cottrnur1ilh edevelop#nt
qy Aye 3 E Main St
v
C 0 ? OC -? 'C (n m
CD G) <
CO p 3 'p C u,

'9pe
E umstead St
Cole St 4

? co F
C? :S'mmonsSt Pott
e
r
' S
U
JaQpb St

?ipk,
N
o a co
o, c
0 250 500 11000 Feet

?n 01 Hart St
co x
D D in
m m
Ashe St \A'04 Pig
?9ierq?e
0
O?? m
x
oc Crane St
Kate St

-- 20201 Upper h C
100 Miles
H
PROGRAMI
J]$?nstem
/?ypi

-- -" - -- etso _ i
s V?nc
s j a 11 j`
ankli
r
.? 9 r ~' I
1
0 2.5 10 ,Miles e
`Ghatl'iam
Goose Creek Restoration
Durham County, North Carolina
Biohabitats Project No. 04802.02
Figure 2
Locations of Project Reaches

i

n

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
3.0 METHODS
Baseline conditions for Goose Creek have been established through field investigation
and review of existing documents. The methods and materials used to collect
information, perform the field survey, analyze existing stream conditions, and identify
potential reference reaches are identified below.
3.1 DOCUMENT REVIEW
Available basinwide physical data were reviewed to assess existing conditions in the
watershed and at the site, to identify potential constraints, and to identify anticipated
additional data needs. Data were provided by NCEEP, the City of Durham, project
stakeholders, and state agencies.
Data collected and reviewed included available soil and wetland maps, topographic maps,
aerial photos, zoning and land use information, National Wetland inventory maps, FEMA
flood zone maps, NC Floodmaps database, City of Durham utility maps, rare species
database reports, Historic Preservation Office database reports, and the Durham Soil and
Water Conservation District (SWCD) Goose Creek Urban Stream Rehabilitation Project
Design Folder (1998). In addition, the project team reviewed proposed projects plans for
the Few Gardens/Holman Holmes HOPE VI housing complex, the Barnes Avenue
Community Development project, and the City of Durham Parks and Recreation
Department's plans for improvements to Longmeadow Park.
Requests for historic properties and endangered species information about the project site
were submitted to the North Carolina State Historical Preservation Office, the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
According to correspondence received from the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office, there are no known historical resources in the project area that will
be affected by the stream restoration project.

L

7

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
3.2 FIELD EVALUATION OF STUDY AREA
A site reconnaissance of the study reaches and floodplain was conducted to determine
and document existing conditions. Field observations were used to provide an overview
of the site. Appendix A includes photographs documenting conditions along each reach.
During the site visit, the extent of adjacent property available for possible stream
relocation was noted, as was the location of significant constraints such as manholes,
large specimen trees, and outfalls. Available maps were used in the field to confirm the.
locations of infrastructure and were used to record additional spatial information, such as
the locations of large trees. Field observations and information compiled from available
maps were used together to create a base map for the restoration plan.
During multiple site visits, channel stability was evaluated and a fluvial geomorphologic
assessment was undertaken. A cross section was taken within each of the reaches using
standard land survey techniques. The riffle cross sections were positioned to illustrate
representative characteristics of the channel based on channel appearance, slope, and bed
material. Longitudinal profiles were also taken at the Eastway Elementary School Reach
cross section to confirm slope indicated from available topographic maps. A longitudinal
profile was not taken at the Longmeadow Reach cross section due to poor access. Pebble
counts were not conducted in the two project reaches, since bed material was almost
entirely sand, however, a 100-particle Wolman pebble count (Wolman, 1954) was
conducted upstream of the project (and downstream of Morning Glory Avenue) to
characterize bed material and associated channel roughness. Appendix B contains the
results from the surveyed cross sections, the local longitudinal profile, and the pebble
count.
During the field survey, the bankfull elevation (the elevation of the active floodplain) at
each cross section was identified and verified by multiple personnel based on available
field indicators. Bankfull elevation was derived from all available indicators including
depositional features, changes in bank angle, vegetation patterns, scour lines, and storm
debris lines. Because the channel has been impacted significantly by bank protection
measures, bankfull identification from these features was difficult in the Eastway

C

I

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
Elementary School and Longmeadow Park Reaches. More consistent bankfull indicators
were found upstream of the project, where a cross section and longitudinal profile were
measured, and the information was used to determine design discharge downstream.
According to the National Wetland Inventory maps, there are no mapped wetlands
located within the project area. Several depressional areas were initially identified for
further investigation to establish or preclude wetland classification. However, field study
of soils, hydrology, and plant communities in these areas found that none qualified as
wetlands.
3.3 STREAM CLASSIFICATION

11

As part of the field reconnaissance, the Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1994) was
used to determine channel type at each field cross section on the basis of existing
morphological features of the stream channel. While the classification system can be a
helpful descriptor of channel properties in many geomorphic settings, urban settings often
limit the utility of the classification system. For example, in stream sections that have
been highly modified, several complications may confound channel classification
because: 1) bankfull indicators may be sparse or absent, 2) channel morphology often
does not coincide with a single Rosgen stream type, and/or 3) hydraulic effects of
culverts may overprint bankfull indicators that would otherwise be present. Despite these
limitations, channel classification was attempted, but was not always feasible in the
altered reaches.
3.4 STREAM REFERENCE REACH IDENTIFICATION
Field assessments of impacted streams generally require some example of attainable
conditions for restoration. A reference reach-a control stream with similar physical
properties but with fewer impacts and greater .channel stability-can help establish
physical and biological criteria in stream restoration design.
The search for reference reaches began by reviewing reference reach information used by
previous NCEEP stream restoration projects. Of the half dozen sites previously
identified, two were selected for further investigation based on their proximity to Goose
9
1

[l

1

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
Creek, small drainage area (<10 mi) , channel type (B-type and C-type preferred), and
physiographic province. The first stream, Morgan Creek, is located near Chapel Hill in
the Piedmont physiographic province. The second stream, an unnamed tributary to Cabin
Creek, is located about 0.5 mi northeast of the Durham City limits within the Triassic
Basin. The tributary flows east into the Eno River and is located approximately four
miles north of Durham on the end of Earl Road (SR 2625). Photographs of each site are
included in Appendix C.
Both sites were visited to verify their classification and suitability for use as reference
reaches. Existing datasets were used to spot check values at both sites. Based on spot
checks, Biohabitats accepted the available datasets for design use. Since the Cabin Creek
tributary has the additional merit of being located within the Triassic Basin, supplemental
cross-sectional, planform, longitudinal, and bed material measurements were taken along
this stream. To define a range of conditions and augment the existing database, these
measurements were distributed along two additional reaches ("Reach A" and "Reach B")
between Earl Road and the upstream powerline easement. Cross-sectional, profile, and
pebble count measurements from the reaches are included in Appendix D. The riparian
zone of the Cabin Creek tributary is also in excellent condition and was used to identify a
reference stream vegetative community.
3.5 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC MODELING AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
REQUIREMENTS
Models of the existing watershed hydrology and channel hydraulics were developed to
determine the peak discharges and identify key hydrologic loading points in the system to
determine the feasibility of the proposed stream restoration project.
Runoff volumes and peak rates of discharge for various rainfall events were estimated
using the US Army Corps of Engineers' HEC-HMS Flood Hydrograph Package. Land
use in the subbasins was generalized from the City of Durham land use data and GIS
mapping. Subbasin-specific curve numbers were developed based on existing land use
and soil type using the Soil Conservation Service's (SCS's) Curve Number method.
10

L

L
LI

1

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
These curve numbers and computed travel times then were entered within the HEC-HMS
model. Average antecedent moisture conditions (AMC Il) were assumed for the
modeling effort. The peak flow discharges for the 1-year (24-hour), 2-year, 10-year, and
100-year recurrence intervals then were determined using four subbasins defined by
hydrologic boundaries. Subbasin hydrographs were routed by the model through the
drainage network to estimate the magnitude of peak discharges for the hypothetical 1-
year, 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year 24-hour storms in Durham County. The hydrologic
model was originally created for the Goose Creek Stream Restoration Feasibility Study
(Durham SWCD, 2004). No changes have been made to that original model, as it is still
representative of watershed conditions.
The HEC-RAS model (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001) was used to predict
resulting water surface elevations along the channel system for flood discharges obtained
from the HEC-HMS analysis. A hydraulic model was also created for the Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Feasibility Study (2004), and was based on best available topographic
and culvert information at the time. However, since then, improved field-run survey was
obtained to support ongoing, more detailed design work. The existing HEC-RAS was
therefore revised to more accurately reflect existing conditions. Geometric information at
all culverts was retained from the original hydraulic model, except where the field-run
survey required revision of culvert sizes and invert elevations. However, geometric
information for all open-channel portions of the project area was revised based on the
field-run survey.
Revised geometric data were obtained using the Hydrologic Engineering Center's Geo-
River Analysis System (HEC-GeoRAS) (Version 3.1)-an extension designed to process
geospatial data for easy import into HEC-RAS. Cross sections were "cut" within HEC
Geo-RAS approximately every 50 feet, with hand verified spot checks. HEC-GeoRAS
was used to generate geometric data input for existing conditions of Goose Creek. The
resulting geometry files were then imported into HEC-RAS to run the full hydraulic
analysis. Standard contraction and expansion coefficients of 0.1 and 0.3 were used for all
11

7
t

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
natural sections with in the study reach and 0.3 and 0.5 were used at the culvert crossing.
Output from the existing conditions HEC-RAS model is included in Appendix E.
Upon completion of the existing conditions hydraulic model, a preliminary proposed
conditions model was created by superimposing the design typical cross sections at the
appropriate design inverts and tying in the cross sections to existing topography by hand.
Revisions to the proposed model will be made as the iterative design process continues
and the grading plan is developed.
In May of 2005 revised FEMA/NC Floodplain Mapping Information System mapping of
Durham County was published, and the project area, which had not previously been
mapped by FEMA in a flood hazard area, was mapped as AE (100-Year Flooding with
Base Flood Elevations). Consequently, by FEMA regulations, modifications of the
existing floodplain that would cause any rise in the Base Flood Elevation require a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision request to be submitted to FEMA.
The restoration design is intended to maintain the current Base Flood Elevation, without a
rise. The City of Durham is the administrator of floodplain management and requires a
No Impact Certification for stream restoration projects. The No Impact Certification
contains the modeling data demonstrating that the Base Flood Elevation does not rise for
the proposed restored channel and also for the as-built channel, upon project completion
and re-survey. As previously mentioned, an existing conditions HEC-RAS (River
Analysis System) model was developed to establish an existing conditions
hydrologic/hydraulic parameters "baseline" to which proposed post-restoration
conditions can be compared. Following approval of the restoration design, the proposed
conditions model will be finalized to reflect proposed changes to the channel and
floodplain.
3.6 SELECTION OF DESIGN DISCHARGE
The selection of a hankfull discharge is used as the basis for the proposed design at
Goose Creek. The basis for its use is outlined below, followed by a description of the
12

I
1

1

1

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
bankfull discharge estimation and its calibration.
3.6.1 Bankfull Discharge Background
Bankfull discharge is commonly used in stream restoration design as a single-
value estimate for a flow that may be largely responsible for the resulting
geomorphic form. Likewise, the selection of a bankfull discharge was used as the
basis for the conceptual design at Goose Creek. The practice is rooted in the work
of Wolman and Miller (1960), in which the authors demonstrate that in alluvial,
transport-limited rivers in temperate climates, flows of moderate frequency (e.g.,
the 1.5- to 2-year storm. event) and magnitude perform most of the geomorphic
work. In many cases, it is thought that the morphological feature of a bankfull
elevation corresponds fairly well to the flow stage transporting the long-term peak
volume of sediment. Channel morphology is ultimately a result of all flows "above
a sediment transport threshold that do some geomorphic work; however, bankfull
discharge is useful as a guide for sizing of the restored channel.
The bankfull elevation was identified in the field at each of the three surveyed
cross sections. Bankfall discharge was estimated at each location by solving the
Manning equation for discharge given the bankfull elevation, local channel
geometry, slope, and roughness. Channel roughness, represented by Manning's
"n," was approximated using the standard references Chow (1959) and Barnes
(1967) based on field observations of bed material, channel geometry, and
adjacent riparian vegetation.
For the purpose of comparison, a predicted bankfull discharge was also calculated
for Goose Creek using available North Carolina regression relationships for urban
streams in the Piedmont physiographic province (Doll et. al, 2002). The urban
regression relationship is expressed by the following equation:
Qbkf = 306.80 AW ""
where AW is watershed area in square miles (mil) and Qbkf is the bankfull
discharge in cubic feet per second (cfs). The drainage areas of the streams used in
13

u

1

1?

1
P

17L
. Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
the regression ranged from 0.14 to 42.6 mil. The drainage area of reaches along
Goose Creek range from 0.18 to 0.79 mil and are within the range used to develop
the regression.
Finally, copies of bankfull discharge estimates developed by Durham SWCD
(1998) were provided by NCEEP for comparison. The estimates were used to
develop the original stream restoration concept plan within the grouted mattress-
lined channel along Eastway Elementary School.
3.6.2 Calibration of Bankfull and Peak Flows
Design discharges were selected based on careful review of multiple lines of
evidence, including field measurements, regional regressions, and hydrologic
modeling. Figure 3 summarizes estimates of bankfull discharge from the field
cross sections, regional regression, and work by Durham SWCD (1998). The
graph also shows results from the HEC-HMS hydrological model.
Unfortunately, natural bankfull indicators were either absent, limited, or obscured
by culvert hydraulics in the study area. As a result, bankfull discharges calculated
from field measurement are not as reliable but useful only as first-order estimates.
Bankfull indicators were most distinctive upstream of the project, just
downstream of Morning Glory Avenue. Measurements made there resulted in a
field-based estimate of 149 cfs for bankfull discharge. However, upon review of
the hydraulic model, it became clear that the downstream culvert inlet is causing
some retardation or temporary storage of incoming flow, which is elevating the
water surface elevation during frequent (1- and 2-year) discharge events. This
suggests that some indicators like storm debris could have led to a slight
overestimation of bankfull discharge in this reach.
Bankfull indicators along the Eastway Elementary School, and Longmeadow Park
Reaches were not apparent enough to supply reliable estimates. In the Eastway
Elementary School Reach, the grouted mattress lining along the banks prevented
accurate identification of bankfull. However, recent debris lines at the top of
14

o
?

o
y ?A=
-
d
to m
_
m ?
0
3
m
N
'
?1
L
d

o N V
N
V ?
_
ch D

z E d C
d
)
L ? G
_
N
CO

G
UL
G
a
N

L
? C)
N
a -

? N N
N p

D co 0
N ?
a>

p rn
N
c ?
a
c
E
0) 'O

0) C
U
.0
U
C
.-. W W
w = _ c -
c6 Q •-
O Y
C o L
m o o ? U m
? :_+ a7 Y m
o C
O
m O O m O +
y U U c Z
m c c? E E 0- C13
E O
`
?j W W ?- (D U
c o
c m :D W A-
m ? c Q N N
? Q Q O? Q O
>Cu
? Y Y O Q
O
O
m a I W 0
O O a a -t U w
p LL N Z Q S Q
(sIO) a6 a ay ? si d ti-' • 1 0 a

o
mo
- Co
m
`m
o
w o
c
c
?
X fL O

N E 1)

X
o (
U Q.

7
O
?

I
m
a c
?

I

r =-
F

'? 4

r
u

J

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
banks suggest that stream stages that fill the channel are not uncommon. This
was supported further by fresh sand deposits at the top of instream bars and debris
racked in the small trees growing over the bars. Consequently, the estimate of
143 cfs for the discharge at the top of the banks (Appendix B) represents only a
minimum value for bankfull discharge at that location. A true bankfull discharge
cannot be determined based on field indicators due to the alteration of the
channel.
In the Longmeadow Park Reach, masonry walls also preclude clear indicators of
bankfull elevation. However, localized sandy bars against the wall suggest a
minimum estimate of bankfull elevation. It is unclear how much higher the
bankfull elevation is above the fresh sand deposits. Fresh, deep sand along lateral
bars in the Longmeadow Park therefore suggest that 343 cfs may also be a
reasonable lower bound for bankfull discharge at the downstream end.
Results from HEC-HMS provide estimates of the 1- and 2-year discharges for
each reach. Assuming that the bankfull discharge should fall between the 1- and
2-year peak discharges, these results seem to support that the field-based
discharge may slightly overestimate the actual bankfull discharge upstream of the
proposed project and slightly underestimate the bankfull discharge in the
Longmeadow Park Reach.
Results from the regional regression are consistently lower than model results,
with differences increasing with downstream distance (Figure 3). A closer look at
the regression relationship shows that the modeled values are not unreasonable
given the scatter within the regression data set. For example, at the upstream end
of Goose Creek, where the drainage area is 0.2 square miles, the regression
equation predicts 106 cfs. However, there are three data points with a drainage
area of 0.2 square miles used in the regression with bankfull discharges of 68, 95,
and 208 cfs (Figure 3). The 1- and 2-year model results of 115 to 144 cfs clearly
fall within the data range of the regression and therefore are not considered to be
16

J

n

F1

n

1
Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
dissimilar enough to warrant concern. Land use in the drainage area may play a
role in the range of data point values.
In the area studied upstream of the proposed project, bankfull discharge is well
supported by the multiple lines of evidence. As a result, the level of confidence is
fairly high in the selection of 120 cfs as an estimate of discharge. However,
uncertainty increases with distance downstream, since results from regional
regressions, hydrologic modeling, and field measurements diverge. In the
Longmeadow Park Reach, the field cross section suggests a lower bound of 343
cfs for bankfull discharge, in`keeping with results from HEC-HMS. We believe,
therefore, that the prediction by the regional bankfull regression is too low for this
reach.
As a final line of evidence, "dummy" flows in 50 cfs increments were entered into
the existing conditions HEC-RAS model to identify the flow most closely
associated with bankfull elevations identified during field reconnaissance. This
approach helped account for hydraulic impacts of culverts that field-based
calculation of discharge using Manning's equation could not address. Bankfull
indicators within the Upper, Eastway Elementary School, and Longmeadow Park
reaches most closely matched water surface elevations associated with 100 cfs,
300 cfs, and 400 cfs, respectively. This finding solidified the decision process,
with 120 cfs (Upper Reach), 265 cfs (upstream portion of Eastway Elementary
School Reach), and 400 cfs (downstream portion of Eastway Elementary School
Reach and Longmeadow Park Reach) selected as the final design flow values.
3.7 SEISMIC REFRACTION
Depths to bedrock commonly are shallow in the Durham area. Several bedrock outcrops
are apparent along the channel bed downstream of Morning Glory Avenue (upstream of
the project area). This precipitated some concern that buried bedrock may restrict efforts
to realign sections of Goose Creek. To provide data showing depth to bedrock, a seismic
refraction survey was undertaken along transects within the project area. Each transect
17

I

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
was positioned along possible alignments developed in the feasibility study. All six
transects showed bedrock at a depth of 15 feet or greater in the project area (Geophex,
2005). Since grading will not extend to these depths, the seismic refraction results
suggest no bedrock obstacles to channel alignment.
18

F1

PJ

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
4.0 GENERAL WATERSHED INFORMATION
The Goose Creek stream restoration project watershed is approximately 0.8 square miles
in size at its downstream end at Holloway Street. The drainage area is urban and is
bounded by Holloway Street to the north, the Durham Freeway (Highway 147) to the
south, North Guthrie Avenue to the east, and Dillard Street to the west.
4.1 TOPOGRAPHY
The topographic features of the Goose Creek stream restoration project area are shown in
Figure 1. The project area is characterized by relatively flat terrain along the floodplains
of Goose Creek. Elevations along the route range from approximately 334 feet above sea
level at the downstream end of the route near Holloway Street to around 350 feet at the
upstream end of the route near Morning Glory Avenue.
4.2 LAND USE
The Goose Creek stream restoration project watershed is urban and virtually built-out.
Zoning in the project area is primarily high-density residential with single-family homes,
multi-family housing, and a small area of medium-density residential land use. Also
included in the watershed are pockets of industrial, commercial, and institutional land
use. Most of the commercial and industrial land use occurs along the major
thoroughfares such as Angier Avenue, Alston Avenue, Main Street, and Holloway Street.
The land between the Durham Freeway (Highway 147) and Angier Avenue is zoned for
industrial, office, and mixed use. The school and park sites and the floodplain areas
surrounding Goose Creek have been classified as open space/recreational areas in
Durham's future land use plans.
Future land use in the Goose Creek study area watershed is depicted in Figure 4. Table 1
lists the land use types that correspond to the future land uses shown in Figure 4.
Because the watershed is virtually built-out, future land use is expected to remain
consistent with current use. Excessive development and changes to land use are not
likely to occur, nor are future hydrological changes expected. The proposed Holman
Home VI Redevelopment and the Barnes Avenue Community Redevelopment efforts are
19

11
I?POttaw na n Fern St

/tlto?j,' yes ma u)
to Gilbert St At
f.
t Q
p
o_
y x E Hollowa
I'll "n j ra=?
4 ti ?I `? 1 Y . 1 - 4 x •T
y
J ?
%
Eva St
LONGMEADOW PARK REACH
?? r
I
Life I
65
X Liberty St t
m° s St 3 cn a? t
r
• ? Co??e -,. ?? Q Z (D
m E
4 ` ` u `E?kSTWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REACH
y s \ m °-
Southgate St
(D V'
000,
kl/
` s
2 3' -
ro/
A Z
? ! ?o ?? Z °rning hprck ? (?D
A
a; G/oy. Cir Z
S c H` N
fy t o. i N' qVe. .
st
E ?D pale
m
.: m
t \ O? m O m
o
t'} a r?.Ve^ „T; Mash St E Main St
-? ? a ?Coi ? cD
o to
0 G .
3 t1? c
Hart St
effe Q - ,,?? . ? D'
m
E Umstead St ,-
- Cole St
z
65
c Sim
{ ? mOh3
- pone
{I t JacOb St ?1? co ,
w,°
,•t, ? ;ar ? °a
A Ve ?> der W 30 ;,
77
2
1»?? ! AVe m f /? -fir en 1
Future Land Use o 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
N
NO LDR
COM MDR
HDR I MIX Goose Creek Restoration
Durham County, North Carolina
gvtem IND OFC Biohabitats Project No. 04802.02 iohabltatS
1
r
?' I? nicht? INS ROS Figure 4 / `neorpomied
PROGRAM - Future Land Use
?? LD3 NA September 2005

1

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
not expected to change land use in the project area. The redevelopment efforts will
replace existing residential structures with Similar structures.
Table 1. Durham Future Land Use Abbreviations
Code Land Use Type
COM Commercial
HDR High Density Residential
IND Industrial
INS Institutional
LD3 Rural Residential
LDR Low Density Residential
MDR Medium Density Residential
MIX Mixed Use
N/A Downtown District
OFC Office
ROS Recreation/Open Space
4.3 SOILS
According to the Durham County Soil Survey, prepared by the USDA Soil Conservation
Service (1976), soils in the Goose Creek stream restoration project area consist of the
Cartecay and Chewacla soils mapping unit (Cc) and the White Store-Urban land complex
(WwC, 0 to 10 percent slopes; Ur). The Cartecay and Chewacla soils mapping unit is
comprised of 60 percent Cartecay and 30 percent Chewacla soils. They are poorly
drained soils usually found on floodplains along small streams. Cartecay and Chewacla
' soils are included on the Hydric Soils List for North Carolina and are classified as
Hydrologic Soil Group B. Depth to bedrock for Chewacla soils is 5 feet, and depth to
' bedrock for Cartecay soils is greater than 5 feet.
The White Store-Urban land complex consists of White Store soil and Urban land. The
complex is comprised of 30 percent streets, houses, and structures; 30 percent
' undisturbed White Store soil; and 25 percent White Store soil with fill material or where
original soil has been removed. White Store soils are classified as Hydrologic Soil Group
21

u

t
11

1
Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
D. Depth to bedrock is greater than 4 feet for White Store soils (USDA Soil
Conservation Service, 1976). The soil types within the Goose Creek stream restoration
project area are shown in Figure 5.
4.4 STREAM CLASSIFICATION AND WATER QUALITY
The NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) classifies Goose Creek as a Class WS-IV
water. WS-IV waters are those that can be used as sources of potable water where a more
protected WS-I, II, or III classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for
Class C uses, which includes such uses as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and
aquatic life propagation and survival, and agriculture. WS-IV waters are generally in
moderately to highly developed watersheds or protected areas, and involve no categorical
restrictions on discharges. NCDWQ has also given Goose Creek a Supplemental
Classificaton as a Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW). The NSW classification is used for
waters needing additional nutrient management to control excessive growth of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Management strategies for point and nonpoint
source pollution control are site-specific and typically require control of nitrogen,
phosphorus, or other nutrients such that excessive growths of vegetation are reduced or
prevented and there is no increase in nutrients over target levels (NCDWQ Classifications
and Standards Unit and NCDWQ BIMS Waterbodies Reports). The Neuse River
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy includes rules for protection and maintenance of
riparian buffers along the Neuse River and its tributaries. The Ellerbe Creek watershed is
an NCEEP Targeted Local Watershed.
As mentioned in Section 1. 1, the City of Durham documented degraded water quality in
Goose Creek in its "State of Our Streams Report" published in 2005 by the Water Quality
Monitoring Program. The water quality monitoring station on Goose Creek, located on
Holloway Street, at the downstream end of the proposed project, had an overall Water
Quality Index score of 62-65 out of a possible range of 54-92, the second lowest scoring
area in the report. This station had the second highest concentrations of fecal coliform
bacteria of the 33 monitoring stations, and had elevated water quality concerns related to
the total nitrogen, BOD, and copper parameters measured.
22
n

1

t
f'.

Soil Symbol
'I
Cc WsC u
Goose Creek Restoration
CrB M WsE Durham County, North Carolina
Biohabitats Project No. 04802.02
' RTRenicilt tem MrC WwC
- -- Figure 5
PROGRAM Ur WWE Soil Types
Biohabitats
Lrcorpornted
September 2005
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
N

1

11

1
1

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING STREAM CONDITIONS
Goose Creek is a second-order stream within the project area. The two reaches in the
study area have been significantly impacted by adjacent land uses in the historical past.
Channel slopes within the three study reaches are determined by the culvert inverts
bracketing each reach.
As a result of channel alterations, there are few geomorphic indicators from which to
infer the rates and types of ongoing stream processes. However, field observations do
provide some insight regarding geomorphic conditions.
5.1 EASTWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REACH
In the Eastway Elementary School Reach, the channel slope is 0.2 percent and the
channel bed and banks are armored with a grouted mattress lining (a "Fabriform" type.
lining). The grouted mattress lining covers the entire channel, extending from top-of-
bank to top-of-bank. The lining was installed when the school was constructed in 1994,
at which time the creek was also relocated approximately 100 feet east toward the
property line, with a portion enclosed within a culvert under the school parking lot. It is
likely that this reach meandered in the historical past, but was straightened and hardened
to confine lateral movement and contain the stream away from adjacent infrastructure.
The channel was ".`improved" by the local school in 1995. The concrete-lined channel
provided no flow attenuation, vegetation, or water quality protection. Log structures
were placed within the concrete-lined channel in 1998 to provide habitat and increase
dissolved oxygen. With time these structures forced the deposition of alternate bars and
subsequent growth of vegetation along the upstream edge of each log structure. As a
result, a sinuous lower flow channel has formed within the confines of the grouted
mattress banks.
As a result of the channel modifications in the Eastway Elementary School Reach,
geomorphic indicators are nearly absent. Alternate bars persist at single log structures
placed along the length of the channel. Because of the fixed nature of the log structures
24

[1
1

1

E
Ell

u

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
and the stabilizing role of vegetation, the bar surfaces do not appear to undergo much
geomorphic change. Instead, the alternate bars define a meandering low flow channel
through the reach. Debris lines at and above the top of banks indicate that filling of the
channel during flood events is somewhat frequent. Classification of this reach is not
meaningful given the high degree of channel modification. Bed material is dominated by
sand. The natural woody vegetation buffer ranges from 5-15 feet wide and averages
approximately 5-10 feet on either side of the stream.
5.2 LONGMEADOW PARK REACH
In the Longmeadow Park Reach, the channel gradient is 0.4 percent and the channel is
confined by vertical masonry walls. Because of the high degree of channel alteration,
channel classification was not conducted in this reach. In the context of channel
improvement, vane structures were placed within the channel in 1998. Locally, these
have led to the formation of lateral deposits in the lee of the point of contact between the
vane and rock wall. Although the vane structures help create some variability in bed
topography, the low flow channel is relatively deep (approximately 4 feet depth on
average), homogenous, and sluggish. Bed material is dominated by sand and silt. A
natural woody riparian buffer is virtually non-existent.
5.3 EXISTING PLANT COMMUNITIES IN RIPARIAN BUFFER AREAS
The existing plant communities in the riparian buffer areas vary significantly between
reaches within the project area. Figure 6 illustrates the existing vegetation communities
along the two reaches.
Along the Eastway Elementary School Reach, riparian vegetation is divided between two
communities-an upper floodplain terrace and lower vegetated instream bars.
Vegetation of the upper floodplain is primarily composed of mowed fescue grass
(Festuca sp.) and common lawn weeds. Log vanes were installed in this reach in 1998,
and point bars formed behind them. A mix of native and invasive woody and herbaceous
floodplain species became established on these bars. The dominant hardwood species are
black willow (Salix nigra) and princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), which is an invasive
species. A mix of native herbaceous species are present including Rumex sp. and
25

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

_ H
m
llowav St
i
_

?' - y - LONGMEADOW PARK REACH

/ Eva St
Eva St
r €
/ s
, K
4
I
CS

Liberty St ,

EASTWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REACH

.Hopkins St
a?
.............
a
o z
- Q C

....., ... C

'
,
CIO ....

...

N
m D
m
TaY/ Southgate St
or
St
1 LandNegetation Cover o 100 200 400 Feet
N
Gravel Parking ?.
' Mowed Grass II
Natural Forest Goose Creek Restoration
Durham County, North Carolina h
Park Trees Biohabitats Project No. 04802.02 i Bohabitats
,? as stelB Figure 6
L, lamemeh Existing Plant Communities
PRO?R^M September 2005
' Goose Creek
1 Stream Restoration Plan
knotweed (Polygonum sp.) along with invasive species including Japanese hops
' (Humulus japonicus) and Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis). Table 2 lists the
common species along the reach.
t
Table 2. Existing Vegetation Species, Eastway Elementary School Reach

Scientific Name Common Name
Trees
Salix nigra Black Willow
Morus rubra Red Mulberry
Shrubs
Lagerstroemia indica Crepe Myrtle
Herbaceous
Rumex sp. Dock Species
Polygonum sp. Knotweed
Invasives
Humulus japonicus Japanese Hops
Paulownia tomentosa Princess tree
Commelina communis Asiatic dayflower
Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet
Within Longmeadow Park, Goose Creek flows through a maintained park and its channel
is confined by stone retaining walls. Within the confined channel some riparian trees and
shrubs have become established. Species in the channel area include black willow and red
mulberry (Morus rubra). Above the retaining walls on the flat upper floodplain (which is
park grounds) mowed grass dominates with scattered 24-36" planted willow oaks
' (Quercus phellos) and white oaks (Quercus alba). Invasive species in the channel area
include Japanese hops, Asiatic dayflower, princess tree and mimosa (Albizia julibrissin).
On the areas from the top of the walls extending laterally into the park invasive species
include Johnson grass (Sorghum halpense), Chinese privet, Japanese hops, and wisteria
' (Wisteria sinensis). Table 3 includes common tree, shrub, herbaceous, and invasive
species.

27
11

i

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
Table 3. Existing Vegetation Species, Longmeadow Park Reach
Scientific Name Common Name
Trees
Salix nigra Black Willow
Morus rubra Red Mulberry
Quercus phellos Willow oak
Ulmus sp. Elm
Acer negundo Box Elder
Quercus alba White Oak
Shrubs
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood
Lagerstoemia indica Crepe Myrtle
Herbaceous
Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper
Festuca sp., Polygonum sp. Grasses and Knotweed
Invasives
Sorghum halpense Johnson grass
Humulus japonicus Japanese Hops
Paulownia tomentosa Princess tree
Commelina communis Asiatic dayflower
Albizia julibrissin Mimosa
Wisteria sinensis Wisteria
5.5 THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES REPORT
According to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) and US Fish &
' Wildlife Service (FWS) databases, three species in Durham are federally protected (Table
4). Those species include the, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Michaux's sumac
' (Rhus michauxii), and Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). The Goose Creek
stream restoration site does not contain habitat for any of the three federally-protected
species. Mature forests near open water for bald eagle nesting areas are not present at the
site. The school, park, and home yard sites are planted with monoculture grass that is
' mowed regularly. The Michaux's sumac record in Durham County is historic. Twelve

28
Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
' additional species are listed as Federal Species of Concern (species that may or may not
' be listed in the future).

is
Table 4. Federally Protected Species in Durham County
Scientific Common Status Habitat
Name Name
Haliaeetus Bald Eagle Threatened (proposed Nests in transition zone between forest and marsh/open
leucocephalus for delisting) water, less than 2 miles from open water, in dominant live
pines or cypress trees (winter nests may be farther from
water)
Rhus michauxii Michaux's Endangered Sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic
sumac soils; areas that are open due to disturbance, such as
roadsides and edges of clearings
Echinacea Smooth Endangered Meadows, open woodlands, cedar barrens, dry limestone
laevigata coneflower bluffs, roadsides, power line rights-of-way, disturbed
areas; requires abundant sunlight and little herbaceous
competition
The NHP lists several additional species and natural communities in its database of
' elements of natural diversity of the USGS quadrangle Southwest Durham. Those species
and communities are listed in Table 5.

F

Table 5. Federal Species of Concern for Durham County
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat
Vertebrates
Etheostoma colis lepidinion Carolina darter Streams in Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, and
Cape Fear drainages obscure record
Noturus uriosis o . 1 "Neuse" madtom Tar River drainages historic record
Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods shiner Tar and Neuse drainages (obscure
record
Invertebrates
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe Medium to large streams streams; clean,
swift waters with stable gravel or
sand/gravel substrate; downstream edge
of riffles
Lasmigona subviridus Green floater Small to medium streams with good
water quality; quiet pools and eddies
with ravel/sand substrate; canals
Somoto rus vir inicus Panhandle ebblesnail Eno River
29

L

i

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat
Gom hus se tima Se tima's clubtail dragonfly Piedmont rivers historic record
Lamsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel Fast flowing, medium sized rivers;
medium to large creeks; shifting sands
downstream of large boulders
Vascular plants
Ju lans cinerea Butternut Cove forests; rich woods
Monotro sis odorata Sweet inesa D forests; rich woods
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur Grassy balds; glades; woodlands; found
over mafic rock
Nonvascular Plants
Pla iochila columbiana Liverwort Thin soil over boulders on flood lain
30

F1

LI

11
Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
6.0 STREAM REFERENCE RESTORATION STUDIES
Both the unnamed tributary to Cabin Branch and Morgan Creek are appropriate reference
reaches for the Goose Creek project. The two creeks encompass a range of conditions
that both mirror Goose Creek (e.g., physiographic setting, drainage area) and
accommodate the physical constraints of the site (e.g. limited potential for lateral
realignment, low slope). The riparian vegetation along the tributary to Cabin Branch also
provides some guidance for target riparian species.
The unnamed tributary to Cabin Branch is a second-order stream with a watershed area of
1.3 square miles. The stream channel is 8 to 10 feet wide with 2-ft high banks. The
channel meanders through a well-established buffered floodplain within a U-shaped
valley. The stream classifies as a C4 channel. Discussions with long-term homeowners
along Earl Road suggest that the creek has not changed its shape appreciably in the past
few decades. Although the floodplain is not extensively wide and the sinuosity is not
extremely high, the floodplain, valley structure, and sinuosity provide a template of a
system which can be constructed within the constraints of the Goose Creek project site.
Despite its location in the Triassic Basin, the channel substrate is very rocky (instead of
sandy) with a considerable amount of bedrock. Appendix F summarizes morphological
characteristics included in Stantec's "Stream Restoration Plan: Ellerbe Creek, Durham
County, North Carolina," as well as Biohabitats' additional measurements. Biohabitats'
measurements are also included in Appendix F.
Table F also includes morphological measurements of Morgan Creek made by North
Carolina State University and included in Buck Engineering's "Buffalo Creek Watershed
classifies as B4c channel, since it has a relatively low gradient (0.7 percent).
Stream Restoration Projects, Greensboro, North Carolina." This gravel-bedded stream
Riparian vegetation of the upper tributary of Cabin Branch consists of a well established
southern hardwood riparian forest. This site has a well developed vertical structure with
canopy, shrub and herbaceous layers. Predominant trees and shrubs of this reference site
31

1

Goose Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), oak species
(Quercus sp.), hop hornbeam (Ostra virginiania), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
hickory species (Carya sp. ), silky dogwood (Cornus amomun), and arrowwood
(Viburnum dentatum).

32

F1

1

11

Fill

u

7.0 STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
With the Eastway Elementary School and Longmeadow Park Reaches, the project will
restore 1318 feet of stream by changing the channel profile, pattern, and cross-sectional
shape (thereby meeting definition of Stream Restoration). An additional 200 feet will be
enhanced (Enhancement Type 1) in the Longmeadow Park Reach, by changing the
profile and pattern of the stream. In these sections, segments of the masonry wall will
remain to prevent disturbance to existing oaks, thereby precluding full stream restoration.
7.1 PROPOSED STREAM CLASSIFICATION
The stream restoration design includes several channel types within the project area.
These were dependent on lateral space, possible gradient, and existing geomorphic
tendencies. Throughout the project area, the restoration will include expansion of the
available floodplain area to dissipate shear stresses and improve channel function. The
proposed alignment is shown in Appendix G.
The channel dimensions necessary to convey the design discharge are significantly larger
in the Eastway Elementary School Reach than immediately upstream. In addition, lateral
constraints-the Eastway Elementary School fenceline to the west and Barnes Avenue
Community Redevelopment to the east-limit the planform pattern. This reach,
therefore, has been designed as a low slope B-type channel.
While the existing concrete-lined channel does not have adequate floodplain for bankfull
events and larger, the existing low flow channel is geomorphically stable and provides
beneficial aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The design, therefore, seeks to recreate a similar
low flow channel meandering within the broader confines of the proposed B channel.
The nested low flow channel is designed with standard C-type ratios, such as a radius of
curvature to bankfull width ratio exceeding 2. While the design of a nested channel can
be problematic in steeper reaches, the low reach slope along Eastway Elementary School
limits shear stresses and the risk of avulsion. The short outfall channel from the 60" RCP
outfall along the west side of Goose Creek will be regraded and turned slightly to the
33

1

1
1

11

north to create a smooth transition into the next adjacent riffle along Goose Creek.
Design discharges along Goose Creek change from 265 cfs to 400 cfs at this junction.
Between the reaches, the Longmeadow Park Reach is the most incised, with existing
banks extending 7 vertical feet. The low channel slope between the two culvert inverts
(0.39%) does not allow raising the invert of the channel. To create a C-type channel in
this setting, extensive earthworks would be required. Existing lateral constraints,
including the adjacent sewer line to the west, large oaks along both channel banks, and
ball fields to the east further preclude restoration to a C-type channel. Instead, the park
area is well suited to the creation of a low gradient B-channel. Unhealthy willow oaks
will be removed to allow some modification of the channel alignment and permit
regrading of the banks.
7.2 MORPHOLOGICAL SUMMARY
Typical cross sections for the many design segments within the project reach are included
in Appendix H. The proposed longitudinal profiles of each reach are included in
Appendix I. Finally, Appendix F summarizes morphologic parameters of the existing
channel, the two reference reaches, and the proposed stream types. The proposed channel
draws from the range of values established in reference reaches. However, professional
judgment has been exercised in several cases to improve performance and/or follow more
generally accepted guidelines (e.g., maintain radius of curvature to bankfull width ratio
>2). Riffle slopes were set to range from 0.8 to 2.0%, slightly lower than the average of
2.3% which was deemed too high. Glide and run slopes generally range from 5-10%,
approximately the range within the •reference reach data sets. At some locations a control
structure, such as a cross vane or rock step, was used to step the channel down into a
pool.
7.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
Sand is the dominant size fraction of surface and subsurface bed material at the two
proposed project reaches. Techniques such as Andrews (1984) are therefore not
applicable to Goose Creek. The simple Shields (1936) model is instead an appropriate
tool for first-order sediment transport analysis at Goose Creek.
34

n

1
Based on empirical data, Shields developed a curve to describe the dimensionless critical
shear stress, i*ci or Shield parameter, defined as:
i*ci = tiCi / (ps - p)gDi
where i,.i is the Shield parameter or critical shear stress at incipient motion for the grain
size of interest, Di; g is the gravitational acceleration, and ps and p are the sediment and
fluid densities, respectively. Shields demonstrated that in fully rough flow (Reynolds
numbers >489), as with gravel-bed rivers, dimensionless critical shear stress attains a
constant value of 0.06 at this point.
Given the sand-dominated nature of bed material and sensitivity to changes in shear
stresses, sediment transport analysis needs to address the potential for both aggradation
and degradation. The design intent is to allow for incipient motion of the majority of the
grain size distribution at the bankfull flow. Where the entire grain-size distribution is
expected to be mobilized at the bankfull flow, grade control measures will be used to
eliminate the risk of headcutting.
Table 7 shows the likely change in incipient particle size from existing to proposed
conditions for each reach. Generally speaking, shear stresses between 0.51b/ft2 and 2
lb/ft2 pose a low erosion potential and shear stresses below 0.5 lb/ft2 pose a very low risk
of erosion.
In the Eastway Elementary School Reach, shear stresses are predicted to increase. The
existing stream conditions in this reach were very sluggish with pools rather ill-defined.
Increasing bankfull shear stresses through this section will help maintain pool depths over
the long-term. Degradation is not likely given the low channel gradient forced by the
culverts and low shear stress values.
35

J

I

C

1
r

7.5 IN-STREAM DESIGN ELEMENTS
7.5.1 Structural Elements
This concept design includes structural elements to augment to initial stability of
the natural channel design as vegetation growth occurs, to provide extra
protection to those areas subject to high shear stresses, and to maintain preferred
bedforms. These structures act to redirect flow, protect vulnerable outer meander
bends, and maintain pool depths. Most proposed structures would be comprised
of rock, which will not degrade despite strong fluctuations in water depth. Rock
that has been used in existing in-stream structures can be salvaged (and
augmented) to create the proposed structures. Logs are less desirable, since they
deteriorate quickly in the flashy system. In time, it is intended that the riparian
zone would protect banks firsthand and add to channel complexity.
Structures shown along the proposed stream alignment in Appendix G are shown
schematically. The actual extent and precise locations of these features may be
revised as design development continues. Generic design details for the proposed
structures are also included in Appendix G. These will also be revised with
additional design work.
The following structures are proposed within the project area:
1. Bank protection practices
1. Rootwads
2. Rock toe protection
3. Single wing deflector
2. Grade control
1. Rock cross vane
2. Riffle grade control structures
3. Rock steps
38

13. Bank protection and grade control
1. Step/pool sequences
7.5.2 Soil Bioengineering Elements
Soil bioengineering, or non-structural means of stabilizing streambanks, are also
proposed within the restoration project. Bank stabilization using soil
bioengineering would include standard techniques such as live branch layering
' and live stakes. The location and extent of these measures will be determined as
the design proceeds.
Where soil bioengineering is proposed, the streambanks will be regraded to a
' stable angle and geometry and utilize vegetative planting and biodegradable
materials to stabilize the streambank and prevent or reduce future streambank
' i
Th
ti
d
h
the
i
ff
i
il
t
bl
eros
on.
ese prac
ces are propose
w
ere
re
s su
ic
en
area ava
a
e to

' regrade the streambank and sufficient sunlight to promote the growth of the plant
materials.

39

f

n

8.0 STREAM MONITORING PLAN
A technical monitoring plan is necessary to measure the success of the restoration plan.
Technical monitoring will provide information needed to diagnose unforeseen problems
resulting from changes in the environment, and the design and construction of the project.
This information can then be used to develop restoration contingency plans, and facilitate
the design and construction of future restoration projects with similar objectives and siie
conditions. The technical monitoring program should address and document pre-
construction and initial post-construction conditions. The monitoring should be
performed by a qualified firm with experience in designing and implementing stream
restoration using a natural channel design approach.
Streams, by their nature, are dynamic systems which gradually adjust their cross section,
profile, and planform with changing environmental conditions. Infrequent catastrophic
events can also alter river form and course, though much more quickly. Meander bend
cut offs and creation of oxbows are often the result of high magnitude flow events.
Because rivers are dynamic systems which are subject to catastrophic events, evaluation
of changes in the newly constructed channel must be taken in the context of the entire
river system. To facilitate comparison between the relocated and natural channel, a
monitoring program is proposed that includes monumented cross sections upstream of
and within the relocated channel. General observations of changes in natural morphology
along with quantitative changes at the monumented cross sections will help indicate
which channel changes deserved immediate attention.
Natural rivers are composed of areas of slow deep water (pools) and shallow fast moving
reaches (riffles or glides). Pools are areas of bed scour (hence their greater than average
depth), whereas glides and riffles are relatively shallow due to accumulated sediment.
Sediment is also accumulated on the insides of meander bends, whereas the outside of a
bend is typically a pool. Channel aggradation (bar formation) and/or degradation (bed
and bank scour) all occur naturally as part of fluvial processes and one should not be
overly concerned when they occur, especially in areas they are expected (i.e. degradation
40

II?

C

C

in meander bend pools and aggradation on inside point bars). Unexpected occurrence of
channel bars and/or bed scour of the new channel may form after a storm event, but these
changes are typically transient and may be reversed by next storm. These features will be
noted during all scheduled monitoring to ascertain if they are temporary, static, or
growing.
If the bar feature or bed degradation is not chronically increasing, then no action need be
taken. However, if a bar is chronically aggrading or laterally accreting, it could expand
to the point where flows are directed into one or both banks causing erosion and possible
bank failure. In this case the bar needs to be reconfigured before bank failure occurs and
the cause of the bar formation should be determined. Bar formation is often caused by
debris jams or grade control structures. Debris jams will be removed along with the bar
material and grade control structures will be modified to stop the accumulation of
sediments. Bar formation can also be caused by an influx of larger than normal
sediments. If bed scour progresses, it could threaten the stability of the banks, log vanes,
or rock weirs.
Streams may also change through catastrophic events such as floods. Large floods may
cause local bank erosion and floodplain scour, and may even create oxbow wetlands by
cutting off meander bends. It is important to evaluate the effects of infrequent, large-
magnitude events on the newly constructed channel in the context of the entire river
system. Changes in channel morphology (bank erosion, bed scour, bar formation) of the
newly constructed channel must be compared to reaches upstream and downstream of the
relocation. If a catastrophic event passes through the area and causes widespread bank
erosion upstream and downstream of the relocated channel, then bank erosion within the
relocated channel should be considered part of the natural process. Channel changes
within the relocated channel that deviate from those in the natural channel will need to be
addressed immediately.
The monitoring period will extend a minimum period of five years.. The general format
and content of the monitoring report will follow EEP guidance including:
41

'
• An executive summary that presents and describes the major attributes of the
Goose Creek stream restoration project,
• Project Background, including location and setting, mitigation structure and
' objectives, project history and background and a monitoring plan view page,
• A Project Condition and Monitoring Results section that includes vegetation
assessment, soils data, vegetative problem areas (if any) plan view and summary
table, stem counts, vegetation plot photos; a stream assessment that includes
' morphometric criteria (dimension and profile information), hydrologic criteria
(bankfull event information) bank stability assessments (BEHI and NBS), stream
' problem areas plan view and table, numbered issue photos section, fixed station
photos, stability assessment table, and
' • Methodology section.

42

J

H

r?

7

9.0 REFERENCES
Andrews, E.D., 1984. Bed material entrainment and hydraulic geometry of gravel-bed
rivers in Colorado, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 95, p. 371-378.
Barnes, H.H. Jr., 1967. Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels. U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 1849.
Chow, V.T., 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Ltd., Tokyo.
Geophex, Ltd., 2005. Seismic Refraction Surveying at the Goose Creek Restoration Site,
Durham, N.C.
HadenStanziale, 2004. Barnes Avenue Redevelopment, Durham, North Carolina, Civil-
Stie Enginering, Catch Basin Analysis, Revised November 4.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1999. Stormwater Best
Management Practices. Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, April.
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena, 22: 169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina. Third approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage
Program, Raleigh. 325 pp.
Shields, A., 1936. Anwendung der Aehnlichkeitsmechanik and der Turbulenzforschung
auf die Geschiebebewegung, Mitt. Preuss. Versuchsanst. Wasserbau Schiffbau, 26, 26.
(English translation by W.P. Ott and J.C. van Uchelen, 36 pp., U.S. Dep. of Agric. Soil
Conser. Serv. Coop. Lab., Calif. Inst. of Technol., Pasadena, 1936.)
United States Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center; HEC-RAS
River Analysis ystem User's Manual, Version 3.0; January 2001; website:
http://www.hec.usace.gM.mil
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service - Soil
Survey Division. Hydric Soils of North Carolina.
http://www.statlab.ia§tate.edu/soils/hydric. August 19, 2002.
Wolman, M.G., 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions of
American Geophysical Union, 35: 951-956.
Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P., 1960. Magnitude and frequency of forces in
geomorphic process, J. Geol., 68: 54-74.
43

APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROJECT AREA

45

1

Photographs of Eastway Elementary School Reach
Goose Creek Stream Restoration Plan

Photographs of Eastway Elementary School Reach
Goose Creek Stream Restoration Plan
,r v
r

t:=

along exposed
grouted mattress lining co vering right bank. (1/21/04)
Photograph 14. Looking at outfall draining into reach.
(5/23/05)
Photograph 15. View upstream from lower portion of
reach with log deflectors visible. (1/21/04)
Photograph 17. Looking downstream at culvert under
Liberty Street, spring foliage. (5/23/05)
Photograph 16. Looking upstream at alternate bars
downstream of elementary school. (5/23/05)
Photograph 18. Looking downstream at Liberty Street
culvert, winter foliage, downstream reach limit. (1/21/04)

Photographs of LongmeadowN Park Reach
Goose Creek Stream Restoration Plan
ate`"

Photograph 1. Looking downstream along right bank
from vicinity of Liberty Street, planted small conifers on
terrace. (5/23/05)
Photograph 2. Looking upstream at culvert under Liberty
Street. Upstream limit of Longmeadow Park Reach.
(1/21/04)
Photograph 3. Looking downstream from Liberty Street
with spring foliage. (5/23/05)
Photograph 4. Looking downstream from Liberty Street
with winter foliage. (1/21/04)
Photograph 5. Looking downstream at live oaks
bracketing stream. (1/21/04)
Photograph 6. Looking upstream at gravel surface with
Elementary School in background. (5/23/05)
Photographs of Longmeadow Park Reach
Goose Creek Stream Restoration Plan
Photograph 7. Looking at rock cross vane structure, view
from right bank. (5/23 105).
Photograph 8. Looking downstream in lower portion of
reach. (5/23/05)
Photograph 9. Looking downstream towards Holloway
Street. (5/23/05)
Photograph 10. Looking across Longmeadow Park from
left bank. Single live oak in middle of field. (1/21/04)
Photograph 11. Looking upstream near left bank and
proposed channel alignment. (5/23/05)
Photograph 12. Looking upstream along left bank and live
oaks. (5/23/05)
Photographs of Longmeadow Park Reach
Goose Creek Stream Restoration Plan

Photograph 17. Looking downstream along arm of rock
vane structure. (5/23/05)
Photograph 13. Looking downstream along left bank
mid-reach. (1/21/04)
Photograph 14. Looking upstream and across channel
from right bank. (5/23/05)
Photograph 15. Looking upstream mid-reach. (1/21/04)
Photograph 16. Looking downstream towards culvert
under Holloway Street. (1/21/04)
towards ballfield. (5/23/05)
Photographs of Longmeadow Park Reach
Goose Creek Stream Restoration Plan
itjW ^s
A Y

P
t y? W
Photograph 20. Looking downstream towards Holloway
Street. (5/23/05)

Photograph 21. Near left bank looking across stream
with Holloway Street in background. (5/23/05)
4'+ ? 9
Q ;, x
Photograph 19. Looking downstream along proposed
alignment. (5/23/05)
Photograph 22. Looking across field from left bank,
baseball field in background. (5/23/05)
Photograph 23. Looking downstream at Holloway Street
culvert, downstream reach limit. (5/23/05)
Photograph 24. Looking upstream from Holloway Street.
(5/23/05)

s
E
t ,
APPENDIX B
FIELD` CROSS SECTIONS AND PEBBLE COUNT
FROM PROJECT AREA
46
W
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Existing Cross Section and Channel Profile
Goose Creek Restoration Plan
Upper Reach Bid'al>itats
Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.
302.00
Z
300.00
:fl
298.00
296.00
m ?
294.00
o m
292.00
w
290.00
X/S 1
Existing Ground
- -?- - Bankfull Width
- Flood Prone Elevation
Water Surface Elevation
0
300.00
m 299.00
a E 298.00
m v 297.00--
0 296.00--
296.00--
A 2 294.00--
293.00+-
120
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
Longitudinal Profile at X/S 1 0 Thalweg
XMinimum bankfull
-f- Probable Bankfull
X Max Bankfull
100 80 60 40 20 0
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
Rosgen Stream Type Classification
Bankfull Width 16.69 (ft)
Entrenchment 1.17 (ft/ft)
Width: Depth 10.23 (ft/ft)
Sinousity 1.05 (ft/ft)
Slope 0.0160 (ft/ft)
D50 <2 (mm)
Stream Type F
Flow Calculations
Max BF Depth 2.13 (ft)
Mean BF Depth 1.63 (ft)
X/S Area 27.21 (ft)
Manning's n 0.0450
BF Ave. Velocity 5.49 (ft/s)
Discharge 149.29 (cfs)
Shear Stress 1.50 Ib/ftZ
FSS Project Number: 02803.02
ve ed: May 18, 2004 B : EMM BIO , KB CDM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Existing Cross Section and Channel Profile
Goose Creek Restoration Plan
Eastview Elementary School Reach 104ic?biwts
Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.
X/S 2
306
00
.
304.00-
-2 302.00-
w
300.00 ---------------------
?
0 298
00
.
`0 v 296.00-
0 Existing Ground
M 294.00 - -? - - Bankfull Width
w 292
00 -a - Flood Prone Elevation
. Water Surface Elevation
290.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
Longitudinal Profile at X/S 2
300
00-
.
299.00- -
+-Thalweg
!
0
m 298.00-
-
M
C
297.00- -

> ? 296
00- -
.
.T
m
295
00-
.
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
Rosgen Strea m Type Classification
Bankfull Width 53.46 (ft)
Entrenchment >2.2 (ft/ft)
Width: Depth 16.68 (ft/ft)
Sinousity, 1.00 (ft/ft)
Slope 0.0019 (ft/ft)
D50 <2 (mm)
Stream Type n/a
Flow Ca lculations
Max BF Depth 4.27 (ft)
Mean BF Depth 2.14 (ft)
X/S Area 76.12 (ft)
Manning's n 0.0350
BF Ave. Velocity 1.88 (ft/s)
Discharge 143.03 (cfs)
Shear Stress 0.12 Ib/ft2
Bio Project Number: 02803.02
Surveyed: May 18, 2004 B : EMM BIO , KB CDM
1

1

Ci
1

fl

1

L

u

Existing Cross Section and Channel Profile
Goose Creek Restoration Plan
Long Meadow Park Reach Bichabitats
Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.

X/S 3
302
00-
.

300.00-
-2
298.00
m
---------------------
296.00
m ?
o 294.00 Existing Ground
- - -? - - Bankfull Width
> - 292.00 Flood Prone Elevation
m
W - Water Surface Elevation
290.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
Longitudinal Profile at X/S 3
300
00
.
cca
CU
o

`0 0 (not field surveyed)
o
.? w
aa)
w m
299.00
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
Rosgen Stream TvDe Classification Flow Calculations
Bankfull Width 27.48 (ft) Max BF Depth 3.64 (ft)
Entrenchment 1.35 (ft/ft) Mean BF Depth 2.57 (ft)
Width:Depth 10.71 (ft/ft) X/S Area 70.48 (ft)
Sinousity, 1.00 (ft/ft) Manning's n 0.0350
Slope.
42 (ft/ft) BF Ave. Velocity 4.87 (ft/s)
D50 <2 (mm) Discharge 343.38 (cfs)
17
n/a
Stream Type Shear Stress 0.61 Ib/ft2
Bio Project Number. 02803.02
Surveyed: May 18, 2004 B : EMM BIO , KB CDM

[7
0

1

1

Site Name: Goose Creek Biohabitats, Inc.
Project No: 4802.02 Pebble Count Data Sheet
Date: 5/24/2005 Riffle, Active Channel

Particle Size mm Total # % in Range % Cumulative
Sand and Silt < 2 58 54% 54%
2- 4 2 2% 56%
4 - 6 3 3% 59%
6- 8 4 4%' 63%
8- 12 10 9% 72%
Gravels .12- 16 7 7% 79%
16 - 24 12 . 11% 90%
24 - 32 3 3% 93%
32 - 48 3 3% 95%
48 - 64 1 1% 96%
64 - 96 4 4% 100%
Cobbles 96 - 128 0% 100%
128 - 192 0% 100%
192 - 256 0% 100%
256 - 384 0% 100%
384 - 512 0% 100%
Boulders 512- 1024 0% 100%
1024- 2048 0% 100%
2048 - 4096 0% 100%
Bedrock 0% 100%
TOTALS: 107 100%

Particle Size Histogram
Distribution 60% ---
100% ......... H .
90% 50%
80% ..:
70% 40%
.. rn
60%
_ 50%
ii W 30%'

0 40% o
30% 20%
20%
10%
10%
0 /o
1 10 100 1000 10000 oti ,
ti 6 ?ti ti? ?o 06
q?
ti?
°j6
^
5
^o
?o
Particle Size [mm] Sediment Size tmm]
D50= 0 D75= 13.85714 D84= 19.92

APPENDIX C
PHOTOGRAPHS OF REFERENCE REACHES

47
Photographs of Reference Reaches
Goose Creek Stream Restoration Plan
^4 .

M 't j? ??
P
y V 4
9?
?
9
. R
Z'

p ' Y-B$' Yk.]tl NS
i
°I.. Pt+§vvvSSS??d..***?
Photograph 3. Looking downnsraeam from pool to riiiie,
Morgan Creek. (5/25/05)
z
Photograph 1. Looking upstream at riffle with boulders,
Morgan Creek. (5/25/05)
Photograph 2. Looking downstream from riffle with
boulders, Morgan Creek. (5/25/05)
Photograph 5. Looking upstream along floodplain of
Morgan Creek. (5/25/05))
Photograph 4. Looking upstream along floodplain of
Morgan Creek. (5/25/05)
Photograph 6. Looking upstream at rib of boulders.
(5/25/05)
Photographs of Reference Reaches
Goose Creek Stream Restoration Plan
ak 1

Photograph 7. Looking upstream along elongated pool,
Morgan Creek. (5125105)
Photograph 8. Looking upstream along broad, shallow
riffle, Morgan Creek. (5/25/05)
Photograph 9. Looking downstream along elongated
pool, Morgan Creek. (5125105)
Photograph 10. Looking upstream from pool to riffle,
Morgan Creek. (5/25/05)
Photograph 11. Pool-riffle sequence, Morgan Creek.
(5/25/05)
Photograph 12. Looking downstream at end of profile
along Reach A, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)

Photographs of Reference Reaches
Goose Creek Stream Restoration Plan
Photograph 13. Looking upstream at Cross Section #1,
Reach A, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
Photograph 14. Looking downstream at Cross Section
#1, Reach A, UT Cabin Branch. (5125105)
Photograph 15. Looking upstream at start of profile,
Reach A, UT Cabin Branch. (5'25/05)
Photograph 16. Looking downstream from start of
profile along Reach A, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
Photograph 17. Looking downstream at Cross Section 42,
Reach A, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
Photograph 18. Looking upstream at Cross Section 42,
Reach A, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
Photographs of Reference Reaches
Goose Creek Stream Restoration Plan

R

Photograph 20. Example of bed material along Cross
Section #1, Reach A. UT Cabin Branch. Ruler is 15
inches long. (5/25/05)

Z"
Photograph 19. Example of bed material along Cross
Section #1, Reach A, UT Cabin Branch. Ruler is 15
inches long. (5/25/05)
Photograph 22. Looking upstream at Cross Section #3,
Reach B, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
Photograph 21. Looking downstream at Cross Section #3,
Reach B, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
Photograph 24. Looking upstream at Cross Section 44,
Reach B, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
Photograph 23. Looking downstream at Cross Section #4,
Reach B, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
Photographs of Reference Reaches
Goose Creek Stream Restoration Plan
r,
V",
?. i

N
w .. t
Photograph 30. Bed material with patch of spawning
gravels, Sharpie for scale, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
Photograph 25. Looking downstream at Cross Section 45,
Reach B, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
Photograph 26. Looking upstream at end of profile,
Reach B, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
Photograph 27. Looking downstream from Station 0+55
along profile, Reach B, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
Photograph 28. Looking downstream from Station
0+95, Reach B, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
Photograph 29. Looking upstream from Station 0+95,
Reach B, UT Cabin Branch. (5/25/05)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX D
FIELD CROSS SECTIONS AND PEBBLE COUNTS FROM
REFERENCE REACHES
48

Reference Reach Cross Section and Channel Profile
Goose Creek Stream Restoration -'
Riffle Reach A- Upper Tributary of Cabin Branch Biohataitats
Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.
REACH A- X/S 1
305.00
Z
303.00
s m
c
301.00
o SE
m 299.00
c
0
> 297.00
T
w
295.00 '
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
303.00
m
a?
m ?
298.00
g
w m
293.00
Longitudinal Profile
0 Thalweg
¦ ¦ Bankfull Indicators
SEEM ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦ 0
i ¦¦ ¦¦ ¦¦¦ ¦
X/S I@ STA 154.7
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
Rosgen Strea m Type Classification
Bankfull Width 20.09 (ft)
Entrenchment 3.50 (ft/ft)
Width: Depth 12.86 (ft/ft)
Sinousity (ft/ft)
Slope 0.0138 (ft/ft)
D50 27 (mm)
Stream Type 1 134c
Flow Ca lculations
Max BF Depth 2.78 (ft)
Mean BF Depth 1.56 (ft)
X/S Area 31.40 (ft)
Manning's n 0.0450
BF Ave. Velocity 4.80 (ft/s)
Discharge 150.76 (cfs)
Shear Stress 1.18 lb/ft2
Bio Project Number. 4802.02
Surve ed: May 24, 2005 B : EMM & BWS

Reference Reach Cross Section and Channel Profile
Goose Creek Stream Restoration
Pool Reach A- Upper Tributary of Cabin Branch WIPk*wbitats
Copyright of Blohabitats, Inc.
REACH A- X/S 2
298.00
Z
w
296.00
O
(09294.00
O j
co 292.00
C
O
> 290.00
N
W
288.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65. 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
Longitudinal Profile
296.00
m ?-Thalweg
> E 294.00 11
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ Bankfull Elevation
o ?
?m292.00 ¦ ¦ ¦?¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦
o 2 290.00
a> 288.00
ur CO X/S 2 @ STA 255
286.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
Rosgen Strea m Type Classification
Bankfull Width 16.28 (ft)
Entrenchment 4.48 (ft/ft)
Width:Depth 7.43 (ft/ft)
Sinousity (ft/ft)
Slope 0.0138 (ft/ft)
D50 27 (mm)
Stream Type 64c
Flow Ca lculations
Max BF Depth 3.23 (ft)
Mean BF Depth 2.19 (ft)
X/S Area 35.67 (ft)
Manning's n 0.0450
BF Ave. Velocity 5.95 (ft/s)
Discharge 212.31 (cfs)
Shear Stress 1.63 Ib/ft2
Bio Project Number: 4802.02
Surveyed: May 24, 2005 B : EMM & BWS

Reference Reach Cross Section and Channel Profile
Goose Creek Stream Restoration
Bic?habitats
Riffle Reach B- Upper Tributary of Cabin Branch
Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.
290.00
m
° 288.00
m
m ?
9 ? 286.00
m ?
c ?
284.00
a?
w
282.00
REACH B- X/S 3
Existing Ground
- -¦ - - Bankfull Width
A - Flood Prone Elevation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45'50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105110
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
Longitudinal Profile
295.00
C0
M
t- '0 290.00
m
w CO
285.00
11 ¦r ¦ ¦
- 0 Thalweg
¦ Bankfull Elevation X/S 3 @ STA 217.1
0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
300 350
Rosgen Strea m Type Classification
Bankfull Width 15.85 (ft)
Entrenchment 5.43 (ft/ft)
Width:Depth 8.67 (ft/ft)
Sinousity (ft/ft)
Slope 0.0199 (ft/ft)
D50 27 (mm)
Stream Type I 134c

Flow Ca lculations
Max BF Depth 2.58 (ft)
Mean BF Depth 1.83 (ft)
X/S Area 28.98 (ft)
Manning's n 0.0450
BF Ave. Velocity 6.38 (ft/s)
Discharge 184.99 (cfs)
Shear Stress 1.98 Ib/ft2
rSur Pro ject Number. 4802.02
ve ed: May 25, 2005 B : EMM & BWS

Reference Reach Cross Section and Channel Profile
Goose Creek Stream Restoration
Riffle Reach B- Upper Tributary of Cabin Branch Bk*wbitats,
Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.
288.00
z
286.00
s 284.00
CO CO
c ?O
0
282.00
aD
w
280.00
REACH B- X/S 4
Existing Ground
- -10 - - Bankfull Width
-? = Flood Prone Elevation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
Longitudinal Profile
296.00
-?- Thalweg
m
E ® Bankfull Elevation is 111M sis
Is Is N
291.00-
0 m
N
w ? X/S 4 @ STA 268
286.00-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance from an arbitrary datum.(ft)
Rosgen Strea m Type Classification
Bankfull Width 14.00 (ft)
Entrenchment 4.84 (ft/ft)
Width:Depth 8.50 (ft/ft)
Sinousity (ft/ft)
Slope 0,0199 (ft/ft)
D50 27 (mm)
Stream Type 134c
I- love
Max BF Depth
Mean BF Depth
X/S Area
Manning's n
BF Ave. Velocity
(Discharge .
ations . . I
2.34 (ft)
1.65 (ft)
23.07 (ft)
0.0450
6.06 (ft/s)
139.71 (cfs)
Bio Project Number. 4802.02
Surveyed: May 25, 2005 B : EMM & BWS

1

Reference Reach Cross Section and Channel Profile
Goose Creek Stream Restoration "?
Pool Reach B- Upper Tributary of Cabin Branch Bioirabitats
Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.

REACH B- X/S 5
290
00-
.
2
288.00 -
`
m
w S 286.00
E
m 284.00
Existing Ground
0
282.00 - -¦ - - Bankfull Width
u - Flood Prone Elevation
280.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)
Longitudinal Profile
296.00
v * Thalweg
E ME ¦ ¦ Bankfull Elevation
CO ¦ ° ¦ s ro ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ° ¦¦ ¦
c 291.00

-2 Ir o X/S 5 @ STA 136.7
w c
286.00-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance from an arbitrary datum (ft)

Rosgen Strea m Type Classification Flow Ca lculations
Bankfull Width 15.82 (ft) Max BF Depth 3.45 (ft)
Entrenchment 5.27 (ft/ft) Mean BF Depth 2.38 (ft)
Width:Depth 6.66 (ft/ft). XIS Area 37.58 (ftz)
Sinousity (ft/ft) Manning's n 0.0450
Slope 0.0199 (ft/ft) BF Ave. Velocity 7.41 (ft/s)
D50 27 (mm) Discharge 278.38 (cfs)
Stream Type 134c Shear Stress 2.48 Ib/ft2

Blo Project Number. 4802.02
Surveyed: May 25, 2005 B : EMM & BWS

IJ

11
u
Site Name: Tributary to Cabin Branch, Reach B Biohabitats, Inc.
Project No: 4802.02 Pebble Count Data Sheet
Date: 5/24/2005 Riffle, Active Channel

Particle Size mm Total # % in Range % Cumulative
Sand and Silt < 2 11 10% 10%
2- 4 5 5% 15%
4- 6 7 6% 21%
6- 8 6 6% 27%
8- 12 8 7% 34%
Gravels 12- 16 2 2% 36%.
16 - 24 4 4% 40% _
24 - 32 7 6% 46%
32 - 48 13 12% 58%
48 - 64 12 11% 69%
64 - 96 13 12% 81%
Cobbles 96 - 128 7 6% 88%
128 - 192 5 5% 93%
192 - 256 3 3% 95%
256 - 384 2 2% 97%
. 384 - 512 0 0% 97%
Boulders 512- 1024 0 0% 97%
1024 - 2048 0 0% 97%
2048 - 4096 0 0% 97%
Bedrock 3 3% 100%
TOTALS: 108 100%

Particle Size Histogram
Distribution 14%-
100%-
..........

::::::-
90%
12%
--

::. 10%
70%-

60%- 8%
50% :: .
LL
e _:. :._ ....
0 40% _ 6%
...
-- o
o
30% 4%
20%
10% _ 2%
0% 0/o
°
1 10 100 1000 10000 ti

Particle Size [mm] Sediment Size [mm]
D50= 36.9230769 D75= 78.76923 D84= 108.4342857

iJ

0

Site Name: Tributary to Cabin Branch, Reach A Biohabitats, Inc.
Project No: 4802.02 Pebble Count Data Sheet
Date: 5/24/2005 Riffle, Active Channel

Particle Size mm Total # % in Range % Cumulative
Sand and Silt < 2 22 20% 20%
2- 4 6 5% 25%
4- 6 6 5% 30%
6- 8 5 4% 35%
8- 12 3 3% 38%
Gravels 12- 16 4 4% 41%
16 - 24 3 3% 44%
24 - 32 1 1% 45%
32 - 48 3 3% 47%
48 - 64 10 9% 56%
64 - 96 12 11% 67%
Cobbles 96- 128 8 7% 74%
128- 192 10 9% 83%
192 - 256 3 3% 86%
256 - 384 0 0% 86%
384- 512 16 14% 100%
Boulders 512- 1024 0% 100%
1024- 2048 0% 100%
2048 - 4096 0% 100%
Bedrock 0% 100%
TOTALS: 112 100%

Particle Size Histogram
Distribution 25%
1000/0
........ .
90%
20%
80%
70% a?
L 60% 15%
d
C
50%
:
:
_ .... ...
.
ii
I
1 T c
n
1:1 H.-
0 40% - 1 10%
30%
20% 5%
10%
9
- - 7 H'A
0% 0%
1 10 100 1000 10000 ti

Particle Size [mm] Sediment Size [mm]
D50= 52.8. D75= 134.4 D84= 215.04
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX E
HEGRAS OUTPUT FILE
x
y
49

04
ca N 7 ??
co CO cc
0 O
? M
LO
O
O O
r
N Cl) N o
II N
0) II 0)
0"1 O
N N
E m
N N N o
t` O ti N
O
rn a rn Q
'M O N U O C
X U
cc) o X m U) o
W W 4)
C LO w y?_# N C fn
a o `JIII Co a?i
c r? ( o
0
U II C) U II
O N O N
CA p CA
N
O O
eO c0 'ct N O co CD v N O 6 (.6 v
. Lo Ln LO LO LO It Lo LO LO LO 't It
M M M M M M M M M M M M M
(4) Uogena13 (g) U011BA913
(a Y
0) U) co u) 2
$ O O
00 N W
U
04
LO LO
O x O o
m
N c N N
O 0) II
O
U) C,
0)
'moo N r
d
x
N " N m p
-e
ID C>
CA U) C, rn
Q
N N
C r C? O
+? O1 ;?•, II O
M M L
W ° W ca 2
co a)
C fn C o CO
tQ oo N E
a n. w
U d •o?LA U II
co
O N > VO
O E O
Cy),- #t
N N
u N
i
O O
O co O LO N O O V• N O O O V
O O ? LO o p to O O o
M (h M M M M M M M M M M M
.(4) UOgena13 (4) Uol}ena13
.a >' T w v m
aI pp to ? o ? .

? p = ? V j CO
c)
? m C s
m cn U) a
p

a ?` >`. w a R
fC
a T >. ? a ?

co C C fn
2 0) co U) >
co C) J co
O p
M (`°")
LO LO
N M ° N M °
60 N 0) N N
4) C) '?7 T T w?-. (6
m 0)
N Co N C) N (a N °o
N N
?I C ?I C
0)
O C 3
O
C: 0
0
X
W c o X s o
m B W m
4) LO
_ u.)
N
0- E CL E o • ;
a; o a; - p
o ti o
c c
O II O II
co cn
O> N O O> N O
? 0 (' O
D)
O O
O 'V N O O O V N aD (O v N O 00Co N
O O O O V' V It IT O O O O O V 1 if V'
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M co
(}}) uolJena13 (4) uol;en913
-i CQ ca 4) U)
ca m
t
N co M
LO
CO
C) ° O
M
N N °
N
0) II N
N .? N
d1 p 0
N 11 N E
C) N y N o
N N
I Ic
E 00
N = a s
II
X in (°n o X r (°n o
W = = W .2
0 v
(n
ca II °• ca
d t d E o
() 00 N O
N y O
?. C
(0
Q) ? O II
O C N O O> N O
o O 0 O
II
O C.
(D Nf c-4.... O 00 O N 00 O 'R N O Co O N
O O O O 't It It Nr O O O O O ? I
M M M M M co M M M M M M M M M M M
(g) uoi;en913 (9) Uol}en913
'6 T T w ? ?6
Y ? T ? y
3 co
d ? O N - ? • U) -i ca
? C)
3 U) ? N
O C r V a) ?
C O p C N i > ?Y
? m ? V) ? • C
= p O
y O
N 3 ,d

*CO
r
aD
o ? O
O U O
N
0
r
O O (6
to o
O O
M y
M II M
c6 r
E O LL
ti m
I c I n °
o 0)(0
.M II O c •N O c
X s o 0 X E co ap 0
m -¦ ?a W ca o
C N C N
cu m c
0- E ?- 30° ;_¦ , r coo
rn L
c
? m
N N LO (D
o > O a?Ei
O O
Co
? N
II
N
O O
V' N O CO CO V' N O O N co •7 N O
M LO U') '?i' V' ?t O V V IT V
M M M M 'M M M M M_ M M M M M
co ? oT o c c _Ie 3:
(}}) uol}en913 (4) UOl;en913
co m m
O
Co
L O
N C. CD T
O M O
N u O N u N
M N o O 0
N ? N N N ?
rn rn o
N
O E O E
N 0 N 0
' O
~I c ° ~I c
co ,n -1 co v
C? Not
'a ?R
N u o c n II 0
X r 0 X s o
W m ,. f6 W m L) co
:°.
C,
0
FL E O E °m
c c
Y m Y Co
.N U N O)
O II r O II
co o U)
O > `n O >
of
+? o
N
O O
O O In O N O W (D N
?T O
CO U') LO v M O V It v
M M M M M M M M M M M M
(4) uol;ena13 (}J) uol}ena13

O
N

O p cu N
;
? ? fn ? N C

U)
N ? N N 3! > ?Y
? ? b c
j co
Y ? T
O
C O C O N ? CO
f0
? Y

co U)
U) ? fA > C7 ? m
n
x
? O LO
C M M
V
i
C> x C) In O
O m° Cl) O M
N
d
O O
N d> N N
M
? II
O C) O U) p
ti V O N O N
of 0, O I) E
C: (Ij C: ca C,
= M = N
fn ?? )
c
LX a o X c o
W C) W o p
C E co C p O) (n
(0 y c6 II
L
N 0- U ? N
o O N O
v O w O
n
U y ao U ao
N 0 O O N O
cu
O 2 O C?
N G
m C)
II ?O
1 ? 1
rNJ
J LL
C O O
O co co <t N O M CO ` O w co v N O N (O v i
O IT 't 1q, v M M M O NT V d' V' M M M
M M M M M M M M M M M co M M M M M M
(9) uolIena13 (4) uo1}enal3
>
ca !/>) Cq
U)
CD ? c7 -' • m
io
x C o
co S LO
r - U M
j C
Lo U U) C)
O xx O O O
N m N co N M
m
N v ° T
17 N 0)
; N
o?
N r
? II
N > N Q ao 0
U O O N
O
O) 0) E
C: ca C,
!A
U) ° co
o
X m p X c O
w _
O
W O .?. W 30 p f0
C E C 'a A
(D d M II
CD L) =r N co
0
o m 00 cC?
N G
o N 11
1? >
i
O
O O
O CO (O N O co O c6 Cfl v N O c6 6 i
O 'O' '7 V' sh 14, m O 11, ? 'd' IT M M M
M M M M M co M M M M M M M M M M
(4) uol?ena13 (4) U01}en913

'O
C T
p
N
C

V

-0
!n
? ?
m

J

j m

>

?
o
c
? m
? j T Y ? y

C C fn
N CD ? N ?
t6 ?? N
>oY
2 5

y ? O N C r 3 ?
? ? cn ? cn ? C9'm
'O T T w ? (6
N ? O N C
f6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C> O N ?
co fn (/) ? s C
co an 2 a
(D co
co -i U)
x
4-1 CD O O
LO O LID
>
L K Lo
T
O
C> a C3 0
0]
N
c V N ~ C>
3 0-) M
O II o
N CC) l) Cl roi
CAN O E O
M N 'r0-+ N
Cl) ° c to rn c
X o X O
W W ao .m
o O u o° U)
c E o
CB y ?- f0 t
Q y ?N U ?N
c '
o ?
c
L U O L E O
7 a)
(D c N N y N
M
C
O y Oo O o0
c CA II
? N
O
N O W CO 'Ct N N N O co .6 V' N O
M M M M IT V 'IT M M M M
M M m co M M M M M M M M M M
(}}) uol}en913 (11) uoI}ena13
co y O O N C r ? CA
-he X
4) CO ca W U) C-) co
to a o0
cc to
a?i M O
Lo U `O
x O Q T
? m M O N O
N N ~ °
Co v
a CA N
LID IN C.?
CA N C) M
a3i II O
IL O
M
C. U) U
C? C) 04
O N N
CA N CA E O
M 'Lr- - N
U) n c co)
in c
X o X O
W W
c E CO = a .. II 00 (n
CO t0 L
EL 5 rN ?N
INC
0 C)
LID
II O
L V ? E
U 00 U 2 N
of O N .c
U)
0 cc
O P O 2 o
? c O ? II O
N i
II ?
O O
K O O
O 00 CO v N O c0 CO 4 N O a0 co v N N
LO v v v v v m M M. IT IT v M M co M
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
(g) UOIIBn813 04) UOIIBn913
T O 0
't3
d T "
'
c 'O .
.
? 0
>?
3'Y
T Y
'CS y

«
?
d ? 0 C `- N 3
?Y .

T w f6
1
1
1
1
cow
m
0
(°n °O
N M
O
T
L H LO
O > O M °
Clj
11 N
O co
U °
M O N m
M
Clq co
O M O E
11 C-4 m O
N
CA.? C C
C C 0
y + E a 9
cn cc
11 X m o X t Lo 0
W y w W m :a
c
??
d II oM M
0 E o C.
U y O
a)
C_
Y Y
II
T
Cl) C)
O « co LO O
O c O R o ,
II
N
O O
O co (o V• N O co CO v N O O co (O V• N O co (O V• N
LO v v It m M M M M (n v It V• It It M M M M
M M M M M M M M M M M M co co M M (M co M M M
(4) UOl;ena13 (4) UOIIBA913
m co
a
0
Co °(°O
LO r- N
O
1. a
N
Lo (a
F- O
O
O C) O
N V N o
O U O °O
m N
a) o 0) ?
O O
N C> CO
O M co
p :? o
(V II N CO
N
»
N O II
C O C Co
y E N
co X o X o
W y W E •m
c ° !n C am c
ca Co Co N °
d ?N d 3 OM o
0
r a
U p
2 L
i ° m
N N m w
CO N U) E co CD
O C p w O
N ° 0 c
II u
°
Q' O of p
N O co (O V• N N C. co m v N O co co v N
V' v co M M M (O V• V• V• V• v co co M co
M M co co M M M M M M M M M M M M M
(4) UOIJena13 (}}) UOIJen913

a
C T
O
?.
T
? w
C
a (0
?
U
O N O = N
•
U
J U ? ? U (9 .J
ca

.a T T "- a ?0
°O p
r• (6 ? Y
J C CS' d ? N ? r C 7 CO

? ?Y

•?
T Y
C 0 p N = l;
N ? N
0
G1
m m CD ? to ? C9 ? co
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(D mom
O C)
M M
LO LO
O N C) O N C.
N 11 - M N 11 N
a) U) O U) O ao
C) E N o f o•
co CD
N cc N
o
N
M
plc o o aim
C o o c o
N II C N II O C
X c o X s o
W '? W
D C D
CD CD (D +
ca ca
E d E M {? •is.
CD 2 o ? o
+
N M • to c,
?C Co C ? p Y 'N • ai-rr
` L
N 11 II
O > O
0
0) o ,°n rn ? o 00
`n
0 0
O OO (O v N O aO (6 R N co (O v N O co (O v N O
Lo 'T d' V v d' M M M M It It M M M M M
M M M co M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
(}}) uol}ena13 (}}) u011en9l3
C. M co M
C:) O O
N 11 co N 11 M
0') U O U)
C. O
LO LO
CD f N o f N
N CC' N Co Co
0
ai 3 0 of 3 0
c o o c o 0
;O a N v LP 'D N
N II r O 11 c
X t o X c o
W ? W
(D C, 65 (D
N ?
N
F- E i 0- E
M
C p
?G fit O
11
(D II (D
U) to
O > O >
?. °. (o co °
n (n
0 0
O N (O v N O 00 (O 4 N a0 O It N O OD (D ?! N V- Cl M M M M M M M M M M Ce) M M M M M M M M M
(4) uol}en913 (}}) uogenal3
a '5, w v ?
? 0 p CV ? c , = fn
(6

C 0 p V ? C ? fn
d 0 C (p ? Y

a ?+
O ?' T
r Y a m
d ? C) N t 4 C 7 ?
Y
umi c7 ?

C

O N
0 U) U) 2 (D co
C) O
O >' ? Y
O N ? • (n
Y
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C)
U)
C) N C C ?
ca ca
O 3 O
M M
L LO
N
O O O N O
N II N N II M
O N O CO
04
0
cE E N co C) C) E f6
04 11 C) C? C>
2 - 04
Olc Olc O
C: 0 0 C,
X t 0 o X r ? o
W m m W co ¦ m
L
a E a E ?-
c o ¦ c 1f?
_ o
a) 11 N II
N > O 00
R W LO 0 C)
Lc)
O
O O
co V N O cD CO ,4. N N O co O d' N O
V .'t V d' M M M M 'IT d' M M M M M
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
(4) UOIIBA913 (4) uogena13
CD r C ? O N R ? ?Y
(D ca
-CO
O O
Cl) M
LO LO
O N O O N O
N II N N II M
0 O N
0
p E o O E N
N
N N 0 co N N
to
U) ?I
c cp
?I c
co co °0
tp v = 'a N
N II O c
W M II >_
w U.) o W • g
W ca ca
of ? C/)
FL ?.f o d E
O y
41
U o # ass U ° . •afy o
O
N
N >
O >
0
0 co 0 ?
°• Oo
0 0
co t0 v N' O oo c0 v N CO N O w co v N O
d' ? [f It M M M M d' V M M M M M
M M M CO M M M M M M M M M M M co M M
(g) U011en913 (g) UOl}en913

.a (6
? T T w fa
?Y

'C >' T r.. 'O f6
®Y
? m
j

C?
N
O O O
c O
M o O
LC) Lo w
X
O O O d
O N C) O
N II M N
0") v 0
N
c
O ti O
O X
O E N O c
N f6 N
m
f? in I? o °
O
Ic I
rni o rn? ?
to II C N rn ?
X L O X u O
6 W m
(B 'd' a? r (6 E O
Q. E O
y x
O o O _ e3 - t R-ti-
co O ,C n
II N C)
N O
O O 0 m
LO
C
11
m
O O
N O co CO d' N O O p O 'V' N O
?t 't M M M M M It M M M M M
M M M M M M M M M M M M M
(}}) cu uoI}en913 (}}) uogena13
4) U) m 2 -3
_j U) cc C/) U) co a) c
co U) m
v
C M M
V7 V7
w
0 C) C)
O p O N p
M 11 M 01) U)
04
O N O
II -a' O ' O
O U) t. N o E N
N N co
~I ?I c
rnE o ?3 p
co N v ;? 'a N
y .? II f s C
X 3 W L M?___}_?_ a o
O
-ere- -ti. O O m U.)
m If s. (If__.
d L ° a
N aR- is r_s_ N
u)
G
Y ?O (6 O
E L
O a)
11
N
0 N r0 ; r
LO C) LD
II
N
O O
N O co to ?Y N N O c* CO v N O
It d' M M M M tt M M M M M
M M M M M - M M M M M M M M
(4) uO1}ena13 (}}) UOI}en913

C fn
O p N r C ? , .. 4)
o

? In U N
?
00

j
? C. N
.a T J+ w R
T ? Y ? N
C N O 7 N (n
d ; ? ?Y

C
0 r
?
f0
0
C) N ? •
?

N
. 'fl ?' T T T Y 'O N
d CD 5' ? N ? 3 1> ?Y

2 2
ca -j ca
E
0 0 O
O {0 N °
O J to
?O
I N Lo
L1?1
C C)
N = N
N a ° N m °
m 0 a
axi 'o
N m N
~I ° l O ?1 r Q
°
CA 8 O M
O
N N Q
X u O X o
Ll uJ
C co
C
N E QO N co
rc °Q
m N Q. E N
t0 -e+lsx-E
3 #5-15
o O -illi H • O V' 77
L t L ?
C) ? U n
O w O
O O O rc O
0 m 0 E co
m -
ll n
O O
O OD f6 4 N O O co co v N O
M M M M M M M M M M
M M M M M M M M M M M M
(4) uol}en913 (}}) uol}en913
U) In (D 3: fn C7 J N
m
'o O o O
c O c O
8 LO LO
Lo H Lo m
40 C) -.5z
C 0 m
N
0-)
o O
N m ° N m °
m m
X X
m m
C C:)
C
N N
? m -- m
1 >>
o ~1 o
M
?' M
N m ? CA ro c
X u O X u O
W ? Wu m
c r N
(0 f °o (Q E o°
d y ?` N d m N
O Q -t??-t?sM_?r` O Q
,[ 11 ,][ II
L L L =
° ? °
O O
T 0 0 m
00 m
C ? C
II II
N m
K
O co co N O O co CO N O
T M co M M M M M co M M
M M M M M M M M M M M M
(}}) u011en913 (4) uol}en913
N O
? ?Y

d _Q ? N
?
J ? > ?

C O ?' ? Y y
y O C)
N co
j .. >? Y
'p T J+ ?.?- f0
c o c In
m
d ? N 7 -? ? (n ? J 0-2
f6
> ? ? CO

U) m
o' O O
N O
O C U')
N
C) C)
O> C) O
N d °v N C3
m 0 a
x
a? o
m
Nv
N d
o o ~I °
rn? m °
C ?' } M C O M
N C M y
X „ o X' o
LU I .? ui
E O O
?¦ O
N N
Q m E
+
3 - O V,
L L L ??
U ? U
co O U O
O O O? o
O E O
? E M
O
c
m -
II ??
? K
O O
O Co Co ct N O O c0 CO N O
V M M M M M M M M M M
M M M M M M M M M M M M
(4) UOlIenal3 (4) U011BA913
-i ca -i ca
U) 0 co
N N
O O O O
c O O
0 Lo U')
? C
N N
L(7 N Lo N
N.c_ N5
O O
N m ° N d °
a v ` v v
m m
X X
m d
0 C 0 C
N N
-2 -2
til o o O
til 'o
O
?p t o
O M ?
= M
In w - C c so
X u O X n O
W U) W
U) 0)
M m r OO ?R °o
a m N O S N
?Ir___¦a--M;- x 9 O T ;-¦--
Y u Y u - ¦?-
L t L L
co O co O
0 0
O E O m
C c
W
u n
d m
o o
O CO O IT N O O co
O N O
co co co co M ? M co co co co
co M M M M M M M M M M M
(4) U01}ena13 (}}) UOgenal3
d p O N >? C ? ...N ?

.a
C T
O T
T
? "'
C a C6
C fn
'
y O p
r• N ca ? ®Y

>1 a
a >`, T w m
O T ? a ?
C
? O N (a U) d

.a
C T T ? CO
?
d C) N ? ? ..N

CD O j co
CO ?
-i ca cu
co c?
r o 0 0
0
co 0 w
U ?
O N
N
iC
C1 p
N ri 00 N OO
a
N 41
N a
r m
J ?
N n O N c C)
.2 'IT
~1 ~1
O) V ? t a7
A2 C) 1 1
W M O UJ cn oo•) O C, r_
K y
W CO E
s d
CL
o ° o o0
N o N
v
Y t Y u ,
U - N
U
CD I* LO -C)MM -gad
p O Op E O
U) 0 u) of T
CA c CA w
m ° O
n ?
n
i
K
O O
O co (O N O W O. 00 Co N C. o0 Co
V' M M M M M N V M co M M M N N
M co M M M M M M M co M M M M M
(4) u011en913 (4) uol;en913
c 0 O C
r O O
m O N 0
j LO co
U
o
LO u7
C) C) C
0 O O
N of N =
0 d
0')
0
v
? o
m
N N C) Z
O
ti O
cm O M O) 2
C ? O C
'++ •++ `o
W O W 0 Cl) O
(a m
m cz
0
(C6 0 ca
0 It
o . ;ice € N
v
s°
L V L ??
N O N OSLO
O E O O
O °= a0 O E e o
?c 0 0
u n
0 0
O co c0 N O co O co f0 'T N O O
V' M co M M M N V' M CO co M co N
M M M M co M co M M M M M co M
(}}) uol;en913 (4) uol;enal3
7
C O O C C (n
G1 ? N N 3 ;' ? ®Y

C O
? o N m ?,. N®C
0 N

3
.a T A T ? ? a ? f0
C N U)
O O (n fn co O ? N
S C

C 0 0 O CV
-j co 6 (6 Y
CIO 0
co -J
.K 0
3
N N
L N
C) d O m
O C oo O W
N
N LID
a O
0')
N ° 04 C°)
CY> d
m d1. m o
x O O
O
O O
64 C,4
f? « eo 1?
IW ? Im o
C °= O C e N
'++ :2 M `m
(A v N v C
X o X o
W ° w W m
C 00 fn It • O M Lo
(A
fS{ N (1S ?-?a- 00
OMB
3 a-- C. 3
Uo 9 O Y v°
„
T U u
N 7 N
O O C)
O E I O E
CA „ ?L O O
n n
_O O
co co co M M N- O i O Co O 4 N O O CO
M M M M M M M M M M M M M m co M M M
(}}) uOl}ena13 (}}) uol}en9l3
-j CIO U)
6 co
0 0 0
0 0
co 3 LO
r
N N
N
O d O m
O C 0 0
O
LID N o
0')
m d)
N N
? d
m 0)
m O h
m O x
O d O" co
p
N m co N d ° O
> M
I 1
C) U)
C °c O C c
LU O W o N O
n - •,??., a f6
f0 ? N _? ?
EL E E
m •O CM ? ??H.. •OMIn •- - O
Y v° O Y v°
3 O 'T
U ° U z _
N t N m
O? O?
O E O E O
O1 = O
n n
m m
? O ? O
O. aD CO v N O W CO i O co co v N O M co
i
It M M M M M N N 'V• M M M M CO N N
M M M M M M CO M M M M M M M M M
O uogena13 (}}) uOl}ena13

f6

N 0 O iV >' C 7 ?
O T ? C a ?
d O N 3 r U) f6 j ? Y
r c ? co
d ? O C V (6

°o o Oo
$ LO 0 M
N N
O Om
N` p N W p
Q o
m M v' o N
a (V a
0
N oo N oM?n ¦ o
OO M 'o
CD W W
C a C c
d
X o o X 0 0
r
u. N :? W u :a
n w
w o H o
o ;
`1 a Y v°
L II L II
V = U
N m O m
N N
O E O p E N
O) m ' i
W
n n
`m `m
O
O O
O W co N O co (0 i O cO c0 v N O co t0 4 M
M M M M CM N N V M M M M M N N N
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
(4) u01}enal3 (}}) UOl}eAGG
o po Oo
$ LO M
? r
N N
LO " LO y p
0 m d In
O m p a N
c p
N o N
O a 6J a
v
N 0 N ? po 0
m x N
m
O p O m p
N °- o N
o co M o
O
O7 •W pj °i • O M ? •
Cn
X o o X o
LU II N LLJ
C ? fn ? ? ? N
fB O M Lo a-r ?- N
(Z E E
m o
O 3 O
L II L II
!q K Cn LO
O E o O E
?2 O
A O
II II 1
O c0 CO V• N O O'D CO i O cO O N O cO CO 1
'[I• M M M M M N N It M M M M M N N
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
(11) U011BA913 (4) U01JEA913
.a T T ` w .a N
N O O N `_ c = In
[6
J ? ? ? ? ? ism
? Y
w
? a T v
?
d ? ? N ? C
? ?
Y

d 00 O CV ? ? 7 ?
f6 Y
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O ° J
M X Cl
O
v M
N X
m
O 9 O j
C O
N co N 0
0 0
N a ° N o 0
? N N
v
3
0
N m :. Asir-; N o M
0 Cl) LO C)
r`I t
i-mss -sr -r o ~I > ¦i o
.? O 0) U O
C C
w
N m N
X o X u o
M
W W u)
'?
U)
C N
0 0
a E
m S
3
0
Y v Y u
L L? L t
U U ?
N m o N m
co O to C.
O O E '
O ? O y
n u
O o
C? C,
O M o N O ao Co N a0 O v N O o0 o N
14, m M M M M N N M M M M M N N
' M M M M co co M M M M M M M M M
(}}) u011en913 (4) u01}enal3
C C> o o
U) co
N
3 ?t M
m
LO U
O m O 9
O o O
C) m
0
G7 v M G? m °O
04
'? N
CD a
00 0
?e O
m
a
C'4 ce)
I t I m O
'c ¦-_ i-
C) Cl) LO =o
m
X Cl C) X co
o
W p W N
C f!1 O y U)
ca cu O
°- E d E
C)
Ya ?
3
L it L v
U U ??
N m N O
NO o O w o
0? o DOE.
n ?
n
m
m
o o
z
O co Co V' N O 00 co 4CV O Co N O Oo o N
Nt M M M M M N N N M co M M M N N
M M co M M co M M M M M M M M M M
(u) uol}en913
(4) uol}enal3
-p T >`+ w v +a
d O ? i 3: ? C7im

C

O

O
T
?
r
Y

C
v m
C
CO
d ? ?-- N (6 7 • Y

U)
d 0 C> N

.? T T ?
d ? ? N ? C 3 U)

ca r V ? N
00
-j ca 4) Lo 2
-j U) CD cc
c p N
y ?
9
O
d
Lo LO
O m O
O o N O
d1 o M p
c p 0')
II N
d•
O C3 O p
N - N N 00
1` n
N
0)
•? y • C) 'IT LO O C •N U O c
W a _I --
. O O W LO Co O
T
as
c rl fA c fn
_N N p N
E Q.
d O II Ott
a`)
Y 3 Y' >
o
U ? U
a) a)
U
m O N
O O
CA E 0 N
n
i
K O O
O 00 (o v N O 00 O 4 N 00 O V N O co Co
V' M M M M M N N N ? O tr7 t!) to
M M M OM M M M M M M M M M M M M
(}}) u01}en913 (4) UoIIen913
-j ca as
O
O
C, C)
d N M
X
Lo Lo
m O
C) C)
p? m cpi N o o p
N o N IL N
TA
O o O O II
ti N t` v ;}
> O
0) U CD -? O
E C-7
n
•N • O'd' LO O C N ? C
x 11 o o x o
w LU C
fA O fn
a O
L m d II
? U
c O ?
Y u ?C
a_ r L
U U
N (D
°o
o y
O E O p c
O
g II
u
d >_
Q
> O O
O Oo CO v N O N (t6 v N 00 co It N O co co N N
Cl) M M M M co co M M co M M M M M M M
m (4) uogena13 (4) u01}en913
•? T ?+ w v R
? p0 O co ( C
Y

C O >' ? Y N
fn
d O p N :3

T ?
.a
C
O T (6
N
p

O ? Y
C O p N ? ? •ln
Y
1 C13 co 2 c
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0) C) O C ? CV 3 !/?
C/) co
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
N
N LO
II ?
O
N N
ti
F-
II
N .C
W N O O
a) w
CL LO
-i
a) `n
N
O N
O
O
O
? L LO LO v v
m M M M M M
(9) uogena13
4) 00 O C r N ? d O Y ? T
ca m
c°o
N
LO LO
O
O
r
N N
o
N N N N
M O r
II N ? 11
UO) co
N N
ti o
IB ° IQ ,°
LP n If LO
T) MO
X o x o
LU CIO co m :°. W m m
.2 ig Q C.
IL C)
u u
U O V IY N
a) a)
N CA
O N O
O
N
O O
C6 N O 00 CD d' N O CO CO T
CC) LID O CC) 't U) LO CC) O 't
CO M - M C9 M M CO co M M M M
(4) UOl}en913 (4) UOIIBA913

CO Y

? N N 3 ®?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX F
SUMMARY MORPHOLOGICAL TABLE
so
r = = = m m m = = m m = = = m m = m

a
o o
y .
? ? rOi. p

fD
? M
C p'

A'+
? ? ?
dbd
td
?G7
?
?
itd
', bd
td
C7
0

°
o a
l °
o =
C
C g
0 ,:,
a o.
CD
>v
>v m
>v a
a? m I
w m ?
w eD
w
El*

'
z; a a A? C cD C C Et L7 C? L I? O ?'
CD CD 0 zi
oq
m "? oro ?•
co Q- oq
m oq ^
co oo
co as
m -? a
e
Q- c ?.
Q- da
co ?' as
co as
co do o
co ° oc m
co ao 0
co W oa °
m as
co Q- w
n
?' °
C'
.
0 W
En CD

°

`ID a o

v ?

O
W N
W
?
?'
ti
q
ti Z
Oo
ti ti
b
N N
?1
ti ti
q
w
O O
O

b -+
I W
O W
0
N W
I 00
O
b
p
N
W ?+
N
1
V 1
i N
O -+
N : 41,
?v
?n ?P k-4
?n "
v W
tv N
N
V p
p
N
by
C
0 O? \ b j N 0
,
?l F+
O
4

V W

V O?

1+? O
00

A tl?

Op

t+? W

tv O?
b

p

O

O

C?

O

q 12

O

0o

v

O

W

ti

O

60

"'f

{7

• O

C3
k7
O
N v
W
N p ^-
OO p\
?i' \O
A I-+.
O ~
ti (11 q
0
N
ti N
O? ?, ,?
O I-+
01 COD
k3 CL
A o bo
ti?z
??, ?o
ti?
?•,N 9
?c
??
ti? Oo
??
?? o?
o00 t?
.4,
p _ n t? H
oo a .w 00 °° C
`.
y
o

I o N b ^ ID
?
wl I? tii NI IGo l l• ? I I I I I i' \ Ij ? I I 140 p ?'H
j
? ,
` N i,, v, ?, O ,Z N \
p W (id ?l to W a
fD
! C
A =„
CD A
y
?. O

O

11
11
11
1 I
I
l I
I I
I
I
I
I QQ
o I I I lo l l I ?° 5?
CD

ro1

II
II
II
II
I I.
II HIV
Io ?H+
I ?\,O
l o \ -'
I ?N
l o \ W
I W
l is HIV
I N p
l o X00
l ?N
l w
l Cn
W N
?; O 0
o
?,
A
C

W b
O
O

I 1
I 1
I
I '1
I 1
I ?.IV 1r,a 1? 1? ?N 1IV -? p 1? ?N 1? W p O bd C 0 ? :r
I I I I I I Io I? I?, I? Io I? I I ° I O I W I w I?
00 O
R F? C
C
? O
A r

r

r 0
?
a o
-71 I -
1
?1
11
11 ?
N
1O .?
1?
1?
1
1
1 ?
1W -.IV
1
1?
1
1?
10o CD
?, ?, o N w . AO
C

b

T'
m
O?Q
A'+
b
O
O
CD
a
s?
e?
a
0
0
0
y
>r
A
Ifff
fD
A
AM
r
A
A?
A
d

? o o r
z e U)Q,
c 2'

.
O i.r
y 0
V

yyy..?

V

W W

a

°

1+1 1-?

°
tR?

1?1 °

F+1 ?...

F1 '?+

I"1 i.+•

Irl

I"1 °

F+1 Q

M
a o
,-. .?.
O
° '
y
a fD °
w <D W
0 CD °
A+ •? A
?' .-r
° O °
O fD
A+ fD
0 O fD
AS .53 fD
AD n <D
AD ° .
M 0 ° fD A?
W p M
m O
u
? O CD

0
?rti,

7
0
?,

`O
o
?• -n

b
n
1 t
o
1tr
o
?N
is '
1?

-
o
r,
0 o
1
0
-??

°
p r
1°
ll?
o CD
?cn
Gy N
\r'

'

1O

\v]

1. c cu

17"
° ?
d 0 ' R
It
b o - S:? cD Sa ° `? ID n cD C 0
o ..
o C/) 1:$ 0 BCD
°o c a a CD CD
va
v
d r+ r, b Uo CD .. , CD .. ?..
fog 0
0o R
.
"
.
- Z
?UQ ,
°

FrH
? N

D ?

l
J
y
1
/"1 y

o I N l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ° ° o
o
n
O
G

` O
D
y
ci

W v O
O
ao F... chi,,
V .p ?
W F-+ O
oo F+ O
b W ?
G> W W
G ? W N
N N ?n
to I-+
? . ? ti
b 01 O O
cN N O
N ? O
A N
? W O O
O O ti
b
? O p
00 O t? ?
Ct ?.

NN
?n W
;rte
ti,0
c??1
c+a?
90
G,??
lu(N
ti N
??
poN
' W
O
Of11.
00
ON
W
1p .p
00
W
tip
I O
O
I
I
I
er H

b
O
b QQ
O
A? a'
CD
A
O y

O

C
C
O

l I I I? lo l?;, l l ??, I I II ?? ? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lo ll I I I I N a H fD

W
ri C
rp OD
O
A
O
7

?? ?a I? I I? II II II II ?o I? II II ?I IL II II
? Io ?o
00
5
?
.

1p to
N I N ?-. tl1 I O I tJ N W tv W 1,., lJ I ? I O O W O 0? O ?l O? Q? N I O V? I I p
I O ? O ^; ? ?
? ? c„ v ON ?.W OW E ? n
,,
W N O O ?

r ro
o
?

N
N tom. "? o d U' p
I I N I p I \G W

,_, 1D c.> lJ ?, tJ I

?.p I p

? ti

Opp O
0

01 W

J o?

O W I p 0 I I I np,
O
W

p

C
'0" W ID

O
r
o ? o

N
1
N
?H+
\?,,
?N
??
??
1 W
p
1
\? -?
ti1p o
OO 0
?O 0
?? -?
tiCJI
1O
b
1?
a\
eD es
I I
(h
I N
I p1
I C
p
I (ll
I J
I a
O
l p
r
UI
O 00
O 00
b O
p
ti
N
I p
?
' W I I
I O
O
N
N
O
A+ O.
D ON O? ? ? to O

b
A?

APPENDIX G
PLANFORM LAYOUT AND DETAILS
51

Ulm= m m o w m ¦* m m m m m m m r
TAYLOR STREET
o ------------
-------
.YYI ? l I
z
o ?• I I
9'o
o I
9:2
g 1 D //aa ----
3.1 F
cl/ 19*19,L? 04 ;u
1
-?"? ? ] I 1 \\ \ 1'i1?1111 ? I \ m /?\\ J\\? W wJ
9:?.° I I 1 / ', I 1 111 / / n'rn
Cl) C
1 SJb <' I I >xi t i I iIl 1 \ D 4S p
y I \, II 1 OZ 66+
0
o l 1,hlii N
1 1 1 j l I I I y MCOW
999+L ?o=
/ I' r r I I
I I I l III \ I coo0oWp0
co r-
1 I?I / 0? O
i dill 8 , < '? / / /? 1 1 ' I / x 4• +^n?
/ , , r 1 /?I I I LC?? 1 (4rn vD
wD
m'F'v
r ww? , , J J ! 11 1 I, l ;o
/ ,, ??l 1 t3 I / I i \ z O
+I z --1 c
/ I Yp 1 n/ <
11-
I I, M' 11 Ad.9 9 v y
-oz 1-4
MIA S 9 / / / fix / III V J? \ I 1 << 7: L4 Uc z
Rip Z (A z
C//
z I ? X Iii ' i I 0(-o(0 m
UP Ln
8 C/)
go G)
12 66+ A
,? z ! / / I I II , I W p
I r1 it I o
c C/) 'I 1 m
c D I I I /, I / I n 78° Z
/, / J / I I r I
M I I //? /r 1 I I iIl I ?i D
cn z (\ , I 1\ ?\ I I X I i I Ip I I n I + cF"O <o
C I I I
M 1j
! I\ \\1 I I III ?_II I 111 +? + < vW
\ 1 1 \ IX \ III I .1 <,
C7 1 'I 1 IM t Id m
0 x .wp DO
K +1 J\ Ln
\ / // I Ii I I 1 W
C I I i 1 ao
Z ! , tell
q?1?
lli / /, \ I I o O kill. J/ I \ I II III I ? 1 D N
1 n
1 1 1 1 / , X I III 0
0 I I 1 1 1 1' / II 1 )y 1 I ??S O
\? 1 I I / it II /? III 1 I o
M r , I I I / I 00 6Z'6Z£-(S) ANI
D?Soa I 1 II ' ?'\ \ Z'6Z£-(MN) ANI
?\ \ I Ix 11 III I W0(A1 ti0'6££-Wla
? I I I J /;I N• 1 ?
I ? I I ,? l d ' f \ .Zl
tO'6Z£-(3S) ANI OAd Zl
h 1 1 1 t` !X \ ?? ?, Jpi
OZ'0££-(M) ANI
-£8'8Z£-(N) ANI
II _Z
` f , 337 % I I I Y ,// _< `? d06,09
! i I ! \ I +? ?S? ! I II n,l I I? z `W °z ?S6\
l i I °? , I IIII I < -? /0
1 I I I IIII `I 1' X O
-I- i n 1 I / f/ !I p +? IIII ,I mw
?r r-? ( \ , SC,/ III ?\ -,(.4 / m \ d
Ml 1111 / I II\f jN \o z \
•a 'u m r z 1?1'llll' / II J \ S' \ 01 8
o o 0? I X111111 / II I rn zzz v
'? z ! 111 1111\II' 1 G)rn , \ II ' ° ,/ v7 55.8 + D? «<
2
z d ' I < Dill J d /? W 63:*
C c -0 C-4(4 0)
z °m n,r',n,6
M
W N 7J II I // Qr- ?oo<- W C
?o c Jj°e41 g0 O v I I\ 11 f f ?• W
'° ' _ I I _ dvadla? J? ? 1 I ?1 uI 1- \ / xZ p? N
M + '0
o / 18 RC wW(A
n
rn / ` \ 1 J I N NC)5S20
I ill In J / (0000DO
/
7 i+l ?SD? \\\ J i it (1' i - ?\ / / ? (D r
-uN .
I alb a 1 I II 111 Z J r° / -?oco
?? a tO 11 m I Iii II I ?' J ???
?r oD
66x? o I II 14 l i? o/ 1d m y
?S I m r I , Il I O
?_ \` ?d x11 0 -*,
Inl m
X\\ x -X -x
x 11 I II? 1 III I J v C
z i 1 III Z< I? I O
Z Dd Z 8d 1 I 'r / iii r x/?Di
m ' k6Z Jd 9Z 8d I I / co
IIL
99 8d L9ZZ 80
I I 1 I 1 r/ °' / z
Old
kz? ?\ NOSNH01 J ii! its -Nt8?021 \ Ijl?l+ l? 11 i W i i
0 A III - (Tr?
0 \ \ C \ \ }} ° 1 \ \ I <<<<
dO. r W
1??tlp,' m ^ z
N z •? ?v c I \ \\ \? ?(\ ?S9p c+wwwwn
W D p(}o`Qo+?\ I vONiJ?N
r Z - \ \ I M J J J
-- :.$---------
0 LIBE TREEfi 3d_ 'NNn ,9
?w
331S „Z
01
m`°
! n
i ; N
E uz
O?
K?
0
n
mn
O
LN
CC
m?
I
-17 -0
°x53N O.
Am 2.m ?-
3
cn o
00
L. W y
(r V?
rn , 0 ?O
?twa<
? to
00
C 0
O
V)
?m
O M
O Cn
Zm
M
V
r
0
go -0
?z 0
M
0
_? 0
0
Z
m
;o o
0
o
z0
NLS ?? ^? _ . _ - G _ c, z
C
: co
(3-------------------------,.._ "in
C0-
X \ a I+fn?? N) m `~zw
I+9 -i 1 I J l \ `o ?? \ w c,3 ?i
113
n I BN'W`p?C? 1 \\. \ \\ \\D n
r1X I O?y II1 1 y ) - fin- U) N?
n ??p1?I(?h lylll 1 J a I F Z c)
w
m ? M dJb / ('
A-'. o
n
m N G(A I y
k wwNOO+S
<0 Opp [i ft 1 \\ o
t 1 ! 11 CD -I Z
n w 151, CFI 11{ ° ° ° °' ?={CO n
wN e _ 1 C. ? ow <I-
i
a-; s
O
1 ai i\ y m I' G) CC7
I I C -'-M
?k5? T z J 111 "I'? I S ONE 0\ lt/ld N?q
Syr? 1 IV
`1xy' y Gnu \III C ;'
oOx t i I ` 0 L S?
CA
?` G ?\ yllll I11; n N
\
/ 1 1 \ 'S 1 rm nennmmz e
m? y. i I" C1,8 ? ZZ?o0r.,.) AO o?
CDC7-^I i \ D p i << m ra r z m n v
W Q rAC> \ II ? ( i noxz 0C)
(p-? c: (1) \ yl P\ t9 u wo?ic0
C)0 kGj?1 Q 1 ` , \` \ `cS7 R In z n
NCO ?? /? \ t \ tii\ \ I DZtn
?00? / \ \y\ \ o`,
a) rq
I c -0 M {
\0n+ 1 inm- x7CGT„z rr,
0 41
-- -1 , C) . Z \ \ \ 1 y
en yZyr
1 .v , n y x _ CAW
t vrn \ i I\ y \ WN'
( 1 cn x _ t \t~t? \ ??
1
( a) Gxw'0+y \ W -A Q
< t A \ o J)
M x C) 0c -V -0
-A 2zz
4-400 >
n
00
- 7 .••. -, '--- -yyg\ i??,`\tY 1 • I l G _ _ hJ IV N cT
i_----.-----._._ --. __. ?0 0 3 v s o o c• o _ 0 0 0`0 0 0 o C
HOLLOWAY STREETT -? ? 3d??l 'NNn -u ," n
!M/
d H? GAJ .9t 11S lb M0,770H&, ?k
- •_, ' _ _ MS ON0J--_--_--_1
3CN3.? "IH? .L 13315 „3 - 3 . -cam. = - ; : _ I
' = I G 1
< '?, pz l G 1
z< z`a za1 , 4,1\I /I y a g p C n
m? n \\ s" \ \ - COCO-<
e W ?T e?'?3 \\ !k) o S
? ?rn AG?? zZ
c n w w o
.4 Zw < Eo <<r O"pQ
w LO = O
1 w rn U w 1.11 z cn <,+ 0 G Vi w V,?1
A CD IV N < Sc7y N
l ITI " a 1
e 4c co
1 rn ?? o o ° U w` " ?C)0
cc
I w 0 - Z ; WCn hJU?i
I It xmcro y < cC,co 0 ?N f
I c-<ccw°z
1
1 m z
1 I I 7Z"OD
1 I -? c ins 1
( I -IG? cr'cw.
1
T '0 r- ?:Q
1
r D ' m??'s ` 1
m ,p ;?mcn
1 i ^ CA ?G? ? i
IM X
0 V)
O O O O O O O O i? Z
;K m A O
z z O O O O 0
12 z
0
O O T*I Az OC ?-prn ,?
m
0 m O > F O O
4J D C ,- Z i -JOOr
o m o n i ,© \
0 0 + m
1
i
7
0

%A
r O
Z 7R
O
O
0
Z?
<a
? ? Fos=
cLS?
wpr
i1Xc
Pw?ZZ-
?Ot<Sr
?w
0
a
I

«o b
r.yg
c 4?
_
s°
O c
2

4$n O
Z
O
Oho
?aa '
a
cr
9'g m
me
o?:
<
a
ems 2

..a
M'

c
?y TTO°w?
00
?? o°ywwi
O ¦w
wG
it
zo
>
w
y?
S
?w la
III
R w
£ w
do a?°o
$ ;u

s

J
S
?I w
SSw
?I O
1 €
. iw
All
HE

70 O

CA 7c
t fie

wz?

O O $ it S

tit
gas

i
t <

o33

O w

Z ?
?
? I

S?6
z9

P;
O >

N T
po
? ?J
? •Ji O?tT.?
yw

O
O
I
O TT
€ (w

? yp
s? g

soon
i

>
a
F
M
1
J ai

!
!
1
J
J
J
>
n ?
m'
? Ns
III
yin
T?H
al
Qo
?y.°.
R
F
w w

y£ E
i

Y •' w
_ s

? i

yy
S
p
?xr
G c
I
?

a
n
1
0
z
0
0
T,
c
a
w
T ?
w
0
a
O
z

S
D 70
70 -
C
r a
a
tit
-1
70
c
n
c
70
a
Z
O
1
O
Cl
a
N

OZ
q%
ra
a
-z
?Q
0
a
a
n
z
1
0
C
m
2
C A ? w
z ??
a?
! 1 a
70 ?
n 8
1
o
a w
T_
O
1
O
f1
r
a
0
c
n
1
C
70
a

a a
sa
O
r e
? :o
w
:0 Z'
$
x
Z 4%
c o
p
17
< a ?? 6

z
q
o
a b

1
O 3'
70 S
s
A

1
w
APPENDIX H
TYPICAL DESIGN CROSS SECTIONS
0
52

Project Name: Goose Creek Stream Desi
n Worksheet
BiohabilaLs Projed No.: 04802.02 g
Date: 71512005
Prepared by: E. McClure Cop
ri
ht of Biohabitats
Inc

Cross Section Identification:
Upper Reach Tributary y
g
,
.
B4ype, 30 cfs
Riffle
Cross Section Points Bankfull Channel Calculations
Input Variables
Mannings "n" of channel = 0.038
Mannings "n" of floodplaln = 0.1
Equivalent "n" for flood flows = 0.04
Channel Slope= 0.016
Design B. F. Discharge = 30 [cfs]
Bankfull Elevation= 8.00 [ft]
Floodprone Elevation= 9 [ft]
Bankfull Width= 12 [ft]
Floodprone Width= 24 [ft]
Calculated Quantities
Cross Section Area = 8.2 [sq. ft.]
Wetted Perimeter= 12.3 [ft]
Hydraulic Radius = 0.67 [ft]
Bankfull Discharge - , 31 [cfs)
F.P. XSEC Area= 26.2 [sq. ft.]
F.P. Wetted Perimeter= 24 [ft]
F.P. Hydraulic Radius = 1.07 IN
Floodprone Discharge = 133 lots]
Average Depth = 0.68 [ft]
W/D Ratio = 17.6
Entrenchment Rat to= 2.0
Shear Stress = 0.67 [Ib/sq.ft.]
D84= 44 [mm]
Relevant Equations
Continuity Equation:
Q=VxA
Manning's Equation:
Q=1.49 A (R)' (S)2
n
Shear Stress Equation:
0
To = pgRS
Feature Offset Elevation Cross Section
Area[so. ft Wetted
Perimeter R
Floodprone -12 9.0
-12 9 bank slope
Bankfull -6 8.0 2.9 0.7 2.12
-4 7.3 3.4 4.01
Max Depth 0 7.0 6.0 3.4 4.01
4 7.3 0.7 2.12
Bankfull 6 8.0
12 9.0
Flood rone 12 9.0 Total Area = 8.2 Wet Perimeter= 12.26
?iohabitats
Floodprone Channel Calculations
Cross Section Wetted
Area rsa. tt.l Perimeter [ft]
0 0.00
IA.fp 3 IP.fp 6.08
2.7 2.12
7.4 4.01
7.4 4.01
2.7 2.12
rA.fp 3 rP.fp 6.08
0 0.00
Total Area = 26.2 Wet Perimeter= 24.43

Stream Design Worksheet
Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.
Cross section Points Bankfull Channel Calculations
*w-Bighabitats
Feature Offset Elevation Crosssection
Areas . ft. Wetted
Perimeter ft
Flootlprone
bank slope
Bankfull -8 9.0 2.9 4.25 5.28
-3 7.3 5.55 3.01
Max Depth 0 7.0 5.55 3.01
3 7.3 4.25 5.28
Bankfull 8 9.0
Flootl rone Total Area= 19.6 Wet Perimeter= 16.59
Floodprone Channel Calculations
Cross Section Wetted
Areas. ft. Perimeter ft
0 0.00
W.fp -52 IP.fp 12.04
14.25 5.28
11.55 3.01
11.55 3.01
14.25 5.28
rA.fp -52 rP.fp 12.04
0 0.00
Total Area = -52.4 Wet Perimeter = 40.68
Input Variables
Mannings "n" of channel = 0.038
Mannings "n" of floodplain = 0.1
Equivalent "n" for flood flows = 0.04
Channel Slope= 0.016
Design B.F. Discharge = 30 lots]
Bankfull Elevation = 9.00 [ft]
Flootlprone Elevation = 11 [ft]
Bankfull Width = 16 [ft]
Floodprone Width = 0 [ft]
Calculated Quantities
Cross Section Area = 19.6 [sq. ft.]
Wetted Perimeter= 16.6 [ft]
Hydraulic Radius= 1.18 Iftl
Bankfull Discharge= 10G [cfs]
F.P. XSEC Area = -01.4 [sq. ft.]
F.P. Welted Perimeter= 41 [ft]
F.P. Hydraulic Radius = -1.29 ]fl]
Floodprone Discharge = lots]
Average Depth = 1 P? [ft]
W/o Ratio = t i
Entrenchment Ratio = o s
Shear Stress = 1.1d [Ib/sq.ft.]
D84= 78 [mm]
Relevant Equations
Continuity Equation:
Q=VxA
Mannings Equation:
Q = 1.49A(R)3(S)z.
n
Shear Stress Equation:
20 = pgRS
Typical Pool Cross Section: Tributary to Upper Reach
9
0
w
-10 -8 -6 4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Offset [ft]

Stream Design Worksheet
Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.
Cross Section Points Bankfull Channel Calculations
Input Variables
Mannings "n" of channel = 0.038
Mannings "n" of floodplain = 0.1
Equivalent "n" for flood flows = 0.04
Channel Slope= 0.011
Design B.F. Discharge = 120 [cfs]
Bankfull Elevation = 8.70 [ft]
Floodprone Elevation = 10.4 [ft]
Bankfull Width = 22 [11]
Floodprone Width= 66 [ft]
Calculated Quantities
Cross Section Area = 25.6 [sq. ft.]
Wetted Perimeter= 22.4 [ft]
Hydraulic Radius = 1 11 [ft]
Bankfull Discharge = t i 5 [cfs]
F.P. XSEC Area= _
I-'.3 [sq. ft.]
F.P. Welled Perimeter = 67 [ft]
F.P. Hydraulic Radius = 1.93 [ft]
Floodprone Discharge = 602 [cfs]
Average Depth = 1.16 [ft)
W/D Ratio a
Entrenchment Ratio=
Shear Stress= u.76 [Ib/sq.ft.1
D84= 52 [mm]
Relevant Equations
Continuity Equation:
Q=VxA
Mannings Equation:
Q = 1.49A(R)3(S)2
n
Shear Stress Equation:
ie = pBRS
Feature Offset Elevation Cross Section
Area [sq. ft.] Wetted
Perimeter Intl
Floodprone -33 10.4
-28 8.7 bank slope
Bankfull -11 8.7 3.57 3.5 5.19
-6 7.3 9.3 6.01
Max Depth 0 7.0 2.94 9.3 6.01
6 7.3 3.5 5,19
Bankfull 11 8.7
28 8.7
Flood rune 33 10.4 Total Area= 25.6 Wet Perimeter= 22.40

81??1??1TatS

Floodprone Channel Calculations
Cross Seetion Area Wetted
[sq. ft.] Perimeter [ft]
4.25 5.28
IA.np 28.9 IP.fp 17.00
12 5.19
19.5 6.01
19.5 6.01
12 5.19
rA.fp 28.9 rP.fp 17.00
4.25 5.28
Total Area = 129.3 Wet Perimeter = 66.96

.°. BiohabltatS
lnoorpor-d
h1eandact:hannel ev&on and Dffset Nodes
Feature Offset Elevation
Flood prone left 10.0
Bankfull Left -11.5 10.0
Bar to Pool -2 8.0
Thalwe 0 7.0
Pool 13 7.0
Bankfull Right 14.5 10.0
Floodprone right
12
10
8
c
0 6
Q
w
4
2
0
4
Project Name:
Biohabitats Project No.
Date:
Prepared by:
Cross Section Identification: Goose Creek
04802.02
7/13/2005
EMM
Upper Reach
C-type, 120 cfs
3.0 ft Max Depth Pool

Meander Channel Dimensions
Ratio to Riffle
Meander Width 26.0 ft 0.84
Wetted Perimeter 28.3 ft 0.89
Hydraulic Radius 2.0 ft 1.17
Area 55.8 ft-2 1.04
Max Pool Depth 3.0 ft 1.333333333
Bar Slope
10 Bar Toe Slope
Outer Bank Angle
Typical Meander Cross Section: Upper Reach
2.0:1
.5:1
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Offset (ft)
Proposed Grade - -Bankfull Elev.
15 20

5
Project Name: Goose Creek Stream Design Worksheet
Biohabhais Project No.: 04802.02
Dale: 7/5/2005
Prepared by: E. McClure Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.
Cross Section Identification: Upper Reach
B4ype,120 cfs
Riffle
Cross Section Points Bankfull Channel Calculations
Input Variables
Manning" "n" of channel = 0.045
Manning" "n" of floodplain = 0.1
Equivalent "n" for flood flows = 0.04
Channel Slope= 0.03
Design B.F. Discharge = 120 lots]
Bankfull Elevation= 8.50 [ft]
Floodprone Elevation = 10 [ft]
Bankfull Width = 20 [fl]
Floodprone Width = 40 [fl]
Calculated Quantities
Cross Section Area = 21.0 [sq. ft.]
Wetted Perimeter= 20.4 [ft]
Hydraulic Radius = 1 [ft]
Bankfull Discharge= 12'. [cfs]
F.P. XSEC Area = oo.u [sq. ft.]
F.P. Wetted Perimeter= 41 [ft]
F.P. Hydraulic Radius = 1.63 [ft]
Floodprone Discharge = 522 [,is]
Average Depth = 1 0q [ft]
W/DRatio = 'IJ.:?
Entrenchment Ratio = _ b
Shear Stress= 1.- [lb/sq.ft.]
D84= 127 [mm]
Relevant Equations
Continuity Equation:
Q=VxA
Mannines Equation:
Q = 1.49A(R)3(S)2
n
Shear Stress Equation:
0
To = P81S
Feature Offset Elevation Cross section
Areas . ft. Wetted
Perimeter ft
Floodprone -20 10.0
-20 10 bank slope
Bankfull -10 8.5 3.33 2.4 4.18
-6 7.3 8.1 6.01
Max Depth 0 7.0 6.67 8.1 6.01
6 7.3 2.4 4.18
Bankfull 10 8.5
20 10.0
,Flood prone 20 10.0 Total Area= 21 Wet Perimeter = 20.37
'L AIL
81011?b1?2t5
A /a?ei?a.arM
Floodprone Channel Calculations
Cross Section Wetted
Areafag. ft. Perimeter
0 0.00
W.fp 7.5 IP.fp 10.11
8.4 4.18
17.1 6.01
17.1 6.01
8.4 4.18
rA.fp 7.5 rP.fp 10.11
0 0.00
Total Area = 66 Wet Perimeter = 40.59
Typical Riffle Cross Section: Upper Reach
U
w
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Offset [ft]

s
Project Name: Goose Creek
Biohabitats Project No.: 04802.02
Date: 7/5/2005
Prepared by: E. McClure
Cross Section Identification: Upper Reach
_ B-type, 120 cis
2.3 ft Max Depth Pool

Stream Design Worksheet
Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.
Cross Section Points Bankfull Channel Calculations
Biohabitats
rncerp".?red
Input Variables
Mannings "n" of channel = 0.045
Mannings "n" of floodplain = 0.1
Equivalent "n" for flood flows = 0.04
Channel Slope = 0.03
Design B.F. Discharge = 120 [cfs]
Bankfull Elevation = 9.30 [11]
Floodprone Elevation = 11.6 [11]
Bankfull Width = 24 [ft]
Floodprone Width= 40 [11]
Calculated Quantities
Cross Section Area = 37.8 [sq. ft.]
Wetted Perimeter= 24.7 1111
Hydraulic Radius = 1 - [11]
Bankfull Discharge= 288. [cfs]
F.P. XSEC Area = 111.4 [sq. fl.]
F.P. Welled Perimeter= 41 [11]
F.P. Hydraulic Radius = 2.70 [11]
Floodprone Discharge = 1199 lcfs]
Average Depth = 1.58 [11]
W/D Ratio = 2
Entrenchment Ratio = i
_
Shear Stress= 2.87' [Ib/sq.ft.]
D84= 189 [mm]
Relevant Eauations
Continuity Equation:
Q=VxA
Manning's Equation:
Q= 1.49`4(R)s(S)2
n
Shear Stress Equation:
to = pgRS

Feature
Offset
Elevation
Cross Section Area [sq ft] Wetted
Perimeter
ft
Floodprone -20 11.6
-20 11.6 bank slope
Bankfull -12 9.3 3.00 6 6.32
-6 7.3 12.9 6.01
Max Depth 0 7.0 3.48 12.9 6.01
6 7.3 6 6.32
Bankfull 12 9.3
20 11.6
Flood rone 20 11.6 Total Area = 37.8 Wet Perimeter= 24.66
Floodprone Channel Calculations
Cross Section Wetted
Area [sq. ft] Perimeter
[ft]
0 0.00
IA.fp 9.2 IP.fp 8.32
19.8 6.32
26.7 6.01
26.7 6.01
19.8 6.32
rA.fp 9.2 rP.fp 8.32
0 0.00
>tal Area = 111.4 Wet Perimeter= 41.31
M = i M = = =
7 -
Project Name: Goose Creek Stream Design Worksheet
Biohabitats Project No.: 04802.02
Date: 7/5/2005
Prepared by: E. McClure Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.
Cross Section Identification: Upper Reach
B-type, 120 cfs
2.7 ft Max Depth Pool
Cross Section Points Bankfull Channel Calculations
Input Variables
Mannings "n" of channel = 0.045
Mannings "n" of floodplain = 0.1
Equivalent "n" for flood flows = 0.04
Channel Slope = 0.03
Design B.F. Discharge = 120 [cfs]
Bankfull Elevation = • 9.70 [ft]
Floodprone Elevation = 12.4 [ft]
Bankfull Width = 24 [ft]
Floodprone Width = 40 [ft]
Calculated Quantities
Cross Section Area = 45.0 [sq. ft.]
Wetted Perimeter= 24.9 [ft]
Hydraulic Radius= 1.A0 [ft]
Bankfull Discharge= 382 [cfs]
F.P. XSEC Area= 131.4 [sq. ft.]
F.P. Wetted Perimeter= 42 [ft]
F.P. Hydraulic Radius= 3.14 [ft]
Floodprone Discharge = 1544 [cfs]
Average Depth = 1.88 [ft]
W/D Ratio - 1.
Entrenchment Ratio = -
Shear Stress = 3.38 [lb/sq.ft.]
D84= 222 [mm]
Relevant Equations
Continuity Equation:
Q=VxA
Mannines Equation:
Q=1.49A(R)s(S)z
n
Shear Stress Equation:
T. = PPS

Feature
Offset
Elevation Cross Section
Area [sq. q.] Wetted
Terimeter
ft
Floodprone -20 12.4
-20 12.4 bank slope
Bankfull -12 9.7 2.50 7.2 6.46
-6 7.3 15.3 6.01
Max Depth 0 7.0 2.96 15.3 6.01
6 7.3 7.2 6.46
Bankfull 12 9.7
20 12.4
Flood prone 20 12.4 Total Area= 45 Wet Perimeter = 24.94
't?, All

lrzs".porsr.d
Floodprone Channel Calculations
F
Cross Section Wetted
Area [sq. ft.] Perimeter
FM
0 0.00
Imp 10.8 IP.fp 8.44
23.4 6.46
31.5 6.01
31.5 6.01
23.4 6.46
rA.fp 10.8 rP.fp 8.44
0 0.00
Total Area = 131.4 Wet Perimeter = 41.83

8
Project Name: Goose Creek
Biohabitats Project No.: 04802.02
Date: 715/2005
Prepared by: E. McClure
Cross Section Identification: Upper Reach
B-type, 120 cfs
3.0 ft Max Pool Depth
i
I
Stream Design Worksheet
Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.
Cross Section Points Bankfull Channel Calculations

Feature
I

Offset

Elevation

Cross Area [sq. ft.] Section Wetted

Perimeter
ft
Floodprone -20 13.0
-20 13 bank slope
Bankfull -12 10.0 2.96 10.8 8.44
-4 7.3 11.4 4.01
Max Depth 0 7.0 2.67 11.4 4.01
4 7.3 10.8 6.44
Bankfull 12 10.0
20 13.0
Flood rone 20 13.0 Total Area = 44.4 Wet Perimeter = 24.91
q stl
.Biohabitats
I........... d

I Floodprone Channel Calculations
Cross Section Wetted
Area [sq. ft.] Perimeter
fftl
0 0.00
IA.fp 12 IP.fp 8.54
34.8 8.44
23.4 4.01
23.4 4.01
34.8 8.44
rA.fp 12 rP.fp 8.54
0 0.00
Total Area = 140.4 Wet Perimeter= 42.00

Input Variables
Mannings "n" of channel = 0.045
Mannings "n" of floodplain = 0.1
Equivalent "n" for flood flows = 0.04
Channel Slope = 0.03
Design B.F. Discharge = 120 [cfs]
Bankfull Elevation = 10.00 [ft]
Floodprone Elevation = 13 [ft]
Bankfull Width= 24 [ft]
Floodprone Width = 40 [ft]
Calculated Quantities
Cross Section Area = 44.4 [sq. ft.]
Wetted Perimeter= 24.9 [ft]
Hydraulic Radius = 1.7" [ft]
Bankfull Discharge= 374 [cfs]
F.P. XSEC Area= 140.4 [sq. fl.]
. F.P. Wetted Perimeter= 42 [ft]
F.P. Hydraulic Radius = 3.34 [ft]
Floodprone Discharge = 1686 [cfs]
Average Depth = 1.85 [ft]
W/D Ratio = 1 '. 11
Entrenchment Ratio = 1 7
Shear stress= 3.34 [lb/sq.ft.]
D84= 220 [mm]
Relevant Equations
Continuity Equation:
Q=VxA
Mannines Equation:
Q = 1.49A (R) 3(S)2
n
Shear Stress Equation:
,o=p8RS
m m m m M m m m M MM MM m m m m m. m
8 - -
Project Name: Goose Creek
Biohabitats Project No.: 04802.02
Date: 7/5/2005
Prepared by: E. McClure
Cross Section Identification: Eastway Elementary School
"pe, 266 cfs
Riffle
I
- Input Variables
Mannings "n" of channel = 0.038
Mann ings "n" of floodplaln = 0.1
Equivalent "n" for flood flows = 0.04
Channel Slope = 0.0024
Design B.F. Discharge = 265 [cfs]
Bankfull Elevation = 11.00 [ft]
Floodprone Elevation = 15 [ft] .
Bankfull Width = 36 [ft]
Floodprone Width = 36 [ft]
Calculated Quantities
Cross Section Area = 82.5 [sq. ft.]
Wetted Perimeter= 37.4 [ft]
Hydraulic Radius = ? ?n [ft]
Bankfull Discharge = tea i [cfs]
F.P. XSEC Area= 226.5 [sq. ft.]
F.P. Wetted Perimeter= 37 [ft]
F.P. Hydraulic Radius = 6.05 [ft]
Floodprone Discharge = 1270 lots]
Average Depth = 2.29 [ft]
W/o Ratio=
Entrenchment Ratio = 1 s
Shear Stress= [lb/sq.ft.]
D84= __ [mml
dI Discharge (SubChannel) _ , s
111 d
Relevant Equations
Continuity Equation:
Q=VxA
Manning's Equation:
Q=1.49 A (R)' (S)'
n
Shear Stress Equation:
To = pgRS
Stream Design Worksheet 3L Ain
BLIEW
Copyright of Bichabitats, Inc. Biohabitats
Cross Section Points Bankfull Channel Calculations
Feature Offset Elevation Cross Section Wetted
bank slope Area [sq. ft.] Perimeter [ft]
Floodprone -18 11.0 2.6 8.125 6.96 -
-11.5 8.5 16.25 6.50
Bankfull -5 8.5 2.7 11.025 3.73
-1.5 7.2 5.85 1.51
Max Depth 0 7.0 5.85 1.51
1.5 7.2 11.025 3.73
Bankfull 5 8.5 16.25 6.50
11.5 - 8.5 8.125 6.96
Flood rone 18 1-1.0- 1 Total Area = 82.5 Wet Perimeter= 37.42
Floodprone Channel Calculations
Cross section Wetted
Area [sq. ft.] _ Perimeter [ft]
34.125 6.96
IA.fp 42.25 IP.fp 6.50
25.025 3.73
11.85 1.51
11.85 1.51
25.025 3.73
rA.fp 42.25 rP.fp 6.50
34.125 6.96
nal Area 226.5 Wet Perimeter= 37.42

f
Biohabitats
r„<o po.a«e
Moander Channel Elevation and Offset Nods
Feature Offset Elevation
Flood tune left 10 U
Bankfull Left -7 10.0
Bar to Pool -3 9.0
Thalwe 0 8.0
Pool 4 8.0
Bankfull Right 6,0 10.0
Floodprone right 10
10
Project Name: Goose Creek
Biohabitats Project No. 04802.02
Date: 7/13/2005
Prepared by: EMM
Cross Section Identification: Eastway Elementary School
13-type, 265 cfs
2.0 ft Max Pool Depth
NeanderChannel Dimensions
iweanaer vviam 115.U Ti UAZ
Wetted Perimeter 14.1 ft 0.45
Hydraulic Radius 1.2 ft 0.69
Area 16.5 ft^2 0.31
Max Pool Depth 2.0 ft
Bar Slope
Bar Toe Slope
Outer Bank Angle
Typical Meander Cross Section: Eastway Elementary School Reach

4
2
0
12
10
8
c
6
R
w
w
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Offset (ft)
Proposed Grade - -Bankfull Elev.
4 6 8
3.0:1
1.0:1

ln?n po?«.e
r.ieander Channel Elevation' n TCffset Nodes
Feature Offset Elevation
Flood prone left 10.0
Bankfull Left -6.5 10.0
Bar to Pool -3 9.0
Thalwe 0 7.5
Pool 4 7.5
Bankfull Right 6.5 10.0
Floodprone right 10
11
Project Name:
Biohabitats Project No.
Date:
Prepared by:
Cross Section Identification: Goose Creek
04802.02
7/13/2005
EMM
Eastway Elementary School
B-type, 265 cfs
2.5 ft Max Pool Depth

Meander Channel Dimensions
Ratio to Riffle
Meander Width 13.0 tt 0.42
Wetted Perimeter 14.5 ft 0.46
Hydraulic Radius 1.4 ft ` 0.82
Area 20.1ft^2 0.38
Max Pool Depth 2.5 ft 1.111111111
Bar Slope
Bar Toe Slope
Oiifar Rank Annla 3.5:1
2.0:1
1 n-1
Typical Meander Cross Section: Eastway Elementary School Reach
12
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8
+K
c
°
6
w
w

4
2
0

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
offset (ft)
Proposed Grade - -Bankfull Elev.
IF-

Stream Design Worksheet
Copyright of Biohabitats, Ina. 81011i1IJ1tS
Input Variables
Mannings "n" of channel = 0.038
Mannings "n" of floodplain = 0.1 '
Equivalent "n" for flood flows = 0.04
Channel Slope = 0.0024
Design B.F. Discharge = 400 lots]
Bankfull Elevation = 11.00 [ft]
Floodprone Elevation = 15 [ft]
Bankfull Width = 46 [ft]
Floodprone Width = 46 [ft]
Calculated Quantities
Cross Section Area = 113.8 [sq. ft.]
Wetted Perimeter= 47.4 [ft]
Hydraulic Radius = ^ 49 [ft)
Bankfull Discharge= 192 lots]
F.P. XSEC Area= 297.;: [sq. ft]
F.P. Wetted Perimeter= 47 [ft]
' F.P. Hydraulic Radius = 6.29 ift]
Floodprone Discharge = 1756 [of,]
Average Depth = 2 47 [ft]
WID Ratio " 1 e
Entrenchment Ratio = 1 c
Shear Stress = [lb/sq.fl.]
D84= 24 [mm]
Bankfull Discharge (SubChannel) = o
Relevant Equations
Continuity Equation:
Q=VxA
Manning's Equation:
Q = 1.49 n (R)' (S)2
Shear Stress Equation:
T" = pgRS
Cross Section Points Bankfull Channel Calculations
7
Feature Offset El evation
bank slope Cross section
Areas . ft. Wettetl
Perimeter ft
Floodprone -23 11.0 2.6 8.125 6.96
-16.5 8.5 22.5 9.00
Bankfull -7.5 8.5 3.1 12.6 4.21
-3.5 7.2 13.65 3.51
Max Depth 0 7.0 13.65 3.51
3.5 7.2 12.6 4.21
Bankfull 7.5 8.5 22.5 9.00
16.5 8.5 8.125 6.96
Flood rone 23 11.0 Total Area= 113.75 Wet Perimeter = 47.35
Flood prone Channel Calculations
Cross Sectlon Wetted
Areas . ft. Perimeter it
34.125 6.96
IA.fp 58.5 IP.fp 9.00
28.6 4.21
27.65 3.51
27.65 3.51
28.6 4.21
rA.fp 58.5 rP.fp 9.00
34.125 6.96
Total Area 297.75 Wet Perimeter= 47.35
Sub Area = 52.5 Sub WP= 15.42
Typical Riffle Cross Section: Eastway Elementary School
`o
w
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 I I
offset [ft]

t.
BighabitatS
- - Incorporarrd'
Meander Channel Flevation and Offset Nodes
Feature Offset Elevation
Flood prone left 10.0
Bankfull Left -8` 10.0
Bar to Pool -4.5 9.5
Thalwe 0 8.0
Pool 8 8.0 -
Bankfull Ri ht 10:0 10.0
Floodprone right 10
13
Project Name: Goose Creek
Biohabitats Project No. 04802.02
Date: 7/13/2005
Prepared by: EMM
Cross Section Identification: Eastway Elementary School
B-type, 400 cfs
2.0 ft Max Pool Depth

Meander Channel Dimensions I
Ratio to Riffle
Meander Width 18.0 ft 0.56
Wetted Perimeter 19.1 ft 0.60
Hydraulic Radius 1.3 ft 0.76
Area 24.5 ft^2 0.46
Max Pool Depth 2.0 ft 0.888888889
Bar Slope 7.0:1
Bar Toe Slope 3.0:1
Omar Rank Annip 1 n•1
Typical Meander Cross Section: Eastway Elementary School Reach
12
10
8
c
•° 6
m
w

4 -

-
2 - -
0

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Offset (ft)
Proposed Grade - -Bankfull Elev.

r:
- . ???3iohabitats
r»?o por«<a
P4eander Channel Elevation and Offset Nodes
Feature Offset Elevation
Flood prone left 10.0
Bankfull Left -7.5 10.0
Bar to Pool -5' 9.5
Thalwe 0' 7.5
Pool 8 7.5
Bankfull Right 10.5 10.0
Floodprone right 10
14
Project Name:
Biohabitats Project No.
Date:
Prepared by:
Cross Section Identification: Goose Creek
04802.02
7/13/2005
EMM
Eastway Elementary School
B-type, 400 efs
2.6 ft Max Pool Depth

Oleander Channel Pirnensions
Ratio to Riffle
Meander Width 18.0 ft 0.58
Wetted Perimeter 19.5 ft 0.61
Hydraulic Radius 1.6 ft 0.95
Area 31.3 ft^2 0.58
Max Pool Depth 2.5 ft
Bar Slope 5.0:1
Bar Toe Slope 2.5:1
(lnfar Rank 4nnla 1 n-1
Typical Meander Cross Section: Eastway Elementary School Reach
12
10
8

e
0 6
w
w
4
2
0

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Offset (ft)
Proposed Grade - -Bankfull Elev.
= = = = = = M M
15
Project Name: Goose Creek Stream Design Worksheet
Blohabitats Project No' : 04802.02
Dale: 7/52005
Prepared by: E. McClure Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.
Cross Section Identification: Long Meadow Pant
B-type, 400 cfs
Riffle
Cross Section Points Bankfull Channel Calculations
Input Variables
Mannings "n" of channel = 0.038
Mannings "n" of flcodplain 0.1
Equivalent "n" for flood flows = 0.035
Channel Slope = 0.0039 (design alignment)
Design B.F. Discharge = 400 [cfs]
Bankfull Elevation = 10.50 [ft]
Floodprone Elevation = 14 - [ft]
Bankfull Width= 38 [ft]
Floodprone Width = 76 IN
Calculated Quantities
Cross Section Area = 92.3 [sq. ft.]
Wetted Perimeter= 39.0 [ft]
Hydraulic Radius = _.. [ft]
Bankfull Discharge=
M 40 1 [cfs]
C Area=
F.P. d1- [sq. ft.]
F.P. Wetted Perimeter= 78 [ft]
F.P. Hydraulic Radius = 4.09 [ft]
Floodprone Discharge = 1740 [cls]
Average Depth = 2 43 [ft]
W/D Ratio = ' C C
Entrenchment Ratio= 1.3
Shear Stress= -
y [lb/sq.ft]
D84= 38 [mm]
Relevant Equations
Continuity Equation:
Q=VxA
Manning's Equation:
Q = 1.494(R)e(S)1
n
Shear Stress Equation:
10 = pgRS
Feature Offset Elevation Cross Section
Areas . ff. Wetted
Perimeter ft
Floodprone -38 14.0
-27 10.5 bank slope
Bankfull -19 10.5 3.1 16 10.50
-9 7,3 30.15 9.00
Max Depth 0 7.0 3.1 30.15 9.00
9 7.3 16 10.50
Bankfull 19 10.5
27 10.5
Flood rone 38 14.0 Total Area= 92.3 Wet Perimeter= 39.01
Biohabitats
Floodprone Channel Calculations
Cross Section Wetted
Areas .ff. Perimeter tt
1925 11.54
IA.fp 28 IP.fp 8:00
51 10.50
61.65 9.00
61.65 9.00
51 10.50
rA.fp 28 rP.fp 8.00-
1925 11.54
Total Area = 319.8 Wet Perimeter= 78.10
M M= mm r=
Stream Design Worksheet
Copyright of Biohabitats, Inc.
Cross Section Points Bankfull Channel Calculations
O.?,.Biohabitats
Floodprone Channel Calculations
C
ross
Secltion Wetted
A
as re
. Perimeter ft
30.25 12.30
IA.fp 22 IP.fp 4.00
104 13.93
107.5 10.01
107.5 10.01
104 13.93
rA.fp 22 rP.fp 4.00
30.25 12.30
Total Area 527.5 Wet Perimeter= 80.48
Feature Offset Elevation Cross Section
Areas . tt. Wetted
Perimeter fi
Floodprone -38 16.0
-27 10.5 bank slope
Bankfull -23 10.5 2.6 32.5 13.93
-10 5.5 20.0 52.5 10.01
Max Depth 0 5.0 2.0 52.5 10.01
10 5.5 32.5 13.93
Bankfull 23 10.5
27 10.5
,Flood prone 38 16.0 Total Area= 170 Wet Perimeter = 47.88
Input Variables
Mannings "n" of channel = 0.038
Mannings "n" of floodplaln = 0.1
Equivalent "n" for flood flows = 0.035
Channel Slope = 0.0039 (design alignment)
Design B.F. Discharge = 400 lets]
Bankfull Elevation = 10.50 N
Floodprons Elevation = 16 [ft]
Bankfull Width = 46 [ft]
Floodprone Width = 76 [ft]
Calculated Quantities
Cross Section Area = 170.0 [sq. ft.]
Wetted Perimeter= 47.9 [ft]
Hydraulic Radius = 3.55
- [ftl
Bankfull Discharge= see [cfs]
F.P. XSEC Area= 527.5 [sq. ft.]
F.P. Welled Perimeter = 80 [ft]
F.P. Hydraulic Radius = 6.55 [ft]
Floodprone Discharge = 4047 [cfs]
Average Depth = ? 7n [ft]
WID Ratio 1,14
Entrenchment Ratio =
Shear Stress= u.85 [lb/sq.ft.]
D84= 57 [mm]
Relevant Equations
Continuity Equation:
Q=VxA
Manning's Equation:
Q = 1.49 A (R)' (S)l
n
Shear Stress Equation:
¢o = pgRS
t
1

APPENDIX I
PROPOSED LONGITUDINAL PROFILES
i

53

1
CD

O O ?
az

cN

X LO

O

M W
N >t

O?
O

LLa- a w

cn 'I*

O
0

C
O
w

0

'
57< X

:3 x
a
00 o 0
000
? c

D C
m
W m m
w aa) m
W
0 0
J
(
c 0
o L
c O
o v
co co
co N
M
M
c o
o 0) co
N N ti
N m
N
c o M co M C7 M c o M M c o M
(11) UO IIBA 013

a?
O ? L

1
?C`7
L
o x?
O

i ?
i ?
U
N
N
U
?
L O
v
- O
j ? O
co
N
L

i
i C
i
i
1
1

(nU ?

?
w o

i o
mF

L
Oo?

t

L
=
a
?
a?
=
L
a
a
1
O
J

N

O
0
O
a?

CD o

w

0
0

C) Lf)

Cf) CL
O
cn
42
m
s
Z c. c
m
w
y 0

C>
W
o 0
00 1
C \l 0 0
M co 0 ( D
N M 0 4
M -
M' M (
(11) UO I;LIAG1 3

O ? N

' U

I
o
m
'
W o o
?

• O X
?
O
C N ?

i

? M y ?

W ? ? ?.

x
? -
.Q O L
O ? m O

> c