U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5242

Prepared in cooperation with the 

West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways 

and the West Virginia Conservation Agency

Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics 

in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

(v 1.1)
Cover. James Scott (U.S. Geological Survey, West Virginia Water Science Center) sets up to survey at Middle Fork 

at Audra, West Virginia.
Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel 

Characteristics in the Appalachian 

Plateaus, West Virginia

By Terence Messinger

Prepared in cooperation with the West Virginia Department of Transportation, 

Division of Highways and the West Virginia Conservation Agency

Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5242

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Messinger, Terence, 2009, Regional curves for bankfull channel characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West 

Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5242, 43 p.

ISBN 978-1-4113-2625-5
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Description of Study Area ............................................................................................................................1

Site Selection..................................................................................................................................................3

Channel Measurements................................................................................................................................4

Bankfull Features..................................................................................................................................4

High-Water-Mark Profiles ...................................................................................................................7

Relation of Profiles to Streamgages................................................................................................11

Bankfull Flow Frequencies................................................................................................................17

Bankfull Characteristics and Regional Curves .......................................................................................18

Flow.......................................................................................................................................................18

Dimensions...........................................................................................................................................18

Pattern and Profile..............................................................................................................................21

Stream Types .......................................................................................................................................25

West Virginia Regional Curves Compared to Regional Curves from Surrounding Areas.......25

Channel Dimensions from Flow Measurements at Streamgages in West Virginia........25

Valley and Ridge.........................................................................................................................25

Pennsylvania...............................................................................................................................26

Ohio ..............................................................................................................................................28

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................30

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................31

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................31
iv

Figures

1–3. Maps showing—

1. West Virginia and surrounding states, their physiography, and selected cities 

and rivers ..............................................................................................................................2

2. Regional curve planning regions, elevation, mean annual precipitation, and 

recent streamgages on unregulated streams in West Virginia...................................3

3. Regional curve sites in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, 

West Virginia ........................................................................................................................6

4–6. Graphs showing—

4. Profiles of selected gaged stream channels in the Appalachian Plateaus 

Physiographic Province of West Virginia......................................................................12

5. Profiles of selected ungaged stream channels in the Appalachian Plateaus 

Physiographic Province of West Virginia......................................................................13

6. Selected profiles of high-water marks from near-bankfull peaks, bankfull 

features, low-water surface, and thalwegs for reaches at streamgages at 

(A) Middle Fork at Audra and (B) Panther Creek near Panther, West Virginia .......14

7. Photograph of crest-stage streamgage at Marsh Fork at Maben, West Virginia ...........16

8–18. Graphs showing—

8. 1.5-year peak flow at streamgages draining less than 240 square miles in the 

Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, West Virginia, by region and 

end year of systematic record.........................................................................................17

9. Relation between bankfull flow and drainage area for selected wadable 

streams in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province 

in West Virginia ..................................................................................................................18

10. Bankfull flows compared to 1.5-year peak flows measured at streamgages 

on wadable streams in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in 

West Virginia ......................................................................................................................19

11. Bankfull flows compared to regression lines for 1.2-, 1.4-, 1.5-, and 1.7-year 

peak flows measured at streamgages on wadable streams in the Appalachian 

Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia......................................................19

12. Relation between bankfull area and drainage area for wadable streams in 

the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia.......................21

13. Relation between bankfull width and drainage area for wadable streams in 

the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia.......................22

14. Relation between bankfull depth and drainage area for wadable streams in 

the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia.......................22

15. Regional curve and 99-percent confidence interval for bankfull area of 

wadable streams in the Appalachian Plateaus Province in West Virginia, 

compared to curves developed for adjacent areas.....................................................26

16. Regional curve and 99-percent confidence interval for bankfull width of 

wadable streams in the Appalachian Plateaus Province in West Virginia, 

compared to curves developed for adjacent areas.....................................................27

17. Regional curve and 99-percent confidence interval for bankfull depth of 

wadable streams in the Appalachian Plateaus Province in West Virginia, 

compared to curves developed for adjacent areas.....................................................28

18. Regional curve and 99-percent confidence interval for bankfull flow of 

wadable streams in the Appalachian Plateaus Province in West Virginia, 

compared to curves developed for adjacent areas.....................................................29
v

Tables

1. Station numbers, drainage areas, locations, and streamgaging periods of record 

for regional curve sites for the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, 

West Virginia .................................................................................................................................5

2. Description of bankfull features, sediment particle size, and Manning’s roughness 

coefficient for stream cross sections in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic 

Province, West Virginia .............................................................................................................34

3. Dates of peak flows, flagging, description of storms, and quality and type of marks 

for high-water profiles and slope-area flow measurements made during regional 

curve development for the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, 

West Virginia .................................................................................................................................8

4. Bankfull dimensions and other characteristics of stream cross sections in the 

Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia.......................................39

5. Average bankfull characteristics of streams in the Appalachian Plateaus 

Physiographic Province in West Virginia ...............................................................................20

6. Bankfull characteristics and stream types of reaches in the Appalachian Plateaus 

Physiographic Province in West Virginia ...............................................................................23
vi

Conversion Factors and Datums

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in 

the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

By Terence Messinger

Abstract

Streams in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia were classified as a single region on the 

basis of bankfull characteristics. Regression lines for annual 

peak flow and drainage area measured at streamgages in the 

study area at recurrence intervals between 1.2 and 1.7 years 

fell within the 99-percent confidence interval of the regression 

line for bankfull flow. Channel characteristics were intermediate among those from surrounding states and regions where 

comparable studies have been done.

 The stream reaches that were surveyed were selected 

for apparent stability, and to represent gradients of drainage 

area, elevation, and mean annual precipitation. Profiles of 

high-water marks left by bankfull and near-bankfull peaks 

were surveyed, either as part of slope-area flow measurements 

at ungaged reaches, or to transfer known flow information to 

cross sections for gaged reaches. The slope-area measurements 

made it possible to include ungaged sites in the study, but still 

relate bankfull dimensions to peak flow and frequency.

Introduction

Regional curves (Dunne and Leopold, 1978) are regression equations that quantify relations within a region between 

bankfull channel characteristics and drainage area, and in 

some cases, other basin characteristics. They are used in natural channel design (NCD), which is a set of methods for restoring, rebuilding, or rerouting stream channels (Rosgen, 1996). 

Natural channel design practitioners use regional curves to 

design channels or to verify identification of bankfull features 

in reference reaches.

Stream restoration, of which NCD is a subset, is important in environmental management and policy and has become 

a growing business (Bernhardt and others, 2005). The National 

River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS) project estimated that at least $14 to $15 billion was spent on restoration 

of streams and rivers within the continental United States 

between 1990 and 2005 (Bernhardt, 2006; Bernhardt and 

others, 2005). Channel reconfiguration projects, a category 

which includes NCD, accounted for more than $1.3 billion of 

the overall total.

The concept of bankfull flow is central to NCD (Leopold, 

1994; Rosgen, 1996). Dimension, pattern, and profile of channels are considered to be maintained by bankfull flow, which 

is considered to be the effective flow or the flow that transports the most cumulative sediment over time (Rosgen, 1996). 

Bankfull flow, regardless of whether or not it is the effective 

flow, usually has a return period between 1 and 2 years when 

calculated from the annual-peak series, with 1.5 years close 

to average (Leopold and others, 1964). Stable channels, by 

definition, are changed little by flows of magnitudes that recur 

frequently, but channel instability can result from land-use and 

other changes that alter the magnitude of frequent peak flows.

The West Virginia Conservation Agency and the Division 

of Highways of the West Virginia Department of Transportation cooperated with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 

this project, one of a series of studies done in and near West 

Virginia, intended to provide information for NCD (Wiley and 

others, 2002; Messinger and Wiley, 2004; Keaton and others, 

2005). The Canaan Valley Institute facilitated the task force 

that identified the need for this series of studies.

The purpose of this report is to provide regional equations (regional curves) for bankfull characteristics of stable 

stream channels within the part of the Appalachian Plateaus 

Physiographic Province in West Virginia. Supporting information is provided on the development of the regional curves. 

Bankfull stream-channel characteristics are compared to those 

of adjacent regions.

Description of Study Area

The study area was defined as the part of West Virginia 

within the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province 

(fig. 1). The Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province is 

an area of flat-lying or gently folded rocks that formed when 

a peneplain was uplifted during the Appalachian Orogeny, 

and then was dissected by stream erosion in the ensuing 
2 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

300 million years (Fenneman, 1938). Elevation is highest in 

the east, where some peaks are higher than 4,000 ft (NAVD 

88), and lowest in the west, near the Ohio River, where the 

valley is lower than 600 ft (fig. 2). Relief is generally greatest 

at highest elevations. The Ohio River drains most of the study 

area (19,631 mi2), and the rest (329 mi2) is drained by the 

Potomac River.

Mean annual precipitation and maximum storm precipitation are not closely correlated. Maximum storm precipitation, 

as measured by any of several frequencies for storm intensity, 

is greatest in the southern and eastern parts of the study area 

and least in the northern and western parts of the study area 

(Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center, 2006a, 2006b). 

The eastern part of the study area is more frequently affected 

by Atlantic hurricanes than is the west, which accounts, in 

part, for the difference. Distribution of mean annual precipitation is related closely to elevation, and the greatest annual precipitation is received in the highest parts of the study area. The 

lowest mean annual precipitation in the study area is in the 

Northern Panhandle and the southern Greenbrier River Basin 

in the southeastern part of the study area, which is behind a 

pronounced rain shadow (fig. 2).

Land use, surface geology, and soils all covary with 

elevation within the study area (Messinger and Hughes, 2000). 

Generally, the highest population density and concentration of 

urban land is in river valleys in the northern and western parts 

Interior Low

Plateaus

Central Lowlands Appalachian Plateaus

Valley and Ridge

Blue Ridge

Piedmont

Coastal Plain

OHIO

WEST VIRGINIA

PENNSYLVANIA

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

MARYLAND

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, 1:2,000,000 digital files Physiography from Fenneman and Johnson, 1949, 1:7,000,000

Streams from U.S. Geological Survey, 1991, 1:2,000,000

Towns from U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, 1:2,000,000

PRINCETON

BECKLEY LEWISBURG

CHARLESTON

HUNTINGTON

PARKERSBURG CLARKSBURG

MORGANTOWN

ELKINS

WHEELING

WEIRTON

O h i o

R i

v

e r

G reenbrier Ri v e r

K a n a

w h a River

P o t omac River

84° 82° 80° 78°

40°

38°

0 20 40 60 MILES

0 20 40 60 KILOMETERS

Figure 1. West Virginia and surrounding states, their physiography, and selected cities and rivers. The study area is the part of the 

Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province within West Virginia.
Site Selection 3

of the study area. Commercial agriculture is limited in scope, 

and most commercial farms are near the downstream sections 

of the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers, and the Greenbrier River 

Basin. Forest cover is most dense in the mountains in central 

West Virginia. The largest cities in the study area, all with 

populations less than 51,000, are Charleston on the Kanawha 

River; Huntington, Parkersburg, and Wheeling on the Ohio 

River; and Morgantown on the Monongahela River (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2009). Because the largest urban areas in the 

study area are in the valleys of major rivers, increases in peak 

storm runoff caused by impervious urban lands are generally 

localized and most pronounced on a few small streams. 

Principal economic activities include coal mining, 

forestry, and oil and gas production, which are widespread 

throughout most of the study area; manufacturing, which 

is most common in areas near the Monongahela, Ohio, and 

Kanawha Rivers; and agriculture, which is most important 

commercially near the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers and in the 

Greenbrier River Basin (Messinger and Hughes, 2000). Of 

these, forestry and surface coal mining are widespread within 

the study area and have well-established, strong effects on 

storm hydrographs and peak flows. 

Site Selection

Planning regions were developed for this study on the 

basis of elevation and mean annual precipitation, which were 

the basin characteristics that explained the most variation in 

near-bankfull channel characteristics determined from analysis 

of flow measurements made at streamgages (Messinger and 

Wiley, 2004). The study area was divided into six planning 

regions, each representing areas with generally homogeneous 

elevation and mean annual precipitation (fig. 2). The siteselection goal was to have equal numbers of wadable sites 

draining small, medium, and large areas (less than 10, 10–100, 

Figure 2. Regional curve planning regions, elevation, mean annual precipitation (shown in white contours), and recent streamgages 

on unregulated streams in West Virginia.

40

44

48

48

48

52

52

52

56

60

48

44

40

36

40

36

32

40

56

40

40

40

0 20 40 60 MILES

0 20 40 60 KILOMETERS

78°

81°

40°

38°

Border between planning regions

Less than 15 

15–60

60–90

90–140

Greater than 140

STREAMGAGES BY DRAINAGE AREA, 

IN SQUARE MILES

ELEVATION, IN FEET

Less than 900

900–1,150

1,150–1,475

1,475–1,970

1,970–2,800

Greater than 2,800

40 Contour lines for mean annual 

precipitation, at 4-inch intervals

EXPLANATION

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, National Elevation Data, 1:24,000, NAD 83.

Precipitation data from U.S. Department of Commerce, 1960
4 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

and greater than 100 mi2) from each planning region. Wadable sites were those where a detailed profile of the thalweg 

could be measured while wading; a drainage area of 240 mi2

was adopted for planning, although several streams draining 

larger areas were reconnoitered and probably could have been 

surveyed during extreme low flows.

A competing goal for site selection was for all sites 

to have stable banks and readily identifiable bankfull features. Candidate reaches were excluded if banks were failing throughout most of their length, or if plausible bankfull 

features were not present. Gaged reaches were evaluated and 

included in the study if they met both these criteria.

Relatively few gaged reaches met these criteria, particularly when the streamgage was near a bridge or road. The 

majority of active streamgages were on non-wadable streams, 

although the majority of stream-restoration work is done on 

wadable streams. In addition, because available streamgages 

on wadable streams were disproportionately on the headwaters 

of major rivers, they were clustered in the central and eastern 

mountains of West Virginia (Messinger and Wiley, 2004).

Because not enough suitable gaged sites were available to 

build a network that could adequately represent the study area, 

ungaged sites were added. Two parts of the overall streamgaging record typically are used to develop regional curves: 

the high part of the stage-flow rating is used to determine 

bankfull flow, and the annual-peak series, based on 10 or more 

years of data, is used to confirm that bankfull flow is equivalent to a peak with an approximate recurrence interval of 1 

to 2 years. Slope-area measurements, which define the high 

end of the stage-flow rating at the great majority of USGS 

streamgages, could be made for near-bankfull peaks during the 

3-year duration of the project.

Determining the recurrence interval of a peak approximately equivalent to bankfull flow would normally be more 

problematic than determining its flow and would preclude 

using ungaged sites in a regional-curve network. However, 

regional frequency relations for frequent, low-magnitude 

annual peaks had already been developed for three regions in 

West Virginia and were published with a series of regression 

equations for estimating flows of frequencies ranging from 

the 1.1-year flow through the 5-year flow (Wiley and others, 

2002).

Streams that cross public land, including national parks, 

national forests, state parks, and wildlife management areas, 

were preferred in selecting ungaged reaches because these 

reaches were less likely to undergo adverse change in stream 

management and land use than were reaches on private land.

Not enough public lands were present in several planning 

regions to fill the gaps in the planning-region matrix. When 

suitable streams on public lands were not available, streams 

identified as candidate sites for antidegradation protection 

(West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, 

2005), draining appropriately sized areas, and in the desired 

locations, were assessed for inclusion in the study. The 

remaining reaches were identified in consultation with water 

or public-service professionals who were familiar with the 

area of interest. Only two suitable sites were identified in the 

Northern Panhandle after an extended reconnaissance effort, 

and this area remained underrepresented in the study (table 1; 

fig. 3).

Channel Measurements

Channels were surveyed with a total-station instrument. 

Second-order closure was achieved for all loops (Wolf and 

Ghilani, 2002). Longitudinal profiles were surveyed through 

a reach of at least 20 bankfull-channel widths. Reaches were 

comprised of two or more repeated sequences of riffles and 

pools. All profiles included thalwegs, water surface, plausible 

bankfull features, and high-water marks from a peak at or near 

apparent bankfull. Inner berms and point bars within the channel also were surveyed where they were present. Longitudinal 

stationing in the profiles was measured along the thalweg; a 

point in the thalweg was surveyed at the upstream and downstream bounds of the reach, at important changes in depth, and 

everywhere in the reach that other features were surveyed.

Cross sections were surveyed in riffles, preferably at the 

change in slope at the transition from pool to riffle. Two cross 

sections were surveyed at most gaged sites, although three 

were surveyed in reaches that included substantial changes 

in character. Cross sections were extended to an elevation of 

twice the maximum depth relative to the highest plausible 

bankfull feature. At some sites with wide forested or brushy 

flood plains (greater than 3 times bankfull width), the cross 

sections were surveyed for a minimum distance of 3 times 

bankfull width; the remaining distance to the edge of the flood 

plain was paced and its elevation was estimated.

At ungaged sites, cross sections were surveyed at major 

changes in the slope of the high-water profile for use in computing the slope-area measurement. At least four and as many 

as eight cross sections were surveyed at ungaged sites. At least 

two of the cross sections were surveyed according the same 

procedure used at gaged sites. The additional cross sections at 

ungaged sites were surveyed, at a minimum, to the higher of 

the high-water mark or the top of the bank.

Bankfull Features

For this study, the bankfull channel was defined as that 

part of the stream channel below the most distinct feature 

between the estimated elevations of the 1.1-year peak flow 

and the 2.0-year peak flow. Features used as indicators of the 

bankfull channel include, in order of preference and frequency 

used, rounded, vegetated, convex slope changes; bank substrate changes, particularly the edge of topsoil; sharp convex 

slope changes or those that showed other signs of instability; 

concave slope changes; and the elevation of an apparent flood 

plain. Each surveyed feature on a bank was described in written notes and assessed as to apparent quality (table 2 at end of 

report).
Channel Measurements 

5

Table 1. Station numbers, drainage areas, locations, and streamgaging periods of record for regional curve sites for the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, West Virginia.[mi2, square miles; SF, State Forest; SP, State Park; WMA, Wildlife Management Area]

Site Station number Drainage area 

(mi2)

Latitude

(decimal degrees)

Longitude

(decimal degrees)

Period of record

Anglins Creek near Nallen 03190100 23.5 38.141 -80.837 1998–2009Anthony Creek near Anthony 03182700 144 37.908 -80.292 1972–1982Barrenshe Run near Woodbine 381702080314401 3.51 38.284 -80.529 noneBig Draft near Anthony 375433080171001 3.06 37.909 -80.286 noneBig Sandy Creek near Rockville 03070500 200 39.616 -79.705 1909–1918, 1921–2009Blackwater River at Davis 03066000 85.9 39.126 -79.469 1921–2009Buck Run at Leopold 03152200 2.91 39.124 -80.691 1970–1977; 1994–2006Camp Creek near Camp Creek 03178500 32 37.504 -81.128 1947–1971Clear Fork at Clear Fork 03202750 126 37.623 -81.707 1974–2009Cranberry River near Richwood 03187500 80.4 38.295 -80.527 1944–1951, 1964–1982, 1984–2009East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow 03206600 37.5 38.017 -82.296 1964–2009Goose Creek below Petroleum 390912081190901 51.5 39.154 -81.319 noneHurricane Branch at Panther SF 372519081515301 2.31 37.422 -81.865 noneKings Creek near Weirton 03110830 48.9 40.436 -80.575 1976–1978, 2002–2009Knob Creek near Wade 394422080342601 10.9 39.740 -80.574 noneLaurel Fork near Hacker Valley 383911080225201 11.5 38.653 -80.381 noneLeft Fork Clover Run near St. George 390847079424801 20.1 39.147 -79.714 noneLittle Kanawha River near Wildcat 03151400 112 38.743 -80.527 1973–1983, 1985–2009Manilla Creek at Amherst-Plymouth WMA 383101081481401 10.78 38.517 -81.804 noneMarsh Fork of Mash Fork at Camp Creek SF 373054081080601 2.31 37.515 -81.135 noneMiddle Fork at Audra 03052000 148 39.040 -80.069 1942–1979, 1988 –2009Morgan Run near Cheat Lake 394137079490001 2.34 39.694 -79.817 noneNorth Fork Cherry River near Richwood 381311080234201 11.5 38.220 -80.395 nonePanther Creek near Panther 03213500 31 37.445 -81.871 1946–1986, 2002–2009Payne Branch near Oakvale 03177100 8.64 37.358 -80.978 1999–2009Piney Creek near McCreery 375041081054201 134 37.845 -81.095 1987–2009 (low discharge measurements only)Polly Hollow at Kanawha SF 381543081401401 0.86 38.262 -81.671 noneRock Creek near Danville 03199300 12.2 38.100 -81.830 1979–1984; 1999–2006Sand Run near Buckhannon 03052500 14.3 38.964 -80.153 1946–2009Second Creek near Second Creek 03183000 80.8 37.685 -80.457 1946–1973; 1997–1998Spruce Fork at Cabwaylingo SF 375755082212101 1.11 37.965 -82.356 noneUnnamed Tributary to Hughes River at North Bend SP 391253081055901 0.759 39.215 -81.100 noneUpper Nineteenmile Creek at Chief Cornstalk WMA 384449082012601 0.92 38.747 -82.024 noneWest Fork Greenbrier River above Durbin 383703079483001 26.4 38.618 -79.808 noneWest Fork Little Kanawha River near Rocksdale 03154000 205 38.844 -81.223 1928–1931, 1937–1975, 1975–2003Williams River at Dyer 03186500 128 38.379 -80.484 1929–2009Yellow Creek near Davis 39838079254101 2.28 39.144 -79.428 none
6 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

Figure 3. Regional curve sites in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, West Virginia.

Knob Creek near Wade

Buck Run near 

Leopold

Williams River at Dyer

Big Draft near Anthony

Yellow Creek near Davis

Rock Creek near Danville

Kings Creek near Weirton

Clear Fork at Clear Fork

Piney Creek near McCreery

Payne Branch near Oakvale

Goose Creek near Freeport

Anglins Creek 

near Nallen

Panther Creek

near Panther

Morgan Run near Cheat Lake

Barrenshe Run near Woodbine

East Fork Twelvepole 

Creek near Dunlow

Sand Run near Buckhannon

Blackwater River at Davis

Second Creek near Second Creek

Laurel Fork near 

Hacker Valley

Hurricane Branch 

at Panther SF

Big Sandy Creek near Rockville

Cranberry River 

near Richwood

Polly Hollow at Kanawha 

State Forest

Manilla Creek at Amherst-Plymouth WMA

Little Kanawha River near Wildcat

West Fork Little Kanawha 

River near Rocksdale

West Fork Greenbrier River

above Durbin

Spruce Fork at Cabwaylingo

State Forest

North Fork Cherry River near Richwood, WV

Upper Nineteenmile Creek 

at Chief Cornstalk WMA

Unnamed Tributary 

to Hughes River at 

North Bend State Park

Anthony Creek near Anthony

Marsh Fork of Mash Fork 

at Camp Creek SF

Camp Creek near 

Camp Creek

Middle Fork 

at Audra

Left Fork Clover Run 

near St. George

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, 1:2,000,000 digital files
Channel Measurements 7

Extra consideration was given to features when more 

than one was present at the same spot; for example, combinations of a distinct rounded convex slope change from the bank 

to the flood plain with mature plant growth, or a convex slope 

change at the edge of topsoil were regarded as especially good 

bankfull indicators.

In most reaches assessed in this study, there were one or 

more reaches with more than one feature on the bank at the 

same longitudinal station that could plausibly be regarded as 

the bankfull feature. In these cases, all the plausible bankfull 

features at the station of interest were surveyed, and the final 

determination of which to use was made with the profile plot 

used as a supplement to field notes.

High-Water-Mark Profiles

At all sites, a profile of high-water marks was flagged for 

a peak greater than half of apparent average bankfull depth, 

but inside the bank. At ungaged sites, the high-water marks 

were used to measure peak flow by the slope-area method 

(Dalrymple and Benson, 1967). Slope-area measurements 

were computed using the Slope-Area Computation program 

(Fulford, 1994) and checked using the HEC-RAS model (U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, 2009). At gaged sites, flow was 

determined for the flagged peak using the station rating or 

the stage-flow relation defined by current-meter and indirectflow measurements (Rantz and others, 1982). The peak flow 

measured at the streamgage was used to verify roughness in 

the reach.

High-water marks were flagged as soon as practical 

after flow peaked or, in two cases, the high-water surface was 

flagged while still at near-bankfull flow (table 3). If distinct, 

continuous high-water-marks were present, high-water marks 

were flagged at minimum longitudinal distances equivalent to 

estimated bankfull width, and closer together in parts of the 

reach where slope appeared to change. If only a few highwater marks were distinct, all the distinct marks were flagged. 

The date and the type and quality of the mark were written on 

a strip of plastic survey flagging, then pinned to the mark with 

a nail. Once flagged, sites were surveyed when convenient.

The most commonly used high-water marks were wash 

lines in leaf litter on the bank. Other fairly common highwater marks were deposits of ground-up tree leaves, hemlock 

or spruce needles, and depending on season, seed lines. Mud 

stains on plants or fallen leaves were generally indistinct and 

used at only two or three sites, but at those sites, they were 

the predominant high-water mark. Roughness values for the 

ungaged sites were determined by comparing sections of 

stream channel to sections of stream channel from gaged sites 

with verified roughness values and to published photographs 

of reaches with verified roughness values (Barnes, 1967), then 

were compared with roughness values computed using two 

different formulas (Jarrett, 1984; Limerinos, 1970). Roughness values exceeding those calculated from the formulas were 

used when field notes and photographs supported the higher 

values, for example, when a cross section was affected by 

backwater from a log or boulder downstream.

The high-water-mark profiles were used to supplement, 

or at most sites, replace the use of estimated channel dimensions from flow measurements at streamgages as a means 

of choosing among plausible bankfull features at the same 

longitudinal station. Instead of referring to estimated bankfull 

elevations and dimensions derived from flow measurements, 

the elevation of a plausible bankfull feature was compared 

to that of the high-water-mark profile, while considering the 

frequency of the peak. At gaged sites, the magnitude and 

frequency of the peak that left the marks was known. The 

frequency of peak flow at ungaged sites was estimated by 

comparison to flow at index streamgages, taking into account 

the differences in storm precipitation among basins.

For example, at Cranberry River near Richwood, flow 

peaked on the night of November 16, 2006, at 3,010 ft3/s, just 

less than the 1.2-year flow for the site and about the 2.0-year 

flow for the Southern Region (Wiley and others, 2002). The 

profile was flagged the next morning. Nine high-water marks, 

all wash lines, were flagged; seven were good, and two were 

fair. Identification of bankfull features was relatively simple at 

this site. All the bankfull features surveyed were points where 

a convex slope change from the narrow flood plain to the bank 

coincided with the edge of the topsoil. Because the bed and 

banks were dominated by large boulders (D84 (84th percentile 

of particle size) = 2.12 ft at one cross section and greater than 

6.00 ft at the other), the bankfull features were not continuous for extended lengths in the reach, and in fact, identifiable 

bankfull features were not present in segments of the profile 

where they would have been useful to measure. Through most 

of the reach, flow peaked at or just above bankfull features, 

although the bankfull features in the riffles were lower relative 

to the high-water marks than were the features in the pools 

(fig. 4). At XS2, the upstream cross section, the primary bankfull feature was the edge of topsoil, which collected among 

jagged, poorly eroded rocks, coincident with a convex slope 

change on the left bank, and it was rated as fair. An additional 

bankfull feature on the right bank was only 0.17 ft higher 

and was described as a rounded convex slope change formed 

of topsoil and anchored by tree and mountain laurel roots. 

At XS1, the downstream cross section, the primary bankfull 

feature, on the left bank, was a lumpy, convex slope change 

from a depositional shelf to the bank that coincided with the 

edge of topsoil and was rated as good. The bankfull feature 

on the right bank also was surveyed; it was only 0.36 ft lower 

and was a rounded, distinct convex slope change from a gently 

sloping section of bank to a steeper section of bank, coincided 

with the edge of topsoil, and was covered with well-established moss. Bankfull flow was calculated to be 1,380 ft3

/s 

at XS2, the upstream cross section, and 2,070 ft3/s at XS1, 

the downstream cross section, for an average of 1,720 ft3/s 

for the reach. Although the calculated bankfull flow was less 

than expected and inconsistent between the cross sections, the 
8 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia Table 3. Dates of peak flows, flagging, description of storms, and quality and type of marks for high-water profiles and slope-area flow measurements made during regional curve development for the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, West Virginia.—Continued [ft3/s, cubic feet per second; SF, State Forest; SP, State Park; WMA, Wildlife Management Area; SA, slope-area measurement; G, flow determination from established stage-flow rating at a streamgage; Frequency region, from Wiley and others, 2002] Site Peak date Flag date Description of storm Quality and type of marks Flow (ft3/s) Frequency region Frequency Method of flow measurement Anglins Creek near Nallen March 16, 2007 March 22, 2007 Statewide rain Mostly poor. Mostly mud stains. Few us- able marks overall. 786 South 1.3

G

Anthony Creek near Anthony June 27, 2006 June 28, 2006 Locally heavy rain from 

widespread thunderstorms

Good. Wash lines. 8,480 South 3.0

G

Barrenshe Run near Woodbine March 2, 2007 April 4, 2007 Statewide rain Poor or fair. Mostly wash lines, a few seed 

lines.

166 South 1.3 SA

Big Draft near Anthony March 16, 2007 March 22, 2007 Statewide rain Mostly fair, a few good or excellent. Hemlock needle or fine leaf debris lines. 94 South 1.1 SABig Sandy Creek near Rockville August 21, 2007 August 22, 2007 Statewide rain Good. Mostly fine leaf debris, a few wash 

lines.

6,370 East 2.5

G

Blackwater River at Davis April 15, 2007 April 15, 2007 Statewide rain Excellent. Flagged water surface during 

near-bankfull flow.

1,480 East 1.2

G

Buck Run at Leopold January 21, 2006 January 24, 2006 Statewide rain Fair. Wash lines and seedlines, but not 

generally continuous, and only a few were distinct.

201 North 1.3

G

Camp Creek near Camp Creek June 27, 2006 June 28, 2006 Locally heavy rain from 

widespread thunderstorms

Mostly fair or good, a few poor. Mostly 

wash lines.

1,550 South 2.5

G

Clear Fork at Clear Fork April 7, 2006 April 11, 2006 Statewide rain Good. Mostly wash lines. 3,270 South 1.4

G

Cranberry River near Richwood November 16, 

2006

November 17, 

2006

Locally heavy rain Excellent, good, or fair. Nearly all wash 

lines.

3,010 South 2.0

G

East Fork Twelvepole Creek 

near Dunlow

October 30, 2006 October 31, 2006 Intense local thunderstorm Good to excellent. Fine debris, mud stains. 859 South 1.1

G

Goose Creek near Petroleum April 15, 2007 May 17, 2007 Statewide rain Fair or good fine leaf debris lines; a few 

poor wash lines.

1,580 North 1.2

G

Hurricane Branch at Panther SF March 16, 2007 March 19, 2007 Statewide rain Good. Mostly wash lines. 65 South 1.1 SA
Channel Measurements 

9

Table 3. Dates of peak flows, flagging, description of storms, and quality and type of marks for high-water profiles and slope-area flow measurements made during regional curve development for the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, West Virginia.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; SF, State Forest; SP, State Park; WMA, Wildlife Management Area; SA, slope-area measurement; G, flow determination from established stage-flow rating at a streamgage; Frequency region, from Wiley and others, 2002]

Site Peak date Flag date Description of storm Quality and type of marks Flow (ft3/s) Frequency region Frequency Method of flow measurement

Kings Creek near Weirton December 17, 2007 December 18, 2007 Widespread system 

throughout Northern Panhandle and Western Pennsylvania

Mostly good, some fair or excellent. 

Mostly wash lines, some mixed fine leaf debris/seed lines.

604 North 1.7 SA

Knob Creek near Wade August 21, 2007 August 22, 2007 Intense local thunderstorms Good. Two profiles, mostly fine leaf debris on lower, wash lines or fine leaf debris 

on higher.

449 North 1.2 SA

Laurel Fork near Hacker Valley March 16, 2007 April 17, 2007 Statewide rain Mostly fair, a few poor or good. Wash 

lines.

340 South 1.1 SA

Left Fork Clover Run near St. 

George

April 15, 2007 August 9, 2007 Statewide rain Good. Mix of wash lines, fine leaf debris, 

and seed lines. Marks were old but distinct, and lined up well when surveyed.

616 East 1.5 SA

Little Kanawha River near 

Wildcat

April 7, 2006; 

June 27, 2006

April 20, 2006; 

June 29, 2006

Statewide rain; locally heavy rain from 

widespread thunderstorms

Good or fair. Wash lines, fine leaf debris 

lines.

4,200 North 2.0 G

Manilla Creek at AmherstPlymouth WMA January 21, 2006 January 25, 2006 Statewide rain Excellent. A nearly continuous wash line on left bank throughout the reach. 669 South 2.5 SAMarsh Fork of Mash Fork at 

Camp Creek SF

June 27, 2006 June 27, 2006 Locally heavy rain from 

widespread thunderstorms

Excellent. Flagged high water surface as 

flow peaked.

99 South 1.1 SA

Middle Fork at Audra March 16, 2007 March 22, 2007 Statewide rain Mostly good. Wash lines or fine leaf 

debris.

3,130 North 1.1 G

Morgan Run near Cheat Lake August 21, 2007 August 22, 2007 Local thunderstorm Poor. Mix of wash lines and seed lines. 53 East 1.1 SANorth Fork Cherry River near 

Richwood

November 16, 

2006

November 17, 

2006

Locally heavy rain Excellent. Most were clean wash lines. 535 South 1.5 SA

Panther Creek near Panther March 16, 2007 March 19, 2007 Statewide rain Fair or poor. Mix of wash lines and fine 

leaf debris lines.

1,280 South 1.7 G

Payne Branch near Oakvale March 16, 2007 March 21, 2007 Statewide rain Mostly fair, a few good or excellent. 

Mostly wash lines, a few fine leaf debris lines.

306 South 1.2 G
10 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia Table 3. Dates of peak flows, flagging, description of storms, and quality and type of marks for high-water profiles and slope-area flow measurements made during regional curve development for the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, West Virginia.—Continued [ft3/s, cubic feet per second; SF, State Forest; SP, State Park; WMA, Wildlife Management Area; SA, slope-area measurement; G, flow determination from established stage-flow rating at a streamgage; Frequency region, from Wiley and others, 2002] Site Peak date Flag date Description of storm Quality and type of marks Flow (ft3/s) Frequency region Frequency Method of flow measurement Piney Creek near McCreery April 7, 2006 April 13, 2006 Locally heavy rain Poor. Mix of wash lines and seed lines. 2,253 South 1.1 SA Polly Hollow at Kanawha SF April 15, 2007 April 16, 2007 Statewide rain Poor, fair, and good wash lines. 38 South 1.1 SA Rock Creek near Danville April 15, 2007 April 17, 2007 Statewide rain Fair or good. Wash lines or fine leaf debris lines. Few marks overall. 705 South 2.0

G

Sand Run near Buckhannon November 29, 

2005

December 1, 2005 Locally heavy rain Fair or poor. Mix of wash lines, trash lines. 623 North 1.3

G

Second Creek near Second 

Creek

June 27, 2006 June 28, 2006 Locally heavy rain from 

widespread thunderstorms

Mostly good, a few fair. Wash lines. 2,660 South 1.7

G

Spruce Fork at Cabwaylingo SF April 15, 2007 April 17, 2007 Statewide rain Most fair or good, a few poor or excellent. 

Seed lines, wash lines, and fine leaf debris lines.

31 South 1.1 SA

Unnamed Tributary to Hughes 

River at North Bend SP

April 15, 2007 May 16, 2007 Statewide rain Good. Seed lines. 17 North 1.7 SA

Upper Nineteenmile Creek at 

Chief Cornstalk WMA

January 21, 2006 January 25, 2006 Statewide rain Good. All marks at cross sections were 

wash lines; trash and leaf debris lines elsewhere in reach.

91 South 2.0 SA

West Fork Greenbrier River 

above Durbin

March 16, 2007 August 7, 2007 Statewide rain Mostly poor or fair. Wash lines and a few 

fine leaf debris lines. Only marks at upstream end of reach lined up well.

1,188 South 1.9 SA

West Fork Little Kanawha River 

near Rocksdale

April 15, 2007 April 18, 2007 Statewide rain Fair or good. Mud stains. 5,880 South 1.8

G

Williams River at Dyer March 16, 2007 March 23, 2007 Statewide rain Good or fair. Wash lines. 7,780 South 3.0

G

Yellow Creek near Davis June 27, 2006 June 29, 2006 Locally heavy rain Fair. Mix of wash lines, fine leaf debris, 

and hemlock needle lines.

160 East 3.0 SA
Channel Measurements 11

features at the cross sections were good, consistent on both 

banks, and comparable to the high-water-mark profile, and so 

were used for computing bankfull dimensions.

At another site, West Fork Little Kanawha River near 

Rocksdale, on April 15, 2007, flow peaked at 5,880 ft3/s, 

corresponding to the 1.8-year flow for the Southern Region 

of West Virginia or the 1.4-year flow calculated for that site 

(Wiley and others, 2002; table 1). The peak was flagged 2 days 

later, and the marks, mostly mud stains on grass, were generally fair, although a few were good. In contrast to Cranberry 

River near Richwood, identifying bankfull features at West 

Fork Little Kanawha River near Rocksdale was problematic. The channel was incised; through most of the reach, the 

banks were complex, and several depositional features, any 

of which might plausibly have been bankfull features, were 

present (fig. 4; table 2). The most distinct bankfull features 

were in the pools, which made up most of the reach, but these 

features were not continuous into the riffles. Throughout most 

of the reach, the top of the bank was noted to be an exceptionally distinct convex slope change from a wide, generally flat 

wooded area to a steep bank; this feature was judged to be a 

terrace because it was several feet above the high-water-mark 

profile. At both cross sections, several plausible bankfull features were present. At the upstream cross section, four features 

were surveyed and described, but three of them were judged 

to be poor. The most distinct of them, a convex slope change 

on the left bank, anchored by tree roots and rated as fair, was 

chosen as the bankfull feature to determine cross-sectional 

dimensions, although it was higher than the trend line for 

bankfull features through the reach. At the downstream cross 

section, three plausible bankfull features were surveyed and 

described. Two of the three were judged to be poor; both were 

abrupt convex slope changes. The feature which best fit the 

trendline of bankfull features was at the top of a recent slump 

and was judged to be poor. The feature chosen to determine 

cross-sectional dimensions was at the top of the left bank—a 

sharp convex slope change from flood plain to a steeply sloping bank. Established weed growth was noted, and the feature 

was judged to be fair.

Bankfull features were compared to high-water-mark 

profiles at all sites, even if, as at East Fork Twelvepole Creek 

near Dunlow (fig. 4, table 3), the high-water-mark profile was 

left by a storm peak that was substantially lower than expected 

for bankfull flow. The high-water-mark profile was used in 

generally the same way at ungaged sites. At Manilla Creek 

near Poca, for instance, the top of the bank was judged as the 

apparent bankfull feature during site reconnaissance. Flow 

peaked at 669 ft3/s on January 21, 2006, which corresponded 

to about the 2.5-year flow for West Virginia’s Southern Region 

(Wiley and others, 2002). The feature at the top of the bank 

was at the high-water-mark profile through the upstream part 

of the reach but about a foot higher than the high-water-mark 

profile for the downstream part of the reach (fig. 5). That 

feature was judged to be a terrace, and a different, lower set 

of features identified in reconnaissance as the inner berm was 

chosen as the bankfull feature. At Laurel Fork near Hacker 

Valley, at least two plausible bankfull features were present 

through most of the reach. The high-water-mark profile was 

left by a peak of 340 ft3/s, about the 1.1-year flow for the 

Southern Region of West Virginia (Wiley and others, 2002), 

and the peak was near the lower of the two features (fig. 5). At 

sites like Big Draft near Anthony, where, similar to Cranberry 

River near Richwood, the flagged peak was very near bankfull and only one set of plausible features was present (fig. 5), 

identification of bankfull features would probably have been 

straightforward using any procedure.

Relation of Profiles to Streamgages

In addition to this difference in confirming the identification of bankfull features, the other major departure from 

methods described by Leopold (1994) and Rosgen (1996) 

was a difference in the way data collected at the streamgage 

were used to determine bankfull flow. Typically, a profile of 

bankfull features is surveyed upstream and downstream from 

a streamgage, a line is fit through a plot of the profile, and 

the elevation of the line at the streamgage is compared to the 

stage-flow rating. However, this approach can give inaccurate 

results under common, predictable conditions.

First, the use of a fitted line assumes that bankfull elevation falls through the reach in a more or less linear manner. 

Although this is true in some streams—particularly lowgradient, meandering streams—a common pattern in rifflepool streams is for profiles to be stepped, with relatively little 

fall in pools and most of the fall in riffles (fig. 6; Leopold, 

1994). Plots of bankfull features are nearly parallel to plots of 

high-water marks. Steps are less pronounced at bankfull flow 

than at lower flows but are still clear. High-water-mark profiles show the stepped pattern more clearly than do bankfull 

profiles because, in most streams, bankfull features form at 

a greater range of elevations through a reach than do marks 

left by a single peak. In addition, bankfull features are more 

difficult to identify precisely than high-water marks left by 

bankfull flow. (Exceptions might include high-water marks 

in steep streams with turbulent flow and a substrate of mobile 

boulders, where standing waves move through the reach as the 

boulders they form over move downstream.)

If all the pools and riffles in a reach had approximately 

the same slopes and lengths, then the principal source of error 

in profile-rating relations in a stepped profile with correctly 

identified features would be the position of a streamgage on its 

pool relative to the positions within the reach of the features 

selected for identification. If features are identified at equal 

intervals through a stepped reach, a line fit through them will 

pass through features near the center of pools and riffles. Features at the upstream end of a pool will fall below the line, and 

features near the downstream end of a pool will fall above the 

line. This idea is confirmed by field observations of high-water 

marks left by a pair of near-bankfull peak flows. The Middle 

Fork at Audra streamgage is near the upstream end of its pool, 

and an observed peak gage height confirmed by a good highwater mark at the streamgage structure was 0.91 ft below a 

trendline fit through the profile of high-water marks (fig. 6a). 
12 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

High-water-mark profile

Streamgage

Streamgage

Streamgage

Bankfull

features

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

West Fork Little Kanawha River near Rocksdale

DISTANCE FROM UPSTREAM END OF REACH, IN FEET

XS2 XS1

Bankfull

features

Water surface

Thalweg

Features with some characteristics 

of bankfull features

East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow

XS1 XS2

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

95

75

80

85

90

Water surface

Bankfull features

Thalweg

Thalweg

High-water-mark profile

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Cranberry River near Richwood

XS1

XS2

Water surface

Bankfull

features

High-water-mark profile

HEIGHT ABOVE ARBITRARY DATUM, IN FEET

Figure 4. Profiles of selected gaged stream channels in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province of West Virginia. 
Channel Measurements 13

1,500

Manilla Creek near Poca

115

600

Big Draft near Anthony

105

1,000

Laurel Fork near Hacker Valley

Thalweg

Thalweg

XS1 XS2 XS3 XS4 XS5

XS5 XS4 XS3 XS2 XS1

XS1 XS2 XS3 XS4

Thalweg

95

100

105

0 100 200 300 400 500

90

95

100

105

110

110

0 500 1,000

0 200 400 600 800

85

90

95

100

DISTANCE FROM UPSTREAM END OF REACH, IN FEET

HEIGHT ABOVE ARBITRARY DATUM, IN FEET

High-water-mark profile

High-water-mark profile

High-water-mark profile

Water surface

Water surface

Water surface

Bankfull features

Bankfull

features

Bankfull

features

Features with some characteristics 

of bankfull features

Features with some characteristics 

of bankfull features

Figure 5. Profiles of selected ungaged stream channels in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province of West Virginia. 
14 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

Figure 6. Selected profiles of high-water marks from near-bankfull peaks, bankfull features, low-water surface, and thalwegs 

for reaches at streamgages at (A) Middle Fork at Audra and (B) Panther Creek near Panther, West Virginia. High-water marks, 

bankfull features, and low-water surface all have slope changes at approximately the same location. Differences in stage, flow, and 

frequency are shown between water-surface elevation of a measured high-water mark and a line fit through the high-water-mark 

profile. 

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Bankfull features

Low-water surface

Thalweg

HEIGHT ABOVE ARBITRARY DATUM,

IN FEET

High-water-mark profile

Line fit through

high-water-mark profile

Streamgage

A

Observed

high-water

mark

Streamgage

Trendline estimate

106

108

110

1,350 1,400 1,450

0.91 ft

DISTANCE FROM UPSTREAM

END OF REACH, IN FEET

HEIGHT ABOVE ARBITRARY DATUM, IN FEET

DISTANCE FROM UPSTREAM END OF REACH, IN FEET

Stage = 10.03 ft

Flow = 6,620 ft3/s

Frequency = 2.5 yr

Stage = 9.12 ft

Flow = 5,400 ft3/s

Frequency = 1.7 yr
Channel Measurements 15

Figure 6. Selected profiles of high-water marks from near-bankfull peaks, bankfull features, low-water surface, and thalwegs 

for reaches at streamgages at (A) Middle Fork at Audra and (B) Panther Creek near Panther, West Virginia. High-water marks, 

bankfull features, and low-water surface all have slope changes at approximately the same location. Differences in stage, flow, and 

frequency are shown between water-surface elevation of a measured high-water mark and a line fit through the high-water-mark 

profile. —Continued HEIGHT ABOVE ARBITRARY DATUM, IN FEET

B

85

90

95

100

0 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

High-water-mark

profile

Bankfull features

Low-water

surface

Thalweg

High-water marks

Streamgage

150 175 200

95

97

96

Observed

high-water

mark

Streamgage

Trendline estimate

0.52 ft

DISTANCE FROM UPSTREAM

END OF REACH, IN FEET

Stage = 6.68 ft

Flow = 1,000 ft3/s

Frequency = 1.4 yr

Stage = 6.16 ft

Flow = 757 ft3/s

Frequency = 1.2 yr

DISTANCE FROM UPSTREAM END OF REACH, IN FEET

200

HEIGHT ABOVE ARBITRARY DATUM, IN FEET
16 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

The Panther Creek at Panther streamgage is at the downstream 

end of its pool, and an observed peak gage height confirmed 

by a good high-water mark at the streamgage structure was 

0.52 ft above a trendline fit through the profile of high-water 

marks (fig. 6b). Errors of these magnitudes in the near-bankfull part of ratings correspond to large errors in flow estimates. At Middle Fork at Audra, a 0.91 ft difference in gage 

height (between an estimate of 10.03 ft and an observation 

of 9.12 ft) corresponds to an overestimation of peak flow of 

1,220 ft3/s (estimating 6,620 ft3/s when the measured flow was 

5,400 ft3/s, or 23 percent). The frequency for the estimated 

peak is about 2.5 years, but 1.7 years for the measured peak. 

At Panther Creek at Panther, a 0.52 ft difference in gage height 

(between an estimate of 6.16 ft and an observation of 6.68 ft) 

corresponds to an underestimation of peak flow of 243 ft3/s 

(estimating 757 ft3/s when the measured flow was 1,000 ft3/s, 

or about 24 percent). However, the frequency of this estimated 

peak is about 1.2 years and, for the measured peak, 1.4 years.

If features are identified primarily at the same position 

in pools and riffles as the streamgage is located, then a line fit 

through them will accurately reflect the profile elevation at the 

streamgage. If more features are identified near the upstream 

ends of pools and riffles than near the downstream ends, then 

the profile will be shifted artificially upward, and the profile will be shifted artificially downward if disproportionate 

numbers of features are identified near the downstream ends of 

pools and riffles.

In the field, the investigator may have little choice as 

to where to identify features along a profile, especially in 

problematic reaches with few identifiable features or features 

that are not continuous through the reach. Selecting additional, 

poorly defined features because they are at a position in the 

profile where they would be convenient is unlikely to increase 

the accuracy of estimated flow.

Another major source of variation in the relation between 

the profile and rating is the effect of bridges and culverts on 

ratings. Streamgages are built where a stable feature controls 

the stage-flow rating throughout the range of stages. The highwater control is typically a constriction in the channel, and a 

box culvert or bridge with piers at mid-channel often makes an 

ideal high-water control. Furthermore, streamgages are deliberately installed near roads because easy access not only saves 

effort and money but improves the quality of the flow record 

by making it faster and easier to reach the site to measure flow 

and service instruments. If a streamgage can be built where the 

stream can be measured from a bridge, then the expense and 

risk of building a cableway is spared. Often, streamgages are 

attached to bridges.

Locating streamgages upstream from bridges that control 

water-surface elevation puts the streamgage in backwater at 

bankfull, or lower, flow. This means that depth is artificially 

greater at the streamgage than elsewhere in the reach. Bridges 

also may cause streambeds to scour and banks to erode, so 

banks near bridges and culverts are frequently armored with 

riprap or gabions (fig. 7). In these cases, natural bankfull 

features at the streamgage no longer exist, the channel at the 

streamgage may be unrepresentative of the rest of the reach, 

and bankfull elevations from elsewhere in the reach are unrelated to elevations at the streamgage.

At gaged sites, slope and roughness values were calculated from the high-water-mark profile using the flow measured at the streamgage. At ungaged sites, the slope and roughness values determined in the slope-area flow measurement 

were used to calculate bankfull flow. For all reaches, roughness values were adjusted for differences in depth between the 

high-water-mark and the bankfull profile before computing 

bankfull flow. The adjustment for depth was made by calculating a theoretical roughness value for each cross section in 

the high-water-mark and bankfull profiles using the formula 

of Jarrett (1984). The ratio of these two roughness values was 

computed, then multiplied by the roughness values determined 

for the high-water-mark profiles to obtain bankfull roughness. 

These bankfull roughness values were used in Manning’s 

equation to compute bankfull flow for each cross section. The 

bankfull flows were then averaged for the reach.

Figure 7. Crest-stage streamgage at Marsh Fork at Maben, 

West Virginia.
Channel Measurements 17

Bankfull Flow Frequencies

Regional peak-flow magnitudes with frequencies between 

1.1 and 3.0 years had been previously computed for West 

Virginia (Wiley and others, 2002), which was split into three 

regions, the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Regions, on 

the basis of geographic analysis of regression residuals. The 

Northern and Southern Regions are entirely within the study 

area for this project, as is part of the Eastern Region.

The regression equations were developed with the goal of 

providing information to be used in NCD and related studies. 

The equations for each of the regions are significantly different 

(p < 0.05; Wiley and others, 2002) from those of the other two 

regions. However, for the purposes of this study, new regression equations were developed by combining annual-peak 

flow data from all the streamgages within the Appalachian Plateaus on streams draining less than 240 mi2

. Regional regression equations from the previous study were not used because 

of four reasons. First, among the smaller streams, a group of 

short-term streamgages operated approximately from 1966 

through 1977, a period that included a major drought, are clustered closely together on a plot of 1.5-year annual peak flow as 

a function of drainage area and are among the stations with the 

lowest 1.5-year annual peak flow (fig. 8). Although stations in 

all three regions are in this cluster, there are fewer long-term 

streamgages in the Southern Region than in the other regions, 

so the streamgages from this cluster had an exaggerated effect 

on the Southern Region’s regression equation. Second, the 

regional equations appear to have been strongly influenced by 

larger streams, which both accounted for most of the available data and were much more likely to have long periods 

of record and, therefore, to have data collected through wet 

and dry climatic periods. Third, R2 and standard error for the 

regional equations were only slightly different than for the 

aggregated equation. Fourth, and most important, geographic 

analysis of bankfull characteristics, as discussed later in this 

report, showed no regional difference within the Appalachian 

Plateaus, and a comparison of bankfull characteristics from 

a single region to a single peak-flow frequency relation was 

simpler and more relevant.

Figure 8. 1.5-year peak flow at streamgages draining less than 240 square miles in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, 

West Virginia, by region and end year of systematic record.

10.0

1.0

100.0

1,000.0

10,000.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

1.5-YEAR PEAK FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Crest-stage streamgage operated beginning 

in 1963–1967, and discontinued in 1977

All other streamgages, including crest-stage 

streamgages operated during 1990s

North Region

East Region

South Region

Data from Wiley and others, 2002.
18 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

Bankfull Characteristics and Regional 

Curves

Bankfull flow and dimensions were determined from 

cross sections surveyed at riffles (table 4 at end of report). 

A single set of regional curves was developed, on the basis 

of simple linear regression of bankfull characteristics as a 

function of drainage area. All the bankfull characteristics that 

were determined were strongly correlated with drainage area. 

Enough of the variation was explained by that single independent variable that exploring finer regional variation, or effects 

of other basin characteristics, was unlikely to provide meaningful results.

Flow

At the 10 active streamgages with more than 10 years of 

record, bankfull flows ranged from less than the 1.1-year flow 

to greater than the 2.0-year flow. The other streamgages that 

were available were one continuous streamgage with less than 

10 years of data; crest-stage streamgages, which had relatively short periods of record; and discontinued streamgages. 

Furthermore, the periods of record were not concurrent among 

short-term stations. These factors complicate direct comparison of peak-flow frequencies among the sites, so an approach 

was adopted of comparing bankfull flow to peak flows of 

specific frequencies from all the streamgages in the study area 

in the comparable size range. 

Drainage area accounted for slightly more of the variation for bankfull flows (R2

 = 0.9592; Standard error (SE) = 

13.7 percent) than it did for the variation in 1.5-year peak 

flows measured at streamgages on wadable streams in the 

Appalachian Plateaus (R2 = 0.9326; SE = 19.5 percent; table 5; 

figs. 9, 10). The regression lines for flows at the 1.2-, 1.3-, 

1.4-, 1.5-, 1.6-, and 1.7-year recurrence intervals, computed for 

streamgages on wadable streams in the Appalachian Plateaus 

(fig. 11), all fell within the 99-percent confidence interval of 

the regression line for bankfull flow (for legibility, the lines 

for the 1.3- and 1.6-year flows are not depicted on fig. 11). The 

closest match to the regression line for bankfull flows is the 

line for the 1.4-year peak flow for the Appalachian Plateaus.

Dimensions

Bankfull area strongly (R2 = 0.9768; SE = 8.5 percent) 

and significantly (P < 0.001) correlated with drainage area 

(table 4; fig. 12). An R2 value of 0.9768 for bankfull area 

indicates that little additional variation can be explained by 

subdividing the study area by region, stream type, geology, 

or other characteristics. West Fork Little Kanawha River near 

Rocksdale, the site with the greatest positive residual value for 

bankfull area, was initially selected as a candidate site for a 

possible subregion, the Western Foothills. However, the banks 

at this site were among the least stable, and bankfull features 

at this site were among the least distinct included in the study, 

both of which increase the possibility that bankfull dimensions 

for this site might be wrong. Because the other sites in this 

Figure 9. Relation 

between bankfull flow and 

drainage area for selected 

wadable streams in the 

Appalachian Plateaus 

Physiographic Province in 

West Virginia. 

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0

10.0

100.0

1,000.0

10,000.0

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

BANKFULL FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

99-percent

confidence

interval

Flow = 59.81 DA(0.8538)

R2 = 0.9592

Standard error = 13.7 percent
Bankfull Characteristics and Regional Curves 19

Figure 10. Bankfull flows 

compared to 1.5-year 

peak flows measured 

at streamgages on 

wadable streams in the 

Appalachian Plateaus 

Physiographic Province in 

West Virginia.

Figure 11. Bankfull flows 

compared to regression 

lines for 1.2-, 1.4-, 1.5-, 

and 1.7-year peak flows 

measured at streamgages 

on wadable streams in 

the Appalachian Plateaus 

Physiographic Province in 

West Virginia.

0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100 1,000

10

1

100

1,000

10,000

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Bankfull flow

1.5-year peak flow in:

Northern region

Southern region

Eastern region

Data, regions from Wiley and others, 2002.

100

10

1,000

10,000

FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

0.1 1.0 10 100 1,000

1.7-year peak flow

1.2-year peak flow

1.4-year peak flow

1.5-year peak flow

Regression lines for:

Bankfull flow

99-percent confidence

interval of bankfull flow
20 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

Table 5. Average bankfull characteristics of streams in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia.

[ft, feet; ft2, square feet; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; SF, State Forest; SP, State Park; WMA, Wildlife Management Area]

Site Area

(ft2)

Width

(ft)

Wetted

perimeter

(ft)

Depth

(ft)

Bankfull flow

(ft3/s)

Anglins Creek near Nallen 267 58.7 62.5 4.54 831

Anthony Creek near Anthony 610 136 139 4.50 6,220

Barrenshe Run near Woodbine 50.3 30.8 34.5 1.63 180

Big Draft near Anthony 43.7 34.1 37.5 1.28 187

Big Sandy Creek near Rockville 871 164 174 5.30 7,430

Blackwater River at Davis 612 109 114 5.61 1,630

Buck Run at Leopold 46.8 35.8 37.8 1.31 101

Camp Creek near Camp Creek 233 90.9 96.0 2.56 2,260

Clear Fork at Clear Fork 582 110 113 5.28 4,250

Cranberry River near Richwood 390 108 115 3.60 1,720

East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow 238 68.0 71.3 3.50 962

Goose Creek near Petroleum 404 78.3 83.1 5.17 2,330

Hurricane Branch at Panther SF 34.7 32.3 35.2 1.08 244

Kings Creek at Weirton 326 94.5 98.6 3.45 1,960

Knob Creek near Wade 120 48.6 50.7 2.47 402

Laurel Fork near Hacker Valley 103 51.4 55.4 2.00 595

Left Fork Clover Run near St. George 203 62.6 69.7 3.23 837

Little Kanawha River near Wildcat 681 160 162 4.27 3,240

Manilla Creek at Amherst-Plymouth WMA 121 46.7 48.9 2.60 365

Marsh Fork of Mash Fork at Camp Creek SF 40.6 29.2 33.9 1.39 142

Middle Fork at Audra 644 147 161 4.37 3,600

Morgan Run near Cheat Lake 36.3 24.0 26.4 1.51 199

North Fork Cherry River near Richwood 140 57.2 61.6 2.44 426

Panther Creek near Panther 173 56.3 61.2 3.07 1,200

Payne Branch near Oakvale 62.3 38.3 42.1 1.63 326

Piney Creek near McCreery 557 131 142 4.26 4,850

Polly Hollow at Kanawha SF 13.6 12.4 13.7 1.10 31.6

Rock Creek near Danville 162 41.4 43.7 3.91 718

Sand Run near Buckhannon 92.3 51.3 54.4 1.80 400

Second Creek near Second Creek 337 114 117 2.94 2,620

Spruce Fork at Cabwaylingo SF 25.9 19.7 22.2 1.31 83

Unnamed Tributary to Hughes River at North Bend SP 20.5 23.5 24.5 0.87 50.0

Upper Nineteenmile Creek at Chief Cornstalk WMA 24.1 19.8 20.6 1.22 48.4

West Fork Greenbrier River above Durbin 208 74.9 78.2 2.78 703

West Fork Little Kanawha River near Rocksdale 1410 154 160 9.16 4,520

Williams River at Dyer 743 148 153 5.02 3,960

Yellow Creek near Davis 33.5 22.2 25.0 1.51 73.1
Bankfull Characteristics and Regional Curves 21

planning region fit the regression equation well, West Fork 

Little Kanawha River near Rocksdale was considered more 

likely to be an outlier or an artifact than to be representative 

of another region. Payne Branch near Oakvale, the site with 

the greatest negative residual value, is near the boundary of 

the Appalachian Plateaus and Valley and Ridge Physiographic 

Provinces and is in the rain shadow; it plots closer to the 

regional curve for the Valley and Ridge than it does to the 

regional curve for the Appalachian Plateaus.

The relation between bankfull width and drainage area 

varied more than the relation between bankfull flow and drainage area (R2

 = 0.9492; SE = 7.1 percent; fig. 13). The relation 

between bankfull depth and drainage area varied the most 

of the bankfull dimensions (R2 = 0.8783; SE = 8.9 percent; 

fig. 14).

Pattern and Profile

Near-bankfull high-water-surface slopes ranged from 

0.0004 ft/ft (West Fork Little Kanawha River near Rocksdale) to 0.0544 ft/ft (Barrenshe Run near Woodbine) (table 6). 

Generally, mountain streams are steeper than lowland streams, 

and headwater streams are steeper than higher-order streams. 

Among the streams that were surveyed, smaller streams were 

generally steeper than larger streams. This rule had exceptions, such as Piney Creek near McCreery, which is among 

both the largest and steepest reaches in the study. Some of 

the flattest reaches in the study (Blackwater River at Davis, 

Anglins Creek near Nallen, and Williams River at Dyer) are in 

the most mountainous parts of the study region, and one of the 

steepest reaches in the study (Polly Hollow at Kanawha State 

Forest) is at a relatively low elevation.

Sinuosity, the percentage of the reach as either pool or 

riffle, and near-bankfull high-water-surface slope, at most, 

weakly correlated between each other. R2 values ranged from 

0.02 for the relation between sinuosity and percentage of the 

reach as riffle to 0.25 for the relation between slope and percentage of reach as riffle. 

High-water-mark profiles greatly clarified identification 

of bankfull features in the field. Because the flagged marks 

were associated with either a known flow and frequency, or 

an estimated flow and frequency based on data from nearby 

streamgages, they provided a second elevation with a known 

flow, along with the low-water surface, to compare to plausible bankfull characteristics. Although differences in elevation 

between a feature and the low-water surface can be measured 

quickly during a survey, the elevation difference alone fails to 

take into account changes in the other geometric and hydraulic 

characteristics of the channel, such as width and slope.

Requiring high-water-mark profiles before surveying a 

site also greatly increased logistic complexity in the study. All 

sites were visited at least two times. Because peak flows at 

many sites were uncorrelated with peak flows at gaged index 

sites, many of the sites were visited three or four times before 

a near-bankfull peak could be flagged.

Figure 12. Relation 

between bankfull area 

and drainage area for 

wadable streams in the 

Appalachian Plateaus 

Physiographic Province in 

West Virginia.

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

10.0

100.0

1,000.0

10,000.0

BANKFULL AREA, IN SQUARE FEET

99-percent

confidence

interval

Area = 20.4865 DA(0.7133)

R2 = 0.9767

Standard error = 8.5 percent
22 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

Figure 13. Relation 

between bankfull width and 

drainage area for wadable 

streams in the Appalachian 

Plateaus Physiographic 

Province in West Virginia.

Figure 14. Relation 

between bankfull depth and 

drainage area for wadable 

streams in the Appalachian 

Plateaus Physiographic 

Province in West Virginia.

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0

1.0

10.0

100.0

1,000.0

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

BANKFULL WIDTH, IN FEET

99-percent

confidence

interval

Width = 20.989 DA(0.3725)

R2 = 0.9492

Standard error = 7.1 percent

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0

DRAINAGE AREA, IN FEET

1.0

0.1

10.0

BANKFULL DEPTH, IN FEET

99-percent

confidence

interval

Depth = 1.067 DA(0.3128)

R2 = 0.8783

Standard error = 8.9 percent
Bankfull Characteristics and Regional Curves 23

Table 6. Bankfull characteristics and stream types of reaches in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia.—Continued[ft, feet; D50, median particle size]

Site

Reach length 

(ft)

Riffle 

length 

(ft)

Riffle 

length, as 

percentage

Combined 

pool and 

run length

(ft)

Combined 

pool and run 

length, as 

percentage

Riffle/pool 

sequences

Stream 

type1

D50, 

substrate 

class1

Reach 

slope Sinuosity

Anglins Creek near Nallen 1,121 166 15 955 85 3 E/C Gravel 0.001 1.09Anthony Creek near Anthony 1,562 776 50 786 50 2 B Cobble 0.002 1.07Barrenshe Run near Woodbine 573 400 70 173 30 6 B Cobble 0.054 1.14Big Draft near Anthony 569 468 82 101 18 3 B Cobble 0.028 1.06Big Sandy Creek near Rockville 2,478 1,757 71 721 29 4 B Boulder 0.007 1.13Blackwater River at Davis 1,952 362 19 1,590 81 3 B Boulder 0.001 1.18Buck Run at Leopold 512 180 35 332 65 4 C Gravel 0.005 1.24Camp Creek near Camp Creek 1,405 644 46 761 54 3 C Cobble 0.007 1.13Clear Fork at Clear Fork 1,522 385 25 1,137 75 2 B Cobble 0.003 1.09Cranberry River near Richwood 2,490 1,837 74 653 26 2 B Cobble 0.008 1.22East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow 1,679 1,431 85 248 15 2 B Gravel 0.001 1.34Goose Creek near Petroleum 1,602 412 26 1,190 74 2 B Cobble 0.002 1.57Hurricane Branch at Panther SF 533 425 80 108 20 2 B Cobble 0.036 1.05Kings Creek at Weirton 1,909 787 41 1,122 59 4 B Cobble 0.004 1.17Knob Creek near Wade 1,085 334 31 751 69 5 B Cobble 0.005 1.09Laurel Fork near Hacker Valley 869 443 51 426 49 5 B Cobble 0.016 1.06Left Fork Clover Run near St. George 970 553 57 417 43 2 B Cobble 0.006 1.13Little Kanawha River near Wildcat 3,802 1,072 28 2,730 72 2 B Cobble 0.002 1.49Manilla Creek at Amherst-Plymouth WMA 1,436 521 36 915 64 3 B Gravel 0.002 1.18
24 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia Table 6. Bankfull characteristics and stream types of reaches in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia.—Continued [ft, feet; D50, median particle size] Site Reach length (ft) Riffle length (ft) Riffle length, as percentage Combined pool and run length (ft) Combined pool and run length, as percentage Riffle/pool sequences Stream type1 D50, substrate class1 Reach slope Sinuosity Marsh Fork of Mash Fork at Camp Creek SF 652 391 60 261 40 6 B/F Cobble 0.032 1.07 Middle Fork at Audra 2,094 1,342 64 752 36 2 B Boulder 0.004 1.16 Morgan Run near Cheat Lake 550 308 56 242 44 5 B Cobble 0.026 1.10 North Fork Cherry River near Richwood 1,336 938 70 398 30 3 B Boulder 0.006 1.35 Panther Creek near Panther 1,021 618 61 403 39 2 B Gravel 0.008 1.14 Payne Branch near Oakvale 711 362 51 349 49 4 B Cobble 0.026 1.10 Piney Creek near McCreery 1,419 689 49 730 51 4 B/F Cobble 0.016 1.06 Polly Hollow at Kanawha SF 399 220 55 179 45 4 B Gravel 0.031 1.14 Rock Creek near Danville 798 211 26 587 74 3 E Cobble 0.004 1.03 Sand Run near Buckhannon 915 682 75 233 25 2 C Cobble 0.006 1.03 Second Creek near Second Creek 1,679 767 46 912 54 4 C Cobble 0.005 1.10 Spruce Fork at Cabwaylingo SF 356 241 68 115 32 5 B/F Gravel 0.015 1.27 Unnamed Tributary to Hughes River at North Bend SP 382 250 65 132 35 2 B Cobble 0.014 1.21 Upper Nineteenmile Creek at Chief Cornstalk WMA 587 153 26 434 74 4 B Gravel 0.009 1.27 West Fork Greenbrier River above Durbin 1,398 353 25 1,045 75 3 B Cobble 0.004 1.19

West Fork Little Kanawha River near Rocksdale 2,893 489 17 2,404 83 2 C Gravel 0.000 1.16Williams River at Dyer 3,312 1,005 30 2,307 70 4 B Cobble 0.002 1.44Yellow Creek near Davis 383 93 24 290 76 2 B Gravel 0.008 1.18

1Stream type according to the Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1996).
Bankfull Characteristics and Regional Curves 25

Stream Types

Rosgen (1985, 1996) has published a set of criteria for 

classifying streams into types, on the basis of, in order of 

priority: (1) the entrenchment ratio, or the ratio of the floodprone area to bankfull width; (2) the ratio of bankfull width 

to bankfull mean depth; (3) sinuosity, or the ratio of stream 

length to valley distance; (4) slope; and (5) channel material. 

Of the stream reaches surveyed in this study, 27 met criteria 

of type B, 5 of type C, and 1 of type E (table 6). Three reaches 

had characteristics that met some criteria for type B and some 

of type F, and one met some criteria of type C and of type E.

West Virginia Regional Curves Compared to 

Regional Curves from Surrounding Areas

Comparisons with regional curves from previous studies 

and surrounding areas showed general consistency. Bankfull 

channel characteristics from West Virginia were intermediate 

between those from Ohio and Virginia.

Differences in results from among a group of studies 

are likely to reflect real differences among the study areas 

when methods and implementation are identical. However, 

identification of bankfull characteristics is somewhat subjective, and differences have been documented among observers 

(Roper and others, 2008). Leopold (1994) considered bankfull 

width to be the most conservative bankfull characteristic, in 

the sense that when bankfull features are misidentified, the 

incorrect bankfull width is still likely to be close to the correct 

value in most streams. Therefore, as the characteristic that 

is least prone to observer bias, bankfull width is probably 

the most robust indicator of differences among study areas 

assessed by different investigators.

Channel Dimensions from Flow Measurements at 

Streamgages in West Virginia

Channel dimensions for the 1.5-year flow were determined from current-meter flow measurements made at 

streamgages in West Virginia to provide an estimate of bankfull dimensions (Messinger and Wiley, 2004). Bankfull flow 

was not determined in this study. Dimensions were determined 

for the cross section at each streamgage where high flows were 

measured, and regional regression equations were developed 

for the relation between channel dimensions and drainage 

area. The regression line for the relations between crosssectional area at the 1.5-year flow and drainage area for the 

Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province are within the 

99-percent confidence interval of the regional curve for bankfull area for drainage areas less than about 10 mi2

 (figs.15–17). 

The areas for the 1.5-year flow were smaller than bankfull 

areas for the smallest drainage areas considered, but larger for 

the larger drainage areas, with the greatest difference at the 

largest drainage areas. Many, if not most, of the cross sections 

used to develop the estimated areas were in pools, which 

generally are greater in area than adjacent riffle cross sections. 

Regional curves were developed from measurements made at 

riffle cross sections.

Width for the 1.5-year flow at streamgages is slightly less 

than bankfull width, but the regression line for the width at 

the 1.5-year flow is within the 99-percent confidence interval 

for the regional curve for bankfull width (fig. 16). Depth for 

the 1.5-year flow at streamgages was greater than bankfull 

depth, and the regression line for depth at the 1.5-year flow 

was outside the 99-percent confidence interval for the regional 

curve for bankfull depth in the Appalachian Plateaus (fig.17). 

Both these relations would be expected when comparing data 

exclusively from riffles to data predominantly from pools in 

the same streams.

Valley and Ridge

Bankfull flow, area, and depth were greater in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia than 

in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province in Maryland, 

Virginia, and West Virginia (figs. 15–18; Keaton and others, 

2005). The Valley and Ridge receives less mean annual precipitation than does the Appalachian Plateaus in West Virginia, 

although storm intensity in the Valley and Ridge is greater, 

as measured by, for example, the 2-year 1-hour maximum 

precipitation (Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center, 

2006a, 2006b).

The Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia was to have been studied 

simultaneously with the Appalachian Plateaus Province in 

those three states. As a principal study goal, regions were to be 

determined empirically, based on analysis of bankfull channel characteristics. However, while ongoing, the study was 

reduced in scope to only the Valley and Ridge Physiographic 

Province, effectively but arbitrarily setting the boundary 

between bankfull-channel regions at the boundary between 

physiographic provinces (Keaton and others, 2005). The present study was undertaken to fill the gap in spatial coverage of 

bankfull-channel characteristics and, while it concentrated on 

characterizing the area that had not been studied, offered the 

opportunity to revisit the previous study’s goal of determining 

regional boundaries. Comparison of bankfull channel characteristics determined in the Valley and Ridge study to those 

from the present study shows no compelling reason to redraw 

the existing arbitrary bankfull-channel regional boundary.

Evidence had already been available to suggest that 

the arbitrary boundary was reasonable; channel dimensions 

determined for the 1.5-year flow at streamgages in West Virginia were different in the Valley and Ridge and Appalachian 

Plateaus (Messinger and Wiley, 2004). Bankfull channel characteristics determined in the present study compared to those 

from the Valley and Ridge regional curve study (Keaton and 

others, 2005) are clearly different, considering the two areas 

broadly, but appear to show a transition area between them. 

Two streams in the Greenbrier or Bluestone River Basins at 
26 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia BANKFULL AREA, IN SQUARE FEET

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

From Messinger and Wiley, 2004 From Keaton and others, 2005

From Chaplin, 2005 From Sherwood and Huitger, 2005

0.1 1.0 10.0 100 1,000

10.0

1.0

100

1,000

10,000

0.1 1.0 10.0 100 1,000

10.0

1.0

100

1,000

10,000

0.1 1.0 10.0 100 1,000

10.0

1.0

100

1,000

10,000

0.1 1.0 10.0 100 1,000

10.0

1.0

100

1,000

10,000

Pennsylvania

Ohio, Region A

Valley and Ridge,

VA, WV, and MD

West Virgina

streamgages

(1.5-year flow)

Figure 15. Regional curve (shown in black) and 99-percent confidence interval (shown as gray fill) for bankfull area of wadable 

streams in the Appalachian Plateaus Province in West Virginia, compared to curves developed for adjacent areas.

the southeastern edge of the study area—Second Creek near 

Second Creek and Payne Branch near Oakvale—are within the 

Appalachian Plateaus Province but have bankfull flow, area, 

width, and depth similar to streams in the Valley and Ridge. 

However, Anthony Creek near Anthony, which drains parts of 

both the Appalachian Plateaus and Valley and Ridge, plots at 

the edge of the main body of values for the Appalachian Plateaus. In contrast, the West Fork of the Greenbrier River above 

Durbin and Big Draft near Anthony, both in the Greenbrier 

River Basin, and Marsh Fork at Camp Creek State Forest and 

Camp Creek near Camp Creek, both in the Bluestone River 

Basin, all plot well within the main body of bankfull area and 

depth values for the Appalachian Plateaus. This is not particularly strong support for redrawing the boundary between 

bankfull channel regions. Parts of the Greenbrier River Basin 

and the eastern part of the Bluestone River Basin appear to 

be a transition zone between the two provinces and bankfullchannel regions, where average bankfull channel characteristics are intermediate between the larger regions. This region 

was identified by Fenneman (1938) as being atypical, in that 

the boundary between the Valley and Ridge and Appalachian 

Plateaus Provinces was indistinct here, unlike most of the rest 

of the boundary from New York to Alabama.

Pennsylvania

Within Pennsylvania, bankfull channel characteristics 

of the Appalachian Plateaus were not significantly different 

from those of other regions that had previously been studied 
Bankfull Characteristics and Regional Curves 27

(Chaplin, 2005). Separate regional curves had previously been 

published for rural parts of the Piedmont and the Valley and 

Ridge in and near Pennsylvania. After field surveys for rural 

parts of the Appalachian Plateaus were complete, comparisons were made for bankfull flow and area, and drainage area, 

among the Piedmont, Valley and Ridge, and Appalachian 

Plateaus. Differences were not significant, and a single set of 

regional curves was published for these regions as a unit.

The regression line for bankfull flow in Pennsylvania fell 

below the lower limit of the 99-percent confidence interval for 

that in the Appalachian Plateaus of West Virginia (fig. 18). The 

regression lines for both bankfull area and width in Pennsylvania fall below the 99-percent confidence interval of the 

comparable regressions for West Virginia in streams draining relatively smaller areas (greater than 20 mi2

 for width, 

and greater than 50 mi2 for area; figs. 15, 16). The regression 

line for bankfull depth in Pennsylvania was less than that for 

West Virginia but mostly fell within the 99-percent confidence 

interval (fig. 17).

Precipitation is not homogeneous in either West Virginia 

or Pennsylvania, both of which are mountainous states where 

the terrain complicates movement of storm fronts and timing 

and intensity of precipitation. However, most of West Virginia 

is subject to more intense precipitation than is most of Pennsylvania (Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center, 2006b). 

Although other differences between the two study areas are 

abundant and other factors undoubtedly are at play, differences 

in precipitation intensity and resulting differences in peak flow 

seem among the most likely factors to cause the differences in 

bankfull characteristics.

Figure 16. Regional curve (shown in black) and 99-percent confidence interval (shown as gray fill) for bankfull width of wadable 

streams in the Appalachian Plateaus Province in West Virginia, compared to curves developed for adjacent areas.

0.1 1.0 10.0 100 1,000

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

1.0

10.0

100

1,000

BANKFULL WIDTH, IN FEET

0.1 1.0 10.0 100 1,000

1.0

10.0

100

1,000

0.1 1.0 10.0 100 1,000

1.0

10.0

100

1,000

0.1 1.0 10.0 100 1,000

1.0

10.0

100

1,000

Valley and Ridge,

VA, WV, and MD

Pennsylvania

Ohio, Region A

From Chaplin, 2005 From Sherwood and Huitger, 2005

West Virginia

streamgages

(1.5-year flow)

From Messinger and Wiley, 2004 From Keaton and others, 2005
28 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

Regional curves for bankfull flow, area, width, and depth 

for Pennsylvania (Chaplin, 2005) are all intermediate between 

those for the Appalachian Plateaus in West Virginia and the 

Valley and Ridge for Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia 

(Keaton and others, 2005; figs. 15–18). The Pennsylvania 

regional curves represent large sections of the Appalachian 

Plateaus and Valley and Ridge, in addition to the Piedmont. 

Some of the differences in basin characteristics between 

the Valley and Ridge and Appalachian Plateaus may be less 

pronounced in Pennsylvania than farther south. Geology and 

topography are similar for West Virginia and unglaciated parts 

of Pennsylvania, but there are differences in climatic factors 

between the two study areas that determine the frequency and 

magnitude of bankfull flows. Pennsylvania has a generally 

colder climate than West Virginia and Virginia and receives 

relatively more snow and less rain in the winter. Parts of Pennsylvania receive major lake-effect snow storms that can cause 

snow-melt floods which are uncommon in West Virginia and 

Virginia.

Ohio

Regional curves for Ohio were developed following 

statewide data collection; two regions were delineated using 

analysis of bankfull characteristics (Sherwood and Huitger, 

2005). Sets of equations were published for two regions in 

Figure 17. Regional curve (shown in black) and 99-percent confidence interval (shown as gray fill) for bankfull depth of wadable 

streams in the Appalachian Plateaus Province in West Virginia, compared to curves developed for adjacent areas.

0.1 1.0 10.0 100 1,000

1.0

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

10.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100 1,000

1.0

10.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100 1,000

1.0

10.0

BANKFULL DEPTH, IN FEET

0.1 1.0 10.0 100 1,000

1.0

10.0

Pennsylvania

Ohio, Region A

Valley and Ridge,

VA, WV, and MD

From Keaton and others, 2005

From Chaplin, 2005 From Sherwood and Huitger, 2005

West Virgina

streamgages

(1.5-year flow)

From Messinger and Wiley, 2004

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES
Bankfull Characteristics and Regional Curves 29

Ohio. For both regions, simple regressions were published for 

bankfull characteristics in relation to drainage area, and multiple regressions were published for relations between bankfull 

characteristics, drainage area, and other basin characteristics. 

The following comparison is drawn with the simple regression 

equations developed for Ohio Region A, which is composed 

of the parts of the state within the Appalachian Plateaus and 

Central Lowlands Physiographic Provinces (Sherwood and 

Huitger, 2005). 

Bankfull area of wadable streams is about the same in 

West Virginia and Ohio; the Ohio Region A regression line is 

within the 99-percent confidence interval for the West Virginia 

equation between about 3 and 200 mi2, although the slopes 

Figure 18. Regional curve and 99-percent confidence interval for bankfull flow of wadable streams in the Appalachian Plateaus 

Province in West Virginia, compared to curves developed for adjacent areas.

of the two lines diverge with greater drainage areas (fig. 15). 

Streams in Ohio are deeper and narrower; the Ohio regression 

line for depth plots above the 99-percent confidence interval 

for the West Virginia equation at drainage areas less than about 

100 mi2, but the Ohio regression for width plots below the 

99-percent confidence interval for the West Virginia equation 

for drainage areas greater than about 5 mi2 (figs. 16, 17).

The relation between the regression lines for bankfull 

flow (fig. 18) in Ohio and West Virginia is generally similar to 

those for bankfull area (fig. 15), although the difference in the 

slope of the lines is somewhat more pronounced. The bankfull 

flow equation was developed for a different group of stations 

than were the equations for the other bankfull characteristics; 

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0

10.0

100.0

1,000.0

10,000.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0

10.0

100.0

1,000.0

10,000.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0

10.0

100.0

1,000.0

10,000.0

Pennsylvania

Ohio, Region A

Valley and Ridge, 

VA, WV, and MD

BANKFULL FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

From Keaton and others, 2005 From Chaplin, 2005

From Sherwood and Huitger, 2005
30 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

bankfull area, width, and depth were determined for a group of 

10 ungaged stations on small streams in Ohio where bankfull 

flow was not determined. Because of this, bankfull dimensions 

were not related to flow at the ungaged stations, and the equation for bankfull flow was developed from a group of stations 

that excluded the small streams.

Part of the difference among regional curves developed 

in West Virginia and the surrounding states arises from the 

piecemeal nature of the development of the curves. The curves 

were developed on a region-by-region basis, and the boundaries of regions were either assumed during study design or 

delineated within states. The benefit of this approach is that 

sufficient data were collected to describe conditions in each of 

the states, and the data were analyzed by individuals familiar 

with hydrologic and geomorphic conditions within their own 

state and thus well-positioned to emphasize local concerns. 

The weaknesses are that (1) questions concerning the most 

appropriate boundaries between different regions remain 

unanswered and (2) insufficient evidence may be available to 

determine whether outliers at the edge of a smaller study area, 

such as West Fork Little Kanawha River near Rocksdale in 

this study, are representative of a different region. If sites that 

should be included in other regions are inappropriately classified, regional curves will be skewed. Investigators and NCD 

practitioners working in transition areas, regions underrepresented within states, or in some cases even near state lines 

are left in ambiguous situations as to the most appropriate set 

of regional curves to use. Examining the results of all available regional curves in transition areas to see if they provide 

compatible results for a particular drainage area would be a 

prudent step in a channel-restoration project.

Summary and Conclusions

Regional curves for bankfull channel characteristics were 

developed for the part of West Virginia within the Appalachian 

Plateaus Physiographic Province. Regional curves are regression equations that quantify relations within a region between 

bankfull channel characteristics and drainage area, and in 

some cases, other basin characteristics. Natural channel design 

practitioners use regional curves to design channels or to verify identification of bankfull features in reference reaches. The 

USGS developed these regional curves in cooperation with 

the Division of Highways of the West Virginia Department of 

Transportation and the West Virginia Conservation Agency.

The study area was defined as the part of West Virginia 

within the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province. 

Regional-curve planning regions were developed using elevation and mean annual precipitation, the basin characteristics 

that explained the most variation in a previous study that 

estimated bankfull channel characteristics by analyzing flow 

measurements at streamgages. Sites were selected at wadable streams in each of the planning regions across a gradient 

of drainage areas; a competing goal was for all sites to have 

stable banks and readily identifiable bankfull features. Because 

not enough gaged sites were available to meet study goals in 

size, location, and stability, ungaged sites were added and a 

slope-area measurement was made of a bankfull or near-bankfull peak. High-water-mark profiles were surveyed at all sites. 

At ungaged sites, they were used in the slope-area measurement; at gaged sites, they were used to calculate roughness, 

which in turn was used with the measured slope to determine 

bankfull flow.

Longitudinal profiles were surveyed through a streamreach length of at least 20 bankfull widths and were composed 

of two or more riffle-pool sequences. All profiles included 

thalwegs, water surface, plausible bankfull features, and highwater marks. All cross sections were surveyed in riffles. At 

least two cross sections were surveyed at gaged sites. These 

cross sections were extended to an elevation of twice the 

maximum depth relative to the highest plausible bankfull feature. At ungaged sites, additional cross sections were surveyed 

at all substantial changes in the slope of the high-water profile.

The high-water-mark profiles were used to supplement 

or, at most sites, replace the use of channel characteristics 

estimated from flow measurements at streamgages as a means 

of choosing among plausible bankfull features at the same station. The frequency of peak flow at ungaged sites was initially 

estimated by comparison to flow at index streamgages, taking 

into account local differences in precipitation. The elevation of 

the high-water mark was then compared to the elevation of the 

presumptive bankfull feature. All bankfull features surveyed in 

this study were described and sketched in field notes.

At gaged sites, bankfull flows ranged from less than the 

1.1-year peak flow to greater than the 2.0-year peak flow. 

Regression lines developed for peak flows of wadable (less 

than 240 mi2) streams at frequencies ranging from 1.2 to 

1.7 years were all within the 99-percent confidence interval of 

the regression line for bankfull flow. The closest match to the 

regression equation for bankfull flows was the equation for the 

1.4-year peak flow. Drainage area explained slightly more of 

the variation for bankfull flows (R2 = 0.9592) than it did for 

1.5-year flows measured at streamgages on wadable streams 

(less than 240 mi2; R2 = 0.9326).

An R2 value of 0.9768 for bankfull area and of 0.9592 

for bankfull flow indicates that little additional variation can 

be explained by subdividing the study area by region, stream 

type, geology, or other characteristics. As is typical, the relation between bankfull width and drainage area varied slightly 

more than those between drainage area and bankfull flow and 

drainage area and bankfull area. The relation between depth 

and drainage area varied more than the other bankfull characteristics determined in this study.

Reach slopes ranged from 0.0004 ft/ft (West Fork Little 

Kanawha River near Rocksdale) to 0.0544 ft/ft (Barrenshe 

Run near Woodbine). Generally, mountain streams are 

expected to be steeper than lowland streams, and headwater 

streams are expected to be steeper than higher-order streams, 

although in this study, both of these generalizations had 

exceptions.
References Cited 31

Comparisons with regional curves developed in this 

study with those from previous studies and surrounding areas 

showed general consistency. Channel dimensions for the 

1.5-year flow were determined from current-meter flow measurements made at streamgages in the Appalachian Plateaus of 

West Virginia, to provide an estimate of bankfull dimensions. 

The regression line from these estimates for bankfull area fell 

within the 99-percent confidence interval of the regional curve 

for bankfull area for drainage areas less than about 10 mi2. 

Cross-sectional area for the 1.5-year flow at streamgages was 

smaller than bankfull area for the smallest drainage areas 

considered, but larger for the larger drainage areas, with the 

greatest difference at the largest drainage areas. Width at the 

1.5-year flow at streamgages was slightly less than bankfull 

width, but the regression line for the estimate fell within the 

99-percent confidence interval for the regression line for 

bankfull width. Depth at the 1.5-year flow at streamgages was 

significantly greater than bankfull depth, likely because, at 

most sites, high-flow current-meter measurements are made in 

pools.

The regression lines for bankfull flow, area, and depth 

from the Valley and Ridge in Maryland, Virginia, and West 

Virginia fell outside the 99-percent confidence interval of 

regression lines for the Appalachian Plateaus in West Virginia. 

Channel dimensions at the 1.5-year flow at streamgages in 

West Virginia had also been significantly different between the 

Valley and Ridge and Appalachian Plateaus Provinces. When 

the Valley and Ridge was originally studied, arbitrary regional 

boundaries were set at the physiographic province boundaries. 

Although some ambiguity remains as to the precise location of 

the regional boundary in the Greenbrier River Basin in West 

Virginia, the present study did not find compelling evidence to 

redraw the existing regional boundary. 

Streams in the part of Pennsylvania outside the Coastal 

Plain were generally less wide, less deep, and their bankfull 

flow and area were somewhat smaller than in the Appalachian 

Plateaus of West Virginia. The parts of the regression lines for 

bankfull characteristics representing small streams in Pennsylvania fall below the 99-percent confidence interval of the 

regression lines for the Appalachian Plateaus in West Virginia. 

Regional curves for bankfull flow, area, width, and depth for 

Pennsylvania are all intermediate between those for the Appalachian Plateaus in West Virginia and the Valley and Ridge 

for Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. The Pennsylvania 

curves represent large sections of the Appalachian Plateaus 

and Valley and Ridge Physiographic Provinces.

Ohio streams are generally deeper and narrower than 

streams in the Appalachian Plateaus in West Virginia. Bankfull 

area of wadable streams is about the same in West Virginia and 

Ohio; the Ohio Region A regression line is within the 99-percent confidence interval for the West Virginia regression line 

between about 3 and 200 mi2, the lines cross at about 20 mi2, 

and the two lines diverge with greater drainage areas. The 

divergence of the West Virginia and Ohio regression lines for 

bankfull flow is greater than for bankfull area.

Acknowledgments

James D. Scott of the USGS West Virginia Water Science 

Center was instrumental in completing field work for this 

study. The study was designed following discussions with 

Jefferson N. Keaton, then of the USGS Virginia Water Science 

Center, and after Douglas B. Chambers of the USGS West Virginia Water Science Center helped the author survey a reach in 

a previous study, shortly after a bankfull peak flow. Edward J. 

Doheny of the USGS Maryland Water Science Center and Jennifer L. Krstolic of the USGS Virginia Water Science Center 

reviewed the report and provided helpful comments.

References Cited

Barnes, H.H., 1967, Roughness characteristics of natural channels: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1849, 

213 p.

Bernhardt, E.S., 2006, National river restoration science synthesis (NRRSS) statistics page for all node areas, accessed 

November 18, 2009, at http://nrrss.nbii.gov/info/statistics.

html.

Bernhardt, E. S., Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D., Alexander, 

G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., Carr, J., Clayton, S., Dahm, 

C., Follstad-Shah, J., Galat, D., Gloss, S., Goodwin, P., 

Hart, D., Hassett, B., Jenkinson, R., Katz, S., Kondolf, G. 

M., Lake, P. S., Lave, R., Meyer, J. L., O’Donnell, T. K., 

Pagano, L., Powell, B., and Sudduth, E., 2005, Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts: Science, v. 308. no. 5722, 

p. 636–637.

Chaplin, J.J., 2005, Development of regional curves relating 

bankfull-channel geometry and discharge to drainage area 

for streams in Pennsylvania and selected areas of Maryland: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2005–5147, 34 p.

Dalrymple, T., and Benson, M.A., 1967, Measurement of peak 

discharge by the slope-area method: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, 

chapter A2.

Dunne, T., and Leopold, L.B., 1978, Water in environmental 

planning: New York, W.H. Freeman and Company, 818 p.

Fenneman, N.M., 1938, Physiography of Eastern United 

States: New York, McGraw-Hill, 714 p.

Fenneman, N.M., and Johnson, D.W., 1946, Physical divisions 

of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Physiography 

Committee Special Map, scale 1:7,000,000.

Fulford, J.M., 1994, User’s guide to SAC, a computer program 

for computing discharge by slope-area method: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-360.
32 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center, 2006a, Isopluvials of 60 minute precipitation (inches) with average recurrence interval of 2 years, Delaware, District of Columbia, 

Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Atlas 

14, Volume 2, Version 3, Ohio River Basin and Surrounding States, accessed November 18, 2009, at http://hdsc.nws.

noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_maps.html.

Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center, 2006b, Isopluvials of 60 minute precipitation (inches) with average recurrence interval of 2 years, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Atlas 14, Volume 

2, Version 3, Ohio River Basin and Surrounding States, 

accessed November 18, 2009, at http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/

hdsc/pfds/pfds_maps.html.

Jarrett, R.D., 1984, Hydraulics of high-gradient streams: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 110, no. 11, p. 1519–1539.

Keaton, J.N., Messinger, T., and Doheny, E.J., 2005, Development and analysis of regional curves for streams in the 

non-urban Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5076, 116 p.

Leopold, L.B., 1994, A view of the river: Cambridge, MA, 

Harvard University Press, 298 p.

Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P., 1964, Fluvial 

processes in geomorphology: New York, Dover Publications, 522 p.

Limerinos, J.T., 1970, Determination of the Manning coefficient from measured bed roughness in natural channels: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1898-B, 47 p.

Messinger, Terence, and Hughes, C.A., 2000, Environmental 

setting and its relations to water quality in the Kanawha 

River Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 00-4020, 57 p.

Messinger, Terence, and Wiley, J.B., 2004, Regional relations 

in bankfull channel characteristics at selected stream-gaging 

stations in West Virginia, 1911-2002 : U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4276, 43 p.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow—Volume 1. Measurement of stage and discharge; Volume 2. Computation of discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 631 p. 

Roper, B., Buffington, J.M., Archer, E., Moyer, C., and Ward, 

M., 2008, The role of observer variation in determining 

Rosgen stream types in northeastern Oregon mountain 

streams: Journal of American Water Resources Association, 

v. 44, no. 2, p. 417–427.

Rosgen, D. L., 1985, A stream classification system: Riparian 

Ecosystems and their Management: Proceedings of the First 

North American Riparian Conference, April 16–18, Tucson, 

Arizona, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

No. RM-120, p. 91–95.

Rosgen, D.L., 1996, Applied river morphology: Pagosa 

Springs, CO, Wildland Hydrology, variously paged.

Sherwood, J.M., and Huitger, C.A., 2005, Bankfull characteristics of Ohio streams and their relation to peak streamflows: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2005–5153, 38 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009, HEC-RAS, accessed 

November 18, 2009, at http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/

software/hec-ras/.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2009, West Virginia quick facts, accessed 

November 18, 2009, at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

states/54000.html.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, 2000 Incorporated Places/Census Designated Places, accessed November 18, 2009, at 

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/pl2000.html.

US Department of Commerce, 1960, Climate of the States, 

West Virginia: Weather Bureau, Climatography of the U.S., 

no. 60-46, 15 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, National Atlas of the United 

States, State Boundaries of the United States, accessed 

November 18, 2009, at http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.

html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, National Elevation Dataset, 

accessed November 18, 2009, at http://ned.usgs.gov/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1991, 1:2,000,000-scale Digital Line 

Graph files of streams, accessed November 18, 2009, at 

http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?stream.

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, 2005, 

Updated list of waters of special concern being proposed for 

tier 2.5 anti-degradation protection status, accessed November 18, 2009, at http://www.wvdep.org/dwwm/antideg/

new4web.htm.

Wiley, J.B., Atkins, J.T., and Newell, D.A., 2002, Estimating 

the magnitude of annual peak discharges with recurrence 

intervals between 1.1 and 3.0 years for rural, unregulated 

streams in West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 02-4164, 73 p.

Wolf, P.R., and Ghilani, C.D., 2002, Elementary surveying—an introduction to geomatics: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 

Prentice-Hall, 900 p.
Tables 2 and 4
34 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

Table 2. Description of bankfull features, sediment particle size, and Manning’s roughness coefficient for stream cross sections in 

the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, West Virginia.—Continued

[XS, cross-section number; D84, 84th percentile of particle size; D50, median particle size; n, Manning’s coefficient of roughness; ft, feet; s, second; FP, floodplain; LBF, left bankfull; RBF, right bankfull; BR, bedrock; nd, not done]

Site XS Description of bankfull feature D84

(ft)

D50

(ft) n

Anglins Creek near Nallen XS1 Very distinct, rounded convex slope change from apparent FP to bank. 

Good.

0.02 0.02 0.055

XS2 Very distinct. Convex slope change on bank, sloughing slightly 0.24 0.05 0.032

Anthony Creek near Anthony XS1 RBF1 1.18 0.42 0.020

XS2 LBF 1.28 0.75 0.018

Barrenshe Run near Woodbine XS1 Edge of boulder aligned w. other boulders in a clear line parallel to the 

stream. Poor, because the extremely coarse substrate here won’t sort 

out into a fine-detail feature. However, the overall feature is distinct.

nd nd 0.149

XS2 “ 1.40 0.64

XS4 “ 2.73 0.78 0.038

Big Draft near Anthony XS1 LBF, subtle slope change, edge topsoil, fair. nd nd 0.065

XS2 LBF, subtle slope change, edge topsoil, fair. 1.45 0.48 0.100

XS3 Distinct, rounded convex slope change from FP to bar. Change of substrate, edge of moss. Good.nd nd 0.112

XS5 Very distinct, rounded convex slope change. Edge of topsoil, vegetation 

change. Excellent

1.00 0.38 0.041

XS6 Distinct convex slope change, held in place by roots. Still at the change 

in substrate and vegetative cover.

nd nd 0.070

Big Sandy Creek near Rockville XS1 Very distinct, stable convex slope change. Most distinct slope change. 

Excellent.

>6.00 2.14 0.045

XS2 Most distinct convex slope change, from FP to bar. Good. >6.00 1.44 0.042

Blackwater River at Davis XS1 Very distinct, rounded convex slope change, from apparent FP to 

steeply sloping bank. Fair.

1.66 0.60 0.031

XS2 RBF2. Distinct convex slope change from FP to bank. Good. >6.00 1.83 0.029

Buck Run at Leopold XS1 LBF 0.16 0.09 0.049

XS2 LBF 0.37 0.15 0.073

Camp Creek near Camp Creek XS1 Fair. Rounded but still distinct convex slope change from FP to bank 0.67 0.34 0.035

XS2 Determined graphically, in office 1.70 0.75 0.029

Clear Fork at Clear Fork XS1 RBF. Convex slope change. nd nd 0.050

XS2 Possible berm or RBF. Convex slope change. nd nd 0.016

Cranberry River near Richwood XS1 Lumpy, convex slope change from shelf to bank. Edge of topsoil. Good. >6.00 0.89 0.065

XS2 Edge of topsoil, collected among jagged, poorly eroded, rocks. Convex 

slope change. Fair.

2.12 0.51 0.074

East Fork Twelvepole Creek 

near Dunlow

XS1 Very distinct convex slope change from FP to bank. Good. 0.27 0.18 0.028

XS2 Convex slope change, fair. 0.72 0.19 0.024

Goose Creek below Petroleum XS1 Top of bank. Very distinct, rounded convex slope change from FP to 

bank. Weedy, topsoil/clay. Good.

0.94 0.30 0.024

XS2 RBF, top of bank, distinct rounded convex slope change. Good. 0.96 0.29 0.042
Table 2 35

Table 2. Description of bankfull features, sediment particle size, and Manning’s roughness coefficient for stream cross sections in 

the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, West Virginia.—Continued

[XS, cross-section number; D84, 84th percentile of particle size; D50, median particle size; n, Manning’s coefficient of roughness; ft, feet; s, second; FP, floodplain; LBF, left bankfull; RBF, right bankfull; BR, bedrock; nd, not done]

Site XS Description of bankfull feature D84

(ft)

D50

(ft) n

Hurricane Branch at Panther SF XS1 Determined graphically, in office nd nd 0.033

XS2 Determined graphically, in office nd nd 0.023

XS3 Determined graphically, in office nd nd 0.037

XS4 Poor. Distinct convex slope change from poorly defined FP to extremely steep bank, recovering from being undercut.nd nd 0.042

XS6 LBF nd nd 0.086

Kings Creek at Weirton XS1 Top of bank. Very distinct, stable, convex slope change. Most distinct 

feature. Good

0.86 0.43 0.023

XS2 Top of bank. Most distinct, stable of the features. Good BR BR 0.059

XS3 Top of bank, only distinct feature. Good nd nd 0.042

XS4 Most distinct feature of XS. Good nd nd 0.044

XS5 Distinct but gradual, stable convex slope change from FP to bank. 

Good. Most distinct feature.

nd nd 0.030

Knob Creek near Wade XS1 RBF. Subtle, convex slope change. Near edge of moss. Poor nd nd 0.079

XS2 A break in the bedrock ledge. Edge of very thin topsoil. Extremely 

poor.

>6.00 0.36 0.067

XS3 Most distinct of several convex slope changes. Edge of grass. Fair. nd nd 0.050

XS4 Lumpy; convex slope change in soil. Poor. nd nd 0.042

XS5 Rounded, convex slope change. Fair. 0.87 0.30

XS7 Indistinct convex slope change. Poor. nd nd 0.056

XS8 Fairly distinct, gradual, convex slope change. Fair. nd nd 0.048

Laurel Fork near Hacker Valley XS1 Bank top. Abrupt slope change from FP to bank; some slumping. Lower 

of the two banks.

nd nd 0.067

XS2 Very distinct convex slope change in cobble/boulder bar. Continuous. 

Good.

nd nd 0.049

XS4 Very distinct convex slope change in cobble/boulder bar. Continuous. 

Good.

0.84 0.45 0.058

XS5 RBF. Very distinct, gently rounded convex slope change from FP to 

bank. Good.

nd nd 0.063

XS6 Convex slope change. 0.81 0.29 0.067

Left Fork Clover Run near St. 

George

XS1 Most distinct slope change, from FP to apparent bank. nd nd 0.054

XS2 Fairly distinct convex slope change; at edge of tree line; part of nice 

continuous line clearly visible from across stream. Fair.

nd nd 0.040

XS3 Rounded, mossy. Just above high-water mark. Fair. 0.58 0.28 0.048

XS4 Top of bank. nd nd 0.048

XS5 Top of bank. Most distinct convex slope change. 0.60 0.32 0.042

Little Kanawha River near 

Wildcat

XS1 RBF. Convex slope change on a complex bank. Fair. 0.68 0.27 0.039

XS2 LBF. Convex slope change on a complex bank. Fair. 0.48 0.33 0.036
36 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

Table 2. Description of bankfull features, sediment particle size, and Manning’s roughness coefficient for stream cross sections in 

the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, West Virginia.—Continued

[XS, cross-section number; D84, 84th percentile of particle size; D50, median particle size; n, Manning’s coefficient of roughness; ft, feet; s, second; FP, floodplain; LBF, left bankfull; RBF, right bankfull; BR, bedrock; nd, not done]

Site XS Description of bankfull feature D84

(ft)

D50

(ft) n

Manilla Creek at AmherstPlymouth WMAXS1 Sketch, field notes show this as berm. Lower of 2 convex slope 

changes.

nd nd 0.048

XS2 Sketch, field notes show this as berm. Lower of 2 convex slope 

changes.

nd nd 0.037

XS3 Sketch, field notes show this as berm. Lower of 2 convex slope 

changes.

nd nd 0.049

XS4 Determined graphically, in office. nd nd 0.051

Marsh Fork of Mash Fork at 

Camp Creek SF

XS1 Determined graphically, in office. 1.35 0.35 0.077

XS3 Determined graphically, in office. nd nd 0.081

XS4 Good. Convex slope change from FP to bank. Change of substrate, soil 

to rock.

nd nd 0.080

XS5 Fair. Convex slope change at edge of a very narrow FP. 0.72 0.41 0.105

XS6 Determined graphically, in office. nd nd 0.123

XS7 Determined graphically, in office. nd nd 0.095

Middle Fork at Audra XS1 Between HWM3 & 4. Distinct, rounded convex slope change held by 

large hemlock root. Fair.

5.08 1.92 0.042

XS2 Edge of boulder. Effective LBF; some boulders to its left >6.00 2.65 0.047

Morgan Run near Cheat Lake XS1 Distinct, stable-looking convex slope change, anchored by roots. Fair. BR BR 0.047

XS2 Very distinct, stable-looking convex slope change from gently sloping 

to very steep. Rocky bank, with accumulated topsoil. Good.

nd nd 0.047

XS3 Very distinct, stable convex slope change from FP to bank. Excellent. nd nd 0.078

XS5 Mossy topsoil accumulated on huge boulder; convex slope change. 

Good.

nd nd 0.115

XS6 Distinct convex slope change from FP to bank. Good. More gradual 

than downstream; looks very stable.

nd nd 0.087

XS7 Gradual, stable convex slope change. Good. 1.01 0.44 0.057

North Fork Cherry River near 

Richwood

XS1 Fair at best. High point on bar. nd nd 0.055

XS2 Distinct, rounded convex slope change; edge of soil. Mossy. Fair. nd nd 0.091

XS3 Distinct convex slope change. Mossy soil. Good nd nd 0.067

XS4 Distinct, rounded slope change. Mossy soil. Good nd nd 0.072

XS5 Distinct, rounded slope change. Mossy soil. Good nd nd 0.070

XS6 Very poor. Convex slope change, thin layer of mossy dirt on a boulder 

in outside of bend.

nd nd 0.074

XS7 Rounded, edge of soil. Fair. nd nd 0.128

Panther Creek near Panther XS1 Convex slope change. Poor. Determined from plot. nd nd 0.037

XS2 Edge of topsoil. Poor 2.43 0.85 0.035

XS3 Subtle convex slope change on a gently sloping bank. Fair 1.54 0.55 0.043
Table 2 37

Table 2. Description of bankfull features, sediment particle size, and Manning’s roughness coefficient for stream cross sections in 

the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, West Virginia.—Continued

[XS, cross-section number; D84, 84th percentile of particle size; D50, median particle size; n, Manning’s coefficient of roughness; ft, feet; s, second; FP, floodplain; LBF, left bankfull; RBF, right bankfull; BR, bedrock; nd, not done]

Site XS Description of bankfull feature D84

(ft)

D50

(ft) n

Payne Branch near Oakvale XS1 RBF. Convex slope change, fair 1.38 0.80 0.057

XS2 RBF. Convex slope change, fair nd nd 0.083

XS3 Rounded, gradual but distinct convex slope change at top of the bank. 

Fair.

nd nd 0.054

XS4 Rounded, gradual but distinct convex slope change at top of the bank. 

Fair.

nd nd 0.067

XS5 Rounded, gradual but distinct convex slope change at top of the bank. 

Fair.

nd nd 0.064

XS6 Convex slope change. Poor. Determined from plot. 0.98 0.47 0.044

Piney Creek near McCreery XS1 Change of substrate. Poor. nd nd 0.068

XS2 Convex slope change. Poor. Determined from plot. nd nd 0.057

XS3 Edge of pointy, entrained boulder. Boulder tops form an acceptable line. 

Fair. One of the best features in this reach.

nd nd 0.091

XS4 Edge of apparent terrace. Most distinct of several convex slope 

changes.

nd nd 0.063

XS5 Top of boulder. Part of a line, fairly distinct, along right bank. Boulder 

has an exceptionally distinct convex slope change at this point, appears to be shaped by water. Poor.

nd nd 0.060

Polly Hollow at Kanawha SF XS1 Lower of two convex slope changes. LBF? berm? Most distinct feature 

on left side.

0.50 0.17 0.119

XS2 RBF. Good. Distinct change in slope at edge of FP 0.76 0.21 0.105

XS3 LBF, edge of topsoil, convex slope change, fair. nd nd 0.091

XS4 LBF, very distinct convex slope change anchored by tree roots. Good. nd nd 0.151

XS5 Convex slope change. Poor. Determined from plot. nd nd 0.101

XS6 Convex slope change. Poor. Determined from plot. nd nd 0.095

XS7 Fair at best-- cobble at edge of gravelly soil. nd nd 0.104

Rock Creek near Danville XS1 Abrupt convex slope change from FP to bank. Poor. 0.40 0.26 0.049

XS2 Rounded convex slope change from FP to bank. Good. 0.47 0.21 0.052

Sand Run near Buckhannon XS1 RBF. One of several convex slope changes, below the top of bank. Fair. 0.55 0.33 0.038

XS2 LBF. Convex slope change. Fair. 0.70 0.36 0.039

Second Creek near Second 

Creek

XS1 Good. Very clear, distinct convex slope change between bank and FP. 0.65 0.35 0.027

XS2 Good. Distinct convex slope change from FP to bank. 0.99 0.48 0.029

Spruce Fork at Cabwaylingo SF XS1 RBF. Fair. Very distinct change in slope; edge of soil on a small overhanging rock shelf.nd nd 0.057

XS2 Distinct convex slope change on bank. Continuous. Good. nd nd 0.052

XS3 Convex slope change. Fair. nd nd 0.098

XS4 RBF. Convex slope change. Fair. nd nd 0.076

XS5 Top of bank. Distinct convex slope change. Good. nd nd 0.084

XS6 Top of bank. Distinct convex slope change. Good. nd nd 0.054
38 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia

Table 2. Description of bankfull features, sediment particle size, and Manning’s roughness coefficient for stream cross sections in 

the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, West Virginia.—Continued

[XS, cross-section number; D84, 84th percentile of particle size; D50, median particle size; n, Manning’s coefficient of roughness; ft, feet; s, second; FP, floodplain; LBF, left bankfull; RBF, right bankfull; BR, bedrock; nd, not done]

Site XS Description of bankfull feature D84

(ft)

D50

(ft) n

Unnamed Tributary to Hughes 

River

XS1 RBF. Very distinct, rounded convex slope change from FP to bank. 

Good.

nd nd 0.067

XS2 LBF. Very distinct convex slope change from FP to bar. Good. High? nd nd 0.065

XS3 LBF. Very distinct convex slope change from FP to bar. Good. High? nd nd 0.066

XS4 LBF. Very distinct convex slope change from FP to bar. Good. High? 0.27 0.14 0.129

XS5 Distinct, rounded convex slope change at edge of FP. Good. 0.44 0.23 0.058

Upper Nineteenmile Creek at 

Chief Cornstalk WMA

XS1 Lowest convex slope change. Poor. Determined from plot. 0.23 0.14 0.057

XS2 Lowest convex slope change. Poor. Determined from plot. 0.26 0.13 0.047

XS3 LBF or berm. Convex slope change. Lowest distinct feature nd nd 0.085

XS4 Lowest convex slope change. Poor. Determined from plot. nd nd 0.100

XS5 Distinct convex slope change. Mossy dirt; obvious fluvial sand below. 

Good.

nd nd 0.123

XS6 Lowest convex slope change. Poor. Determined from plot. nd nd 0.066

West Fork Greenbrier River 

above Durbin

XS1 Very distinct, formerly eroded convex slope change from FP to bank. 

Very mossy, rounded, anchored by roots. Good.

nd nd 0.046

XS2 Lower inflection of a wide, gradual convex slope change from FP to 

bank. Good.

0.94 0.61 0.033

XS3 Very distinct, rounded, convex slope change from FP to bank, just 

above apparent bar. Good.

nd nd 0.046

XS4 Very distinct, rounded, convex slope change from FP to bank, just 

above apparent bar. Good.

nd nd 0.046

XS5 Bermish, lumpy soil, moss-covered; convex slope change, fairly distinct. Fair.nd nd 0.057

XS6 Rounded, convex slope change from FP to bank. Held by roots, topsoil. 

Good.

1.35 0.69 0.066

XS7 Most distinct, and lower, inflection in a gradual convex slope change. 

Fair.

nd nd 0.044

XS8 Convex slope change. Fair. nd nd 0.055

West Fork Little Kanawha River 

near Rocksdale

XS1 Top of bank. Sharp convex slope change from FP to steeply sloping 

bank. Old slump that has weeded up and stabilized. Fair

0.35 0.16 0.039

XS2 Top of bank. Very distinct, rounded. Good. 0.36 0.10 0.040

Williams River at Dyer XS1 Rounded convex slope change on lower bank, anchored by roots. Fieldidentified as berm. Fair.6.00 2.61 0.035

XS2 Rounded convex slope change on lower bank. Field-identified as berm. 

Fair.

1.09 0.29 0.055

XS3 Edge of FP; level for long way. Inside of bend. nd nd 0.039

Yellow Creek near Davis XS1 Convex slope change at edge of FP. Some sloughing. Poor. 1.27 0.27 0.081

XS2 LBF, Lower of two convex slope changes. Fair. nd nd 0.080

XS3 RBF. Convex slope change. Fair. 0.95 0.12 0.113

XS4 Convex slope change at edge of FP. Good. nd nd 0.047

XS5 LBF. Distinct convex slope change. Good. nd nd 0.048
Table 4 39

Table 4. Bankfull dimensions and other characteristics of stream cross sections in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia.—Continued[XS, cross-section number; ft, feet; ft2, square feet; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; SP, State Park; SF, State Forest; WMA, Wildlife Management Area; nd, not determined. Some cross sections were surveyed and numbered for the slope-area flow measurements although no identifiable bankfull features were present; these cross sections are omitted from this table.]

Site XS

Bankfull 

area

(ft2)

Bankfull 

width

(ft)

Bankfull 

mean depth

(ft)

Wetted 

perimeter

(ft)

Flow

(ft3/s)

Bankfull 

maximum 

depth

(ft)

Flood-prone 

width

(ft)

Widthdepth 

ratio

Entrenchment ratio

Anglins Creek near Nallen XS1 287 62.0 4.63 64.4 699 6.77 173 13.4 2.8

XS2 246 55.4 4.44 60.6 963 5.86 168 12.5 3.0

Anthony Creek near Anthony XS1 551 120 4.60 124 5,420 6.94 194 26.0 1.6

XS2 669 152 4.41 155 7,030 8.87 345 34.4 2.3

Barrenshe Run near Woodbine XS1 57.2 29.1 1.97 32.5 195 3.05 40 14.8 1.4

XS2 46.0 27.1 1.70 31.5 166 2.94 47 16.0 1.7XS4 32.9 27.8 1.18 31.0 nd 2.40 67 23.4 2.4

Big Draft near Anthony XS1 27.8 31.4 0.88 33.7 94.0 1.78 43 35.5 1.4

XS2 41.2 45.4 0.91 47.7 94.0 2.05 52 50.1 1.2XS3 33.8 26.1 1.30 32.7 77.4 2.26 54 20.1 2.1XS5 56.6 32.1 1.77 33.9 482 2.68 53 18.2 1.6XS6 59.0 35.6 1.66 39.3 nd 2.40 46 21.5 1.3

Big Sandy Creek near Rockville XS1 606 123 4.94 127 4,770 7.85 206 24.9 1.7

XS2 1,136 206 5.51 221 10,100 9.78 239 37.4 1.2

Blackwater River at Davis XS1 347 99.7 3.48 104 1,220 5.09 134 28.6 1.3

XS2 434 89.7 4.84 94.3 2,040 7.18 248 18.5 2.8

Buck Run at Leopold XS1 53.6 33.8 1.59 35.3 147 2.51 109 21.3 3.2

XS2 40.1 37.8 1.06 40.4 56.1 2.71 51 35.6 1.4

Camp Creek near Camp Creek XS1 301 99.5 3.03 103 2,210 5.95 361 32.9 3.6

XS2 268 80.7 3.32 95.3 2,320 6.20 168 24.3 2.1

Clear Fork at Clear Fork XS1 787 123 6.38 127 4,040 9.60 197 19.4 1.6

XS2 377 97.1 3.88 99.6 4,470 5.82 144 25.0 1.5

Cranberry River near Richwood XS1 430 112 3.84 121 2,070 6.47 154 29.1 1.4

XS2 349 105 3.34 108 1,380 4.85 144 31.3 1.4

East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow XS1 229 68.1 3.36 70.6 826 5.42 118 20.3 1.7

XS2 247 67.9 3.64 72.1 1,100 5.89 129 18.7 1.9

Goose Creek near Petroleum XS1 421 79.9 5.26 84.3 3,080 6.85 154 15.2 1.9

XS2 388 76.6 5.06 81.9 1,580 6.62 130 15.1 1.7
40 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia Table 4. Bankfull dimensions and other characteristics of stream cross sections in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia.—Continued [XS, cross-section number; ft, feet; ft2, square feet; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; SP, State Park; SF, State Forest; WMA, Wildlife Management Area; nd, not determined. Some cross sections were surveyed and numbered for the slope-area flow measurements although no identifiable bankfull features were present; these cross sections are omitted from this table.] Site XS Bankfull area (ft2

)

Bankfull 

width

(ft)

Bankfull 

mean depth

(ft)

Wetted 

perimeter

(ft)

Flow

(ft3/s)

Bankfull 

maximum 

depth

(ft)

Flood-prone 

width

(ft)

Widthdepth 

ratio

Entrenchment ratio

Hurricane Branch at Panther SF XS1 23.6 31.4 0.75 34.4 nd 1.83 38 41.6 1.2

XS2 21.6 27.9 0.77 29.3 nd 2.11 44 36.1 1.6

XS3 38.8 40.3 0.96 46.6 nd 1.67 39 41.7 1.0XS4 30.5 32.5 0.94 34.3 192 2.22 38 34.5 1.2

XS6 58.9 29.2 2.02 31.1 296 3.56 50 14.5 1.7

Kings Creek at Weirton XS1 345 95.9 3.60 100 3,270 5.17 290 26.6 3.0

XS2 308 82.4 3.74 92.7 1,120 5.92 109 22.0 1.3

XS3 365 98.2 3.72 102 1,950 6.15 nd 26.4 nd

XS4 325 107 3.03 109 1,480 4.92 nd 35.5 ndXS5 286 88.6 3.22 89.7 1,970 4.00 182 27.5 2.0

Knob Creek near Wade XS1 138 44.9 3.07 48.4 nd 3.97 nd 14.6 nd

XS2 119 42.1 2.83 44.6 368 4.14 61 14.9 1.4

XS3 90.0 43.1 2.09 44.7 307 2.92 55 20.7 1.3

XS4 131 49.7 2.64 53.6 613 4.24 68 18.8 1.4XS5 151 59.4 2.55 60.6 nd 3.73 82 23.3 1.4

XS7 132 53.9 2.45 55.4 449 3.11 88 22.0 1.6XS8 78.5 47.2 1.66 47.9 241 2.48 74 28.3 1.6

Laurel Fork near Hacker Valley XS1 86.7 41.9 2.07 44.7 nd 3.24 nd 20.3 nd

XS2 105 37.5 2.81 43.3 722 4.30 nd 13.3 ndXS4 105 66.4 1.59 69.8 448 3.77 124 41.8 1.9

XS5 119 47.5 2.50 51.1 617 3.52 nd 19.0 ndXS6 97.4 63.6 1.53 68.4 nd 2.93 145 41.5 2.3

Left Fork Clover Run near St. George XS1 232 58.1 3.99 62.7 nd 6.69 nd 14.6 nd

XS2 129 51.3 2.51 59.7 604 3.77 nd 20.4 1.4XS3 161 68.5 2.35 74.5 629 4.03 212 29.1 3.1

XS4 232 56.6 4.10 63.3 1,280 5.66 nd 13.8 ndXS5 258 78.7 3.29 88.3 nd 4.79 260 23.9 3.3

Little Kanawha River near Wildcat XS1 622 133 4.70 135 3,040 6.69 220 28.2 1.7

XS2 740 187 3.97 189 3,440 6.54 341 47.0 1.8
Table 4 41

Table 4. Bankfull dimensions and other characteristics of stream cross sections in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia.—Continued[XS, cross-section number; ft, feet; ft2, square feet; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; SP, State Park; SF, State Forest; WMA, Wildlife Management Area; nd, not determined. Some cross sections were surveyed and numbered for the slope-area flow measurements although no identifiable bankfull features were present; these cross sections are omitted from this table.]

Site XS

Bankfull 

area

(ft2)

Bankfull 

width

(ft)

Bankfull 

mean depth

(ft)

Wetted 

perimeter

(ft)

Flow

(ft3/s)

Bankfull 

maximum 

depth

(ft)

Flood-prone 

width

(ft)

Widthdepth 

ratio

Entrenchment ratio

Manilla Creek at Amherst-Plymouth WMA XS1 120 45.2 2.66 49.0 nd 3.10 70 17.0 1.5

XS2 107 45.7 2.34 47.8 367 3.37 69 19.6 1.5XS3 119 50.6 2.35 51.6 314 2.94 71 21.5 1.4XS4 139 45.5 3.06 47.1 413 3.74 68 14.8 1.5

Marsh Fork of Mash Fork at Camp Creek SF XS1 30.8 25.6 1.20 27.6 nd 1.99 32 21.3 1.2

XS3 31.2 30.3 1.03 32.0 100 1.63 37 29.4 1.2XS4 62.4 29.1 2.15 39.5 282 3.09 nd 13.5 ndXS5 44.2 31.3 1.41 36.1 129 2.25 43 22.2 1.4XS6 40.0 30.4 1.32 32.9 99.0 2.33 nd 23.0 ndXS7 35.3 28.8 1.22 35.1 99.0 2.01 nd 23.5 nd

Middle Fork at Audra XS1 744 158 4.72 171 4,580 7.90 306 33.5 1.9

XS2 545 137 3.98 152 2,620 8.12 212 34.4 1.5

Morgan Run near Cheat Lake XS1 45.3 26.6 1.70 28.4 316 2.66 37 15.6 1.4

XS2 41.9 22.5 1.86 26.8 285 3.01 41 12.1 1.8XS3 67.6 34.9 1.93 39.6 294 3.43 39 18.1 1.1XS5 24.5 22.8 1.07 24.2 51.3 1.60 26 21.2 1.1XS6 17.7 17.9 0.99 19.1 46.1 2.94 34 18.0 1.5XS7 20.7 19.3 1.07 20.1 nd 2.07 30 17.9 1.6

North Fork Cherry River near Richwood XS1 62.5 40.1 1.56 44.2 171 3.34 58 25.7 1.4

XS2 140 59.9 2.34 62.5 317 3.21 73 25.6 1.2XS3 235 71.0 3.31 72.7 917 4.40 80 21.5 1.1XS4 141 63.0 2.24 64.2 nd 3.55 82 28.1 1.3XS5 97.4 59.4 1.64 63.8 nd 2.08 84 36.2 1.4XS6 154 43.0 3.58 54.8 496 5.93 87 12.0 2.0XS7 147 63.8 2.30 68.8 226 3.44 87 27.8 1.4

Panther Creek near Panther XS1 146 42.1 3.47 45.6 1,150 5.44 73 12.1 1.7

XS2 162 51.4 3.15 57.9 1,220 5.34 74 16.3 1.4XS3 211 75.3 2.80 80.1 1,240 4.42 142 26.9 1.9
42 Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia Table 4. Bankfull dimensions and other characteristics of stream cross sections in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia.—Continued [XS, cross-section number; ft, feet; ft2, square feet; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; SP, State Park; SF, State Forest; WMA, Wildlife Management Area; nd, not determined. Some cross sections were surveyed and numbered for the slope-area flow measurements although no identifiable bankfull features were present; these cross sections are omitted from this table.] Site XS Bankfull area (ft2

)

Bankfull 

width

(ft)

Bankfull 

mean depth

(ft)

Wetted 

perimeter

(ft)

Flow

(ft3/s)

Bankfull 

maximum 

depth

(ft)

Flood-prone 

width

(ft)

Widthdepth 

ratio

Entrenchment ratio

Payne Branch near Oakvale XS1 54.8 36.2 1.51 40.7 281 2.72 50 23.9 1.4

XS2 60.3 34.7 1.74 38.2 236 3.23 nd 20.0 nd

XS3 59.8 42.2 1.42 53.0 290 2.80 50 29.8 1.2XS4 72.0 52.5 1.37 55.4 306 3.37 nd 38.3 nd

XS5 48.6 25.9 1.87 26.6 272 3.03 56 13.9 2.2

XS6 70.9 35.5 2.00 38.8 572 3.49 nd 17.8 nd

Piney Creek near McCreery XS1 710 162 4.39 173 4,990 8.22 224 36.9 1.4

XS2 431 113 3.81 127 nd 8.01 nd 29.8 nd

XS3 478 140 3.42 144 nd 6.92 202 40.9 1.4XS4 788 131 5.99 154 6,930 8.03 nd 22.0 nd

XS5 378 107 3.53 114 2,620 6.93 127 30.3 1.2

Polly Hollow at Kanawha SF XS1 16.2 16.9 0.96 17.4 nd 1.39 30 17.7 1.8

XS2 20.4 12.7 1.60 14.4 nd 2.01 120 7.9 9.4

XS3 14.1 14.8 0.95 15.8 38.0 1.33 21 15.6 1.4XS4 17.5 12.2 1.44 12.6 38.0 2.02 nd 8.5 nd

XS5 9.54 10.3 0.93 12.0 21.4 1.72 14 11.0 1.3XS6 11.5 12.1 0.94 13.3 28.8 1.60 nd 12.8 nd

XS7 6.08 7.93 0.77 10.5 nd 1.60 14 10.3 1.7

Rock Creek near Danville XS1 174 41.0 4.25 42.6 839 5.37 213 9.6 5.2

XS2 149 41.8 3.57 44.7 596 4.85 80 11.7 1.9

Sand Run near Buckhannon XS1 80.7 42.0 1.92 45.5 353 2.53 132 21.8 3.1

XS2 103 53.6 1.92 55.4 448 3.51 243 27.9 4.5

Second Creek near Second Creek XS1 443 144 3.08 147 3,630 6.11 554 46.6 3.9

XS2 230 85.1 2.70 86.7 1,600 3.80 354 31.5 4.2

Spruce Fork at Cabwaylingo SF XS1 28.5 19.6 1.45 22.3 105 2.17 26 13.6 1.3

XS2 31.7 24.6 1.29 25.4 128 2.03 34 19.1 1.4XS3 26.1 19.2 1.36 20.3 nd 2.37 nd 14.1 nd

XS4 20.2 18.3 1.10 19.4 49.4 1.68 nd 16.5 nd

XS5 29.1 19.6 1.49 28.5 63.8 2.11 nd 13.1 ndXS6 19.6 17.2 1.14 17.3 71.2 1.86 nd 15.1 nd
Table 4 43

Table 4. Bankfull dimensions and other characteristics of stream cross sections in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in West Virginia.—Continued[XS, cross-section number; ft, feet; ft2, square feet; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; SP, State Park; SF, State Forest; WMA, Wildlife Management Area; nd, not determined. Some cross sections were surveyed and numbered for the slope-area flow measurements although no identifiable bankfull features were present; these cross sections are omitted from this table.]

Site XS

Bankfull 

area

(ft2)

Bankfull 

width

(ft)

Bankfull 

mean depth

(ft)

Wetted 

perimeter

(ft)

Flow

(ft3/s)

Bankfull 

maximum 

depth

(ft)

Flood-prone 

width

(ft)

Widthdepth 

ratio

Entrenchment ratio

Unnamed Tributary to Hughes River XS1 18.2 19.4 0.94 20.9 44.0 1.67 nd 20.7 nd

XS2 24.6 19.1 1.29 20.0 77.6 1.92 nd 14.9 ndXS3 19.4 22.9 0.85 23.6 46.1 1.58 nd 26.9 ndXS4 28.1 35.5 0.79 36.9 32.5 1.59 52 44.9 3.0XS5 12.2 20.6 0.59 21.2 nd 0.91 26 34.7 1.3

Upper Nineteenmile Creek at Chief Cornstalk WMA XS1 29.6 19.5 1.52 20.8 nd 2.26 33 12.9 1.7

XS2 14.7 14.7 1.00 14.9 43.4 1.75 36 14.7 2.4XS3 43.3 25.3 1.72 25.9 99.3 2.10 50 14.7 2.0XS4 21.9 25.1 0.87 25.6 27.5 2.33 36 28.7 1.4XS5 23.3 22.4 1.04 23.2 nd 1.62 26 21.5 1.1XS6 12.0 11.9 1.00 13.3 23.4 1.79 18 11.9 1.5

West Fork Greenbrier River above Durbin XS1 179 65.7 2.72 68.6 nd 3.76 nd 24.2 nd

XS2 195 70.9 2.75 77.6 nd 3.89 139 25.7 2.0XS3 242 96.5 2.51 102 nd 4.57 111 38.5 1.1XS4 262 100 2.62 102 1,050 4.14 114 38.3 1.1XS5 122 71.2 1.71 73.1 294 2.42 95 41.6 1.3XS6 279 76.6 3.64 79.2 nd 5.66 96 21.0 1.2XS7 175 61.4 2.85 63.8 769 4.83 71 21.5 1.2XS8 213 56.8 3.75 58.5 nd 6.58 nd 15.2 nd

West Fork Little Kanawha River near Rocksdale XS1 1,372 152 9.00 158 4,370 11.80 396 16.9 2.6

XS2 1,453 156 9.33 162 4,660 13.70 362 16.7 2.3

Williams River at Dyer XS1 722 141 5.12 147 4,150 7.30 278 27.5 2.0

XS2 608 185 3.29 191 1,650 4.50 207 56.2 1.1XS3 901 118 7.61 122 6,080 10.19 nd 15.6 nd

Yellow Creek near Davis XS1 44.1 25.5 1.73 30.2 96.4 3.07 nd 14.7 nd

XS2 21.9 20.3 1.08 21.3 nd 2.06 28 18.8 1.4XS3 61.0 31.0 1.97 33.4 nd 3.60 nd 15.8 ndXS4 25.1 24.2 1.04 27.8 69.3 2.82 29 23.3 1.2XS5 15.6 10.0 1.56 12.0 53.5 2.22 22 6.4 2.2

For additional information call or write to:

Director, U.S. Geological Survey

West Virginia Water Science Center

11 Dunbar Street, Charleston, WV 25301

(304) 347-5130

http://wv.usgs.gov

Document prepared by the West Trenton Publishing Service Center
Messinger—Regional Curves for Bankfull Channel Characteristics in the Appalachian Plateaus, West Virginia—Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5242

ISBN

Printed on recycled paper