Middle Fork Salmon River

Similar documents
Stream Rehabilitation Concepts, Guidelines and Examples. Objectives. Pierre Y. Julien. Three Laws of Stream Restoration

Lecture 4: Streamflow and Stream Gauging

Catchment Scale Processes and River Restoration. Dr Jenny Mant The River Restoration Centre therrc.co.uk

Prattsville Berm Removal Project. 1.0 Project Location

CHAPTER 9 CHANNELS APPENDIX A. Hydraulic Design Equations for Open Channel Flow

Stream Channel Cross Sections for a Reach of the Boise River in Ada County, Idaho

COLORADO FRONT RANGE FLOOD OF 2013:

TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C.

ROSE CREEK WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC, HYDRAULIC, SEDIMENT TRANSPORT, AND GEOMORPHIC ANALYSES TASK 1 EXISTING DATA AND INFORMATION SUMMARY REPORT BACKGROUND

CHAPTER 3 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

Topic 8: Open Channel Flow

EFFECTS OF ARUNDO DONAX ON RIVER HYDRAULICS, SEDIMENT TRANSPORT, AND GEOMORPHOLOGY, SANTA MARGARITA RIVER, CALIFORNIA

CITY UTILITIES DESIGN STANDARDS MANUAL

Open Channel Flow 2F-2. A. Introduction. B. Definitions. Design Manual Chapter 2 - Stormwater 2F - Open Channel Flow

2.0 BASIC CONCEPTS OF OPEN CHANNEL FLOW MEASUREMENT

Appendix 4-C. Open Channel Theory

Ginger Paige and Nancy Mesner University of Wyoming Utah State University

Design of Encroachments on Flood Plains Using Risk Analysis HEC 17 April 1981

SIMULATION OF SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY CHANGE IN LARGE RIVER SYSTEMS. Stephen H. Scott 1 and Yafei Jia 2

Travel Time. Computation of travel time and time of concentration. Factors affecting time of concentration. Surface roughness

BEDLOAD DATABASE AND PREDICTION PERFORMANCE

Basic Principles of Channel Design

USGS StreamStats Web Application for Kentucky

M6a: Open Channel Flow (Manning s Equation, Partially Flowing Pipes, and Specific Energy)

The Tahoe National Forest - Do You Know How to Surve scientifically Analyze a Study?

Flash Flood Science. Chapter 2. What Is in This Chapter? Flash Flood Processes

Riprap-lined Swale (RS)

Stream-Network Navigation in the U.S. Geological Survey StreamStats Web Application

A sediment monitoring program for North America

Course Plan Day 1: Introduction and Overview Hydrology & Fluvial Geomorphology Day 2: Fieldwork on the Braid Burn Alan Jones

URBAN DRAINAGE CRITERIA

Quantifying Potential Floodplain Restoration Benefits in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, USA

Simulating Sedimentation Model in Balarood Dam Reservoir Using CCHE2D Software

Stream Monitoring at Tumacácori NHP

Earth Science. River Systems and Landforms GEOGRAPHY The Hydrologic Cycle. Introduction. Running Water. Chapter 14.

How To Understand Flow Flow After Restoration Of A Meadow

UNION COUNTY, FLORIDA AND INCORPORATED AREAS

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DRAINAGE HANDBOOK OPEN CHANNEL. OFFICE OF DESIGN, DRAINAGE SECTION November 2009 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

Locating Point and Non-point Sources of Escherichia coli in the Mechumps Creek Watershed, Hanover County, Virginia

The Hydrologic Engineering Center Training Course on

How To Check For Scour At A Bridge

PROJECT STATUS REPORT. Development of microhabitat suitability criteria for fry and juvenile salmonids of the Trinity River

Sand and Silt Removal from Salmonid Streams

FLOOD PROTECTION BENEFITS

Lecture 22 Example Culvert Design Much of the following is based on the USBR technical publication Design of Small Canal Structures (1978)

Charles R. Gamble TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CANE CREEK FLOOD-FLOW CHARACTERISTICS AT STATE ROUTE 30 NEAR SPENCER, TENNESSEE

LATEST ENHANCEMENTS TO THE RIVERMorph STREAM RESTORATION SOFTWARE


A HYDROLOGIC NETWORK SUPPORTING SPATIALLY REFERENCED REGRESSION MODELING IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED

B flow at flat gradients near their mouths, it appears logical

Welded Mesh Gabions and Mattresses River Protection Design Guide HY-TEN GABION SOLUTIONS Dunstall Hill Trading Estate, Gorsebrook Road,

Waipi o Valley Flood Damage Reduction and Stream Stabilization Preliminary Investigation

1. Carry water under the canal 2. Carry water over the canal 3. Carry water into the canal

STREAM NOTES To Aid in Securing Favorable Conditions of Water Flows

Flood Hazard Area Technical Manual Section 8 Bank Stabilization and Stream Restoration

Index-Velocity Rating Development (Calibration) for H-ADCP Real-Time Discharge Monitoring in Open Channels

Channel Design. Part 654 Stream Restoration Design National Engineering Handbook. United States Department of Agriculture

Development of a Traveltime Prediction Equation for Streams in Arkansas

Addendum. Use Attainability Analysis for Site Specific Selenium Criteria: Alkali Creek. February 23, 2009

Fort Dodge Stormwater Master Planning. Prepared By: Ralph C. Stark, Jr., P.E., C.F.M. Joel N. Krause, P.E., C.F.M.

Open channel flow Basic principle

Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Incident Report Form

OPEN-CHANNEL FLOW. Free surface. P atm

What is the most obvious difference between pipe flow and open channel flow????????????? (in terms of flow conditions and energy situation)

Ruby River Grayling - Gravel Spawning Beds Monitoring Report January 2008

Open Channel Flow. M. Siavashi. School of Mechanical Engineering Iran University of Science and Technology

CHICKASAW COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, AND INCORPORATED AREAS

Instructions and Helpful Hints. for Preparation of. Emergency Action Plans

PRECIPITATION AND EVAPORATION

Rational Method Hydrologic Calculations with Excel. Rational Method Hydrologic Calculations with Excel, Course #508. Presented by:

Chapter 4. Flood Risk Assessment

Sediment Transport Primer Estimating Bed-Material Transport in Gravel-bed Rivers

ESTIMATING DISCHARGE AND STREAM FLOWS

How To Fix A Flood Control System In South Lakewood

Chapter 13 OPEN-CHANNEL FLOW

Bull Run River. Water Temperature Evaluation. Prepared by: City of Portland Bureau of Water Works Portland, Oregon

A Flood Warning System for City of Findlay, Ohio

Proposal to the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG)

Land Disturbance, Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Checklist. Walworth County Land Conservation Department

Chapter 12 - HYDROLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS

Year Post Restoration Monitoring Summary Rock Creek Project Monitoring and Analysis conducted by Bio-Surveys,LLC. Contact: strask@casco.

Red River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Framework

Emergency Spillways (Sediment basins)

Shooks Run Drainage Study Basic Terminology

Pima RDstiChannel DesiggSubmittal

Mathematics and Computation of Sediment Transport in Open Channels

Evaluation of Open Channel Flow Equations. Introduction :

The checklist utilized by the Authority will be similar to that which is shown below. Project Name: Location: Consulting Engineering Firm:

Monitoring Hydrological Changes Related to Western Juniper Removal: A Paired Watershed Approach

HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC MODELING OF WESTMINSTER WATERSHED ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Lower Raritan Watershed Management Area Stormwater & Flooding Subcommittee Strategy Worksheet LRSW-S3C1

Evaluation of State Water Resources Control Board Water Availability Analysis June 2001

Exam 1 Review Questions PHY Exam 1

DANIELS RUN STREAM RESTORATION, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA: FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS REPORT

Environmental Data Management Programs

Monitoring the Benefits of Instream Habitat Diversity. Entiat River, Chelan County, Washington

Base-Flow Yields of Watersheds in Berkeley County, West Virginia

A White Paper Describing a Watershed-based Monitoring Network Design for the Purgatoire River Basin

3. Design Procedures. Design Procedures. Introduction

FLOW CONDITIONER DESIGN FOR IMPROVING OPEN CHANNEL FLOW MEASUREMENT ACCURACY FROM A SONTEK ARGONAUT-SW

Transcription:

General Information The study reach is about a 3,760 ft length of river near the Geological Survey (USGS) gage 3309220 ( at Middle Fork Lodge near Yellow Pine, Idaho) in the Salmon-Challis National Forest. The study reach is about.25 miles downstream from the gaging station at the Little Creek pack bridge (Figures and 2). The site is on land administered by the Forest Service at an elevation of about 4,350 ft. The drainage area upstream of the gage location is,040 mi 2 and the geology of the watershed is predominantly intrusive igneous and mixed volcanic. Sediment transport measurements were made from the Little Creek pack bridge by Utah State University personnel predominantly during the spring snowmelt flows of 997. Additional information collected at this site includes a survey of the stream reach, pebble counts of the surface substrate and core samples of the subsurface substrate material. Figure. looking downstream from the pack bridge.

Figure 2. looking upstream from the pack bridge. Streamflow has been recorded from April 973 through September 98 and March 999 to present. Average annual streamflow (Q a ) for the period of record is,395 ft 3 /s and the.5 year return period discharge (Q.5 ) is estimated at 7,550 ft 3 /s. The highest flow recorded was 20,900 ft 3 /s on June 6, 974.

Cross-Section Figure 3 shows the cross-section at Little Creek pack bridge,.25 miles downstream of the USGS gage. The average gradient for the study reach is 0.004 ft/ft. All sediment transport measurements were made at the bridge cross-section. 25 20 Elevation, ft 5 5 0 Q.5 Q a -5 0 50 0 50 200 250 Distance, ft Figure 3. Cross-section of the at the Little Creek pack bridge.

Channel Geometry The station geometry relationships for the cross-section at the Little Creek pack bridge are shown in Figure 4. Information for all 997 discharge measurements were used to develop the power relationships with discharge. Over the range of discharges when sediment transport was measured (2,950 to 5,300 ft 3 /s) estimated stream width, estimated average depth and estimated average velocity varied from 72.9 to 223.9 ft, 3.2 to 6.37 ft, and 5.5 to.7 ft/s, respectively. The average reach slope is 0.004 ft/ft. 00 0 Width and Depth, ft 0 Top Width y = 49.36x 0.57 R 2 = 0.96 Average Velocity y = 0.207x 0.4 R 2 = 0.997 Average Velocity, ft/s Average Depth y = 0.098x 0.433 R 2 = 0.996 0 00 000 0000 Discharge, ft 3 /s Figure 4. Width, average depth and average velocity versus stream discharge at the Little Creek pack bridge cross-section on the Middle Fork Salmon River.

Channel Material Surface pebble counts were made in July 2000 at three cross-sections and three cores of surface and subsurface material were collected, one at each cross-section. The D 50 and D 90 for the combined pebble counts in the reach are 46 mm and 370 mm, respectively (Figure 5). About 2% of the surface material is sand (2 mm) size or smaller. The average D 50 and D 90 for the combined surface cores are 28 mm and 22 mm, respectively. The average D 50 and D 90 for the subsurface combined cores are 36 mm and 74 mm, respectively. 0 90 80 70 Percent Finer 60 50 40 30 20 0 0. 0 00 000 Particle Size, mm 2000 Pebble Counts 2000 Subsurface Cores 2000 Surface Cores Figure 5. Particle size distribution for surface and subsurface material samples in the.

Sediment Transport The bedload and suspended load measurements in water years 997 includes 64 measurements of bedload transport and 3 measurements of suspended sediment. Sediment transport measurements spanned a range of stream discharges from 2,950 ft 3 /s (.99Q a ) to 5,300 ft 3 /s (.34Q a ). Bedload transport ranged from 0.272 to 4,30 t/d and suspended transport ranged from 80.4 to 20,0 t/d. Over the range of measured discharges, suspended transport accounts for the majority of the material in transport with over an order of magnitude greater suspended transport at the lower range of sampled discharges and a three to four times greater rate at the higher discharges (Figure 6). 0000 Sediment Transport, tons/day 000 00 0 Suspended y = 2.33E-3x 3.997 R 2 = 0.89 BCF=.43 Total Bedload y = 2.59E-2x 5.749 R 2 = 0.82 BCF=.886 Q a Q.5 Suspended Total Bedload 0. 00 000 0000 Discharge, ft 3 /s Figure 6. Bedload and suspended load transport rate versus discharge.

The bedload transport rates by size class (Figure 7) shows that the larger rates are associated with material 0.5 to 2 mm diameter. However, at discharges larger than about 8000 ft 3 /s, material larger than 8 mm diameter is well represented in the sample. 000 00 <0.5mm y = 3.886E-8x 4.69 R 2 = 0.89 Bedload Rate, tons/day 0 0. <0.5mm 0.5-2mm 2-8mm 8-32mm >32mm 0.5-2mm y = 7.723E-20x 5.255 R 2 = 0.87 2-8mm y =.006E-24x 6.382 R 2 = 0.79 8-32mm y = 6.245E-28x 7.2 R 2 = 0.66 >32mm y =.648E-06x.94 R 2 = 0. Q a Q.5 0.0 00 000 0000 Discharge, ft 3/ s Figure 7. Bedload transport rate versus discharge for selected size classes.

The largest particle in the bedload sample increased with discharge (Figure 8). The largest particle measured in a bedload sample was 83 mm at a discharge of,900 ft 3 /s. The median diameter of the bedload sample also increased with discharge. The largest median diameter of a bedload sample was 43.7 mm for a sample collected at a discharge of 5,380 ft 3 /s. The relationship between discharge and the largest particle in the bedload sample suggests that discharges above the.5 year return interval discharge are needed before some material about the median size of the surface material is in motion. 00 0 D 50 for three surface pebble counts R 2 = 0.70 Bedload Size, mm D 50 for three subsurface cores R 2 = 0.6 0. Median Size Largest Particle Q a Q.5 0 00 000 0000 Discharge, ft 3 /s Figure 8. Largest particle in the bedload sample and median size of the sample versus stream discharge for the.