ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Watershed Assessment (ENSC 202) Phase 1 – Steps 6-10 Extracted from Vermont ANR Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocols.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Channel Migration Hazard Maps for eastern Jefferson County Rivers 2004 Susan Perkins Perkins Geosciences --- Watershed Professionals Network, LLC.
Advertisements

Rehabilitate Newsome Creek Watershed BPA Project #
9: Running Water Basins: land area that contributes water to a river system Divide: separates different drainage basins Ex. Drainage basin of Mississippi.
Meeting Two More Theory
Landforms of the Fluvial System
Step 4: Complete PFC assessment §17 questions about attributes and processes §Reminder – PFC based on: l Water (hydrology), l Vegetation, and l Soil &
Engelsby Brook Final Project ENSC 285B Peter Dufault Burlington & South Burlington, Vermont April 29, 2005.
Stream Geomorphology Leslie A. Morrissey UVM July 25, 2012.
A MULTI-SCALE APPROACH TO ASSESS THE HYDROLOGICAL CONNECTIVITY OF ROAD AND STREAM NETWORKS Do Road Orientation and Proximity Matter? Alison Pechenick,
Development of a Fluvial Erosion Hazard Mitigation Program for Indiana Wabash River Consortium 2011 Symposium: Stream Monitoring and Restoration November.
Water covers 71% of Earth’s surface and is the dominant agent governing environmental processes. The rates of human usage of water outpace the natural.
A Geomorphic Comparison of an Attainment and an Impaired Stream in Vermont: Potash and Allen Brooks Jen Fullerton, Travis Smith, Joe Bartlett, Sarah Palmer,
Due Tuesday, May 31 st at beginning of class Go to and enter 101 in left navbar search field. On G101 web page, download Problem Set.
Lewis Creek Reach M19 Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3.
Muddy Brook vs. Alder Brook Stream Geomorphic Assessment: Joe Kelly, Alison Selle, Sarah Stein, Kristin Williams.
ENSC 202 – 2004 Lab 1 - Introduction Watershed Assessment (ENSC 202) Lab 1 Extracted from Vermont ANR Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocols Handbook -
Watershed Assessment (ENSC 202)
ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 2-5 Watershed Assessment (ENSC 202) Phase 1 – Steps 2-5 Extracted from Vermont ANR Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocols.
Stream Geomorphic Protocols Introduction Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocols Extracted from Vermont ANR Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocols.
FLOODS, STREAMS AND MEANDERS. GAUGING STATION On all major streams Measures Stream Height Height vs. Discharge (volume) Flood Stage and height above Flood.
Watershed and Rapid Geomorphic Assessment of Bay Brook and Centennial Brook in Vermont By: Abby Boak, Sarah Booker, Kate Connelly, Cara Massameno, and.
ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Introduction Watershed Assessment (ENSC 202) Introduction to Phase 1 Extracted from Vermont ANR Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocols.
Greg Jennings, PhD, PE Professor, Biological & Agricultural Engineering North Carolina State University BAE 579: Stream Restoration Lesson.
Habitat Restoration Division Coastal Program Partner For Wildlife Program Schoolyard Habitats Chesapeake Bay Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
MA BF REFERENCE CURVES Objective Develop bankfull regional curves and equations for estimating bankfull width, mean depth, cross-sectional area, and discharge.
Step 1: Assess Riparian Resource Function Using PFC §1d. Complete PFC assessment l 17 questions about attributes and processes l Reminder – PFC based on:
Natural Riparian Resources Water Landscape & SoilVegetation.
Project Activity: Riparian Zone Restoration Scott Compton, Watershed Program Manager Valles Caldera National Preserve.
Chapter 16: Running Water. Hydrologic cycle The hydrologic cycle is a summary of the circulation of Earth’s water supply Processes involved in the hydrologic.
Stream Processes and Habitat Ryan Johnson. Overview Watershed Processes – Factors and their effects on the watershed as a whole Stream Processes – Factors.
Fluvial Criteria in the FAHP. “ All permanent stream crossing replacements must provide for a fully functional floodplain”
Channel Migration Zones: What? Why? Where? Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Washington Department of Ecology Patricia L. Olson.
An exercise in stream restoration and redesign
The hydrologic cycle. Running water Streamflow Two types of flow determined primarily by velocity –Laminar flow –Turbulent flow Factors that determine.
Hydrologic Hazards at the Earth’s Surface
Landforms Jeopardy ErosionMap-reading Skills Stream TablesBodies of WaterMystery Round
River Systems. Objective  Students will describe factors that affect the erosive ability of a river and the evolution of a river system.
PCWA Study Plan Physical Habitat Characterization Study Plan –Geomorphology Study Plan –Riparian Habitat Mapping Study Plan –Aquatic Habitat Characterization.
EARTH SCIENCE Prentice Hall EARTH SCIENCE Tarbuck Lutgens 
Natural Riparian Resources Water Landscape & SoilVegetation.
The Work of Streams Erosion Destroys the land. The Work of Streams Erosion Destroys the land Deposition Makes new land.
River Systems Section 2 Section 2: Stream Erosion Preview Key Ideas Parts of a River System Channel Erosion Development of River Channels Tributary, River.
Chapter 2: The Flow of Freshwater. Draw the water cycle diagram in your daybook and label it in your own words. p.41 in your text.
Dworshak Dam, Clearwater River, holds 12,384,000 acre- feet of water Idaho has 93,000 miles of rivers and streams.
Stream Geomorphic Assessment of Allen Brook Jarrett Arthur, Amy Myers Shea Hagy, Mike McDonald.
Bridges Reach analysis Fundamental tool for design
Fluvial Criteria in the FAHP
Erosion of rock by moving water
4 channel types defined at reach scale, based on 3 features
Rivers.
4 channel types defined at reach scale, based on 3 features
Stream Geomorphic Assessment of Allen Brook
Sorting of Sediments & Age of a Stream
Meandering Rivers.
The Work of Streams.
Chapter 18.
Stream Erosion.
stream, river, lake, wetland, or ocean
River Systems Part 2 Features of a Meandering River Levees
Streams Hydrodynamics
Stages of a Stream’s Life
Erosion Weathered rock particles are transported Agents of erosion
Milltown Phase II Draft Restoration Plan
The Flow of Freshwater.
Iowa’s River Restoration Toolbox Level 1 / Base Training
Module # 17 Overview of Geomorphic Channel Design Practice
Module # 8 Channel Evolution Implications & Drivers of Instability
Module # 16 Restoring Functions to Streams Through Design
Abby By: Abby Boak, Sarah Booker, Kate Connelly,
Longitudinal Profile Survey for Successful Culvert Replacement
Presentation transcript:

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Watershed Assessment (ENSC 202) Phase 1 – Steps 6-10 Extracted from Vermont ANR Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocols Handbook - Introduction

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 6 Floodplain modifications 6.1 Berms and Roads 6.2 River Corridor Development 6.3 Depositional Features 6.4 Meander Migration / Channel Avulsion 6.5 Meander Width Ratio 6.6 Wavelength Ratio

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Rationale for Step 6 Streams need floodplains for adjustment Development often constrains the floodplain Floodplain constraint can increase stream power Increased power can move larger particles, leading to degradation

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 6.1 Berms and Roads Rough percentages in the river corridor Does not include crossings Impact rating I-89 along Winooski River

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 6.2 River Corridor Development Houses, fill (including bridge and culvert fills), parking lots or other development Impact rating

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 6.3 Depositional Features Un-vegetated ‘bars’ Impact rating

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 6.4 Meander Migration/ Channel Avulsion Best done by difference analysis with orthophotos GIS or tracing on acetates Consider errors in overlays Impact rating High impact migration and avulsion

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 6.5 Meander width ratio Only certain reaches (step 2.10) –types C or E riffle-pool or ripple-dune reference types –narrow (NW) and unconfined (BD and VB) valleys If straighten >50% belt width = channel width  MWR=1 naturally confined and braided stream types –enter “0” for MWR –enter not applicable (“N/A”) for the impact rating See Appendix HAppendix H

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 6.6 Wavelength ratio Same restrictions as in step 6.5 WLR = wavelength/channel width (2.8)

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 7 Bed and Bank Windshield Survey 7.1 Dominant Bed Form / Material 7.2 Bank Erosion – Relative Magnitude 7.3 Debris and Ice Jam Potential

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Rationale & considerations for Step 7 An opportunity to check validity of Phase 1 assessments before Phase 2 effort Do advanced planning to limit drive time Take care in doing assessments from bridges  bridge impact Good opportunity to do some photo documentation

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 7.1a Dominant bed form

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 7.1b Dominant bed material

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 7.2 Bank erosion – relative magnitude Bank erosion Bank heights Remember that some erosion is natural

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 7.3 Ice/debris dam potential

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 8 Stream Impact Ratings 8.1 Impact Rating –High(2), Low(1), Not sig (0), Don’t know (0) 8.2 Priority Rating –A tool available in the database reporting functions

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 9 Stream Geomorphic Condition Assessment 9.1 Channel Adjustment Process 9.2 Reach Condition 9.3 Reach Sensitivity

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 9.1 PROVISIONAL channel adjustment processes This table is generated automatically by the database. See Appendices B and CBC Adjustment defined as score > 4

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Channel Evolution Models (CEM) F- and D-stage streams –unconfined, low gradient valleys where the streams are not entrenched –access to floodplain at 1-2 year flood stage F-stage process: bed and bank is erodible D-stage process bed and bank less erodible

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 F-stage CEM

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 D-stage CEM

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 9.2a Reach condition score Calculated by the database Based on the 4 key adjustment processes Calculated for each reach based on the worst adjustment process in the worst reach Effectively a ‘bad’ to ‘worst’ scoring system

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 9.2b – Reach condition score

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 9.3 Reach sensitivity (Subjective) Considerations

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Step 10 Like Reach Evaluation Basically a simple sorting tool in the database May help in selecting reaches for Phase 2 field work

ENSC 202 – 2004 Phase 1 Steps 6-10 Remember to do your QA/QC!!