Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Hydraulic and design aspects of natural and constructed riffles in gravel-cobble bed rivers Walker, Daniel Richard 2002

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2003-792668.pdf [ 25.47MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0063500.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0063500-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0063500-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0063500-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0063500-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0063500-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0063500-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0063500-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0063500.ris

Full Text

HYDRAULIC A N D DESIGN ASPECTS OF N A T U R A L A N D CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES IN G R A V E L - C O B B L E BED RIVERS by DANIEL RICHARD W A L K E R B.Sc.(Eng.), The University of Guelph, 1993 M.Sc., The University of Stirling, 1995 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department of Civil Engineering) We accept this thesis as conforming THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 2002 © Daniel Richard Walker, 2002 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department of C T I ^ J L L S y>g t / \ e « ^ u A ' The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date /^oOg.vw-W .^ *2."7 300? ABSTRACT The reintroduction of riffle-pool sequences has increasingly been promoted as an appropriate rehabilitation alternative for the re-naturalization of modified gravel-cobble bed channels. However, in the absence of hydraulic design guidelines, enhancement efforts often fail to evaluate the subsequent impacts to flood levels and sediment transport capacity. This has led to increased flooding and channel instability concerns. Accordingly, the intent of this thesis was to develop a hydraulic design procedure for the evaluation of the potential long-term hydraulic effects of riffle rehabilitation in uniform and degraded gravel-cobble bed rivers. Accordingly, a hydraulic analysis of natural and constructed riffle-pool sequences in four gravel-cobble bed streams was performed to investigate the variation in energy across constructed riffles at varying discharges up to and including bankfull. Significantly, riffle energy loss is shown to be substantial ranging between 50 and 100% of the total mini-reach loss. This indicates that the sampled rock-riffles are not being completely "drowned out" at higher stages, and that riffle-pool reconstruction may influence channel flow resistance, flood levels and sediment transporting capacity. Therefore, a comprehensive hydraulic analysis should be considered an essential component of rigorous riffle-pool rehabilitation design. A result of particular significance to the hydraulic design and analysis of rock-riffles is the strong relationship observed between riffle energy loss and amplitude for the rock-riffles sampled. This suggests the resultant rock-riffle energy loss in similar channels can be effectively described using a project-specific design variable. Drawing on this observation, an iterative procedure for ii the hydraulic design and analysis of rock-riffles in uniform or channelized gravel-cobble bed rivers is developed. Specifically, the procedure, which includes quantitative guidelines for the design of rock-riffle amplitude, spacing and stability, considers both the expectant energy loss and the potential effects on channel sediment transport capacity. This enables the creation of design channel profiles that better reflect the individual catchment and reach characteristics, the governing fluvial processes, and the specific rehabilitation goals and objectives. When used in association with appropriate geomorphic, hydraulic, hydrologic and ecologic appraisal, this new hydraulic analysis procedure should therefore provide a sound basis for the effective design and evaluation of riffle-pool rehabilitation projects in relatively steep gravel-cobble bed rivers. iii T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Abstract ii Table of Contents iv List of Tables vii List of Figures xiii Preface xxi Acknowledgments xxiii 1.0 Thesis Background and Objectives 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Thesis Objectives 3 1.3 Literature Review 3 1.3.1 Natural Riffle-Pool Morphology and Hydraulics 3 1.3.2 Flow Resistance 5 1.3.2.1 Energy Principles 6 1.3.2.2 Resistance Partitioning 10 1.3.2.3 Morphologic Resistance 19 1.4 Thesis Outline 21 2.0 Study Methodology 29 Summary 29 2.1 Field Sites 29 2.1.1 Beecher Creek 29 2.1.2 0uilletCreek 30 2.1.3 Brunette River 31 2.1.4 Chapman Creek 32 2.2 Field Sampling 33 2.3 Sample Discharge Estimation 35 2.3.1 Beecher Creek 35 2.3.2 Brunette River 36 2.3.3 Chapman and Ouillet Creeks 38 2.4 Bed Material Characterization 40 2.5 Total Station Surveying 41 2.6 Data Analysis 42 3.0 Energy Profiles Across Constructed and Natural Riffles 70 Summary 70 3.1 Introduction 70 3.2 Energy Head and Hydraulic Resistance 72 3.3 Riffle Resistance and Structure Dimension 73 3.4 Sediment Transport Capacity 75 3.5 Discussion and Design Implications 76 3.6 Conclusions 78 iv T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S (continued) 4.0 Hydraulic Design of Constructed Riffles in Gravel-Cobble Bed Rivers 92 Summary 92 4.1 Introduction 92 4.2 Riffle-Pool Rehabilitation 94 4.3 Rock-Riffle Design and Hydraulic Analysis 95 4.3.1 Location and Spacing 96 4.3.2 Configuration 96 4.3.3 Hydraulic Analysis 99 4.3.3.1 Flow Resistance 99 4.3.3.2 Sediment Transport 101 4.3.3.3 Hydraulic Modeling 105 4.3.4 Stability 107 4.4 Ouillet Creek Design Example 109 4.4.1 Sample Calculations 109 4.4.1.1 Maximum Crest Amplitude 110 4.4.1.2 First Iteration 110 4.4.1.3 Second Iteration 112 4.4.1.4 Stable Rock Diameter 114 4.4.2 Discussion of Results 115 4.5 Summary and Conclusions 117 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 130 5.1 Summary and Conclusions 130 5.2 Thesis Contribution 132 5.3 Recommendations 133 Nomenclature 136 References 143 Appendix A . Total Station Survey Data 159 Summary 159 Appendix B. Beecher Creek and Brunette River Tributary Discharge Data 232 Summary 232 Appendix C. Study Reach Bed Material Data 250 Summary 250 v T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S (continued) Appendix D. MATLAB® Analysis Routines 278 Summary 278 D . l Cross-section Analysis Routine 280 D.2 Effective Flow Area (EFA) Analysis Routine 287 D.3 Sample Parameter File 295 Appendix E . Sampled Water Surface and Energy Profiles 296 Summary 296 vi LIST O F T A B L E S Table 1.1 - Examples of Riffle Reconstruction in Modified Channels 23 Table 1.2 - Select Morphologic Terminology 25 Table 1.3 - Relative Dimensions of Natural Riffles and Pools 26 Table 1.4 - Reported Riffle-Pool Spacings X 27 Table 2.1 - Study Reach Characteristics 47 Table 2.2 - Sampled Water Surface Profiles 48 Table 2.3 - Summary of Estimated Sampling Discharges for Beecher Creek 49 Table 2.4 - Summary of Estimated Sampling Discharges for Brunette River and Tributary 50 Table 2.5 - Summary of Estimated Sampling Discharges for Chapman Creek 51 Table 2.6 - Summary of Estimated Discharges for Ouillet Creek above Gosden Creek 52 Table 2.7 - Summary of Estimated Discharges for Gosden Creek 53 Table 2.8 - Summary of Total Station Surveying 54 Table 4.1- Estimated Study Reach Downstream Flow Separation Lengths Ls Expressed as a Ratio of Rock-Riffle Downstream Face Length Ld and Channel Bankfull Width Wbf 119 Table 4.2 - Predicted X, A, A and S' in Ouillet Creek for 4 Design Scenarios 120 Table A. 1 - Surveyed Rock-Riffle Dimensions for: (a) Beecher Creek; (b) Ouillet Creek; (c) Brunette River; and (d) Chapman Creek 160 Table A.2 - Beecher Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained March 2000 161 Table A.3 - Beecher Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained November 2000 162 Table A.4 - Ouillet Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained December 1999 163 Table A.5 - Ouillet Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained June 2000 164 Table A.6 - Ouillet Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained October 2000 165 vii LIST O F T A B L E S (continued) Table A.7 - Brunette River Surveyed Gauge Elevations for All Samples 166 Table A. 8 - Chapman Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained December 1999 167 Table A.9 - Chapman Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained June 2000 168 Table A. 10 - Chapman Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained October 17 and 20, 2000 169 Table A. 11 - Chapman Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained October 28,2000 170 Table B . l - Beecher Creek U Discharge Measurement for Sample March 2, 2000 (Q = 0.28 m3/s) 233 Table B.2 - Beecher Creek U Discharge Measurement for Sample March 17, 2000 (Q = 0.23 m3/s) 234 Table B.3 - Beecher Creek U Discharge Measurement for Sample 1 March 18, 2000 (Q = 0.79 m3/s) 235 Table B.4 - Beecher Creek U Discharge Measurement for Sample 2 March 18, 2000 (Q = 0.87 m3/s) 236 Table B.5 - Beecher Creek U Discharge Measurement for Sample November 23, 2000 (Q = 0.09 m3/s) 237 Table B.6 - Beecher Creek U Discharge Measurement for Sample November 25, 2000 (Q = 0.40 m3/s) 238 Table B.7 - Beecher Creek L Discharge Measurement for Sample March 2, 2000 (Q = 0.28 m3/s) 239 Table B.8 - Beecher Creek L Discharge Measurement for Sample March 17, 2000 (Q = 0.36 m3/s) 240 Table B.9 - Beecher Creek L Discharge Measurement for Sample 1 March 18, 2000 (Q = 0.79 m3/s) 241 Table B.10 - Beecher Creek L Discharge Measurement for Sample 2 March 18, 2000 (Q = 0.92 m3/s) 242 viii LIST O F T A B L E S (continued) Table B.l 1 - Beecher Creek L Discharge Measurement for Sample 1 November 23, 2000 (Q = 0.07 m3/s) 243 Table B.12 - Beecher Creek L Discharge Measurement for Sample 2 November 23, 2000 (Q = 0.43 m3/s) 244 Table B.13 - Beecher Creek L Discharge Measurement for Sample November 25, 2000 (Q = 0.42 m3/s) 245 Table C . l - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Beecher Creek U 252 Table C.2 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Beecher Creek L 254 Table C.3 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Ouillet Creek 255 Table C.4 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Brunette River 260 Table C.5 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Chapman Creek N 262 Table C.6 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Chapman Creek C 264 Table C.7 - Summary of Select (a) Upstream Bed, (b) Riffle, and (c) Mini-reach Characteristic Grain Sizes for Beecher Creek 267 Table C.8 - Summary of Select (a) Upstream Bed, (b) Riffle, and (c) Mini-reach Characteristic Grain Sizes for Ouillet Creek 268 Table C.9 - Summary of Select (a) Upstream Bed, (b) Riffle, and (c) Mini-reach Characteristic Grain Sizes for Brunette River 269 Table CIO - Summary of Select (a) Upstream Bed, (b) Riffle, and (c) Mini-reach Characteristic Grain Sizes for Chapman Creek 270 Table C . l 1 - Summary of Select (a) Upstream Bed, (b) Riffle, and (c) Reach Characteristic Grain Sizes for Each Study Reach 271 Table E . l - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Beecher Creek Sample Mar. 2, 2000 297 Table E.2 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Beecher Creek Sample Mar. 17, 2000 298 Table E.3 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Beecher Creek Sample 1 Mar. 18, 2000 299 ix LIST O F T A B L E S (continued) Table E.4 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Beecher Creek Sample 2 Mar. 18, 2000 300 Table E.5 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Beecher Creek Sample 1 Nov. 23, 2000 301 Table E.6 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Beecher Creek Sample 2 Nov. 23, 2000 302 Table E.7 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Beecher Creek Sample Nov. 25, 2000 303 Table E.8 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Ouillet Creek Sample 1 Dec. 2, 1999 (Q = 6.86 m3/s) 304 Table E.9 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Ouillet Creek Sample 2 Dec. 2, 1999 (Q = 6.57 m3/s) 305 Table E.10 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Ouillet Creek Sample 3 Dec. 2, 1999 (Q = 5.68 m3/s) 306 Table E . l 1 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Ouillet Creek Sample Dec. 6, 1999 (Q = 6.58 m3/s) 307 Table E.l2 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Ouillet Creek Sample 1 Dec. 15, 1999 (Q = 13.53 m3/s) 308 Table E.l3 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Ouillet Creek Sample 2 Dec. 15, 1999 (Q = 17.33 m3/s) 309 Table E.14 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Ouillet Creek Sample 1 June 12, 2000 (Q = 9.04 m3/s) 310 Table E.l5 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Ouillet Creek Sample 2 June 12, 2000 (Q = 7.77 m3/s) 311 Table E. 16 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Ouillet Creek Sample Oct. 17,2000 (Q = 5.88 m3/s) 312 Table E. 17 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Ouillet Creek Sample Oct. 20, 2000 (Q = 8.82 m3/s) 313 Table E.l8 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Brunette River Sample Jan. 19, 2001 314 x LIST O F T A B L E S (continued) Table E.l9 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Brunette River Sample 1 Jan. 21, 2001 315 Table E.20 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Brunette River Sample 2 Jan. 21, 2001 316 Table E.21 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Brunette River Sample 3 Jan. 21, 2001 317 Table E.22 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Brunette River Sample Feb. 2, 2001 318 Table E.23 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Brunette River Sample Mar. 27, 2001 319 Table E.24 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Chapman Creek Sample Dec. 2, 1999 (Q = 9.83 m3/s) 320 Table E.25 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Chapman Creek Sample Dec. 15, 1999 (Q = 13.88 m3/s) 321 Table E.26 - Water Surface Profde, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Chapman Creek Sample 1 June 12, 2000 {Q = 29.70 m3/s) 322 Table E.27 - Water Surface Profde, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Chapman Creek Sample 2 June 12, 2000 (Q = 33.55 m3/s) 323 Table E.28 - Water Surface Profde, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Chapman Creek Sample 3 June 12, 2000 (Q = 30.67 m3/s) 324 Table E.29 - Water Surface Profde, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Chapman Creek Sample 1 Oct. 17, 2000 (Q =13.35 m3/s) 325 Table E.30 - Water Surface Profde, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Chapman Creek Sample 2 Oct. 17, 2000 (Q = 8.40 m3/s) 326 Table E.31 - Water Surface Profde, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Chapman Creek Sample 1 Oct. 20, 2000 (Q = 19.55 m3/s) 327 Table E.32 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Chapman Creek Sample 2 Oct. 20, 2000 {Q = 14.47 m3/s) 328 Table E.33 - Water Surface Profde, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Chapman Creek Sample 1 Oct. 28, 2000 (Q = 17.36 m3/s) 329 LIST O F T A B L E S (continued) Table E.34 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Chapman Creek Sample 2 Oct. 28, 2000 (Q = 15.29 m3/s) 330 Table E.35 - Water Surface Profile, and Computed Average Depths, Velocities and Energy, for Chapman Creek Sample 3 Oct. 28, 2000 (Q = 13.35 m3/s) 331 xii LIST O F FIGURES Figure 1.1 - 1-D Bernoulli energy equation applied along a length of channel 28 Figure 2.1 - Study reach location map: (1) Beecher Creek; (2) Ouillet Creek; (3) Brunette River; (4) Chapman Creek 55 Figure 2.2 - Beecher Creek U and L study reach thalweg centerline (survey date: Sept. 12, 2000) and sample cross-section locations (survey date: Oct. 11, 2000). Beecher Creek U and L study reaches are depicted in greater detail in Figs. 2.3 and 2.4, respectively 56 Figure 2.3 - Beecher Creek U study reach thalweg centerline (survey date: Sept. 12, 2000) and sample cross-section locations (survey date: Oct. 11, 2000) 57 Figure 2.4 - Beecher Creek L study reach thalweg centerline (survey date: Sept. 12, 2000) and sample cross-section locations (survey date: Oct. 11, 2000) 58 Figure 2.5 - Beecher Creek U and L study reach bed profile (survey date: Sept. 12, 2000) with sampled water surface and energy grade line at Q = 0.87 m3/s (Beecher Creek U) and Q = 0.92 m3/s (Beecher Creek L) 59 Figure 2.6 - Ouillet Creek study reach thalweg centerline (survey date: July 30, 2000) and sample cross-section locations (survey date: Julyl4, 2001) 60 Figure 2.7 - Ouillet Creek study reach bed profile (survey date: July 30, 2000) with sampled water surface and energy grade line at Qbf = 17.3 m3/s (note: riffle 5.5 was not sampled at this discharge) 61 Figure 2.8 - Brunette River study reach thalweg centerline and sample cross-section locations (survey dates: Jan. 12 and 16, 2001) 62 Figure 2.9 - Brunette River study reach bed profile (survey date: Jan. 12, 2001) with sampled water surface and energy grade line at Q = 10.1 m3/s (rock-riffle 3) and Q = 10.8 m3/s (rock-riffles 1 and 2) 63 Figure 2.10 - Chapman Creek N and C study reach thalweg centerline (survey date: July 8, 2000) and cross-section locations (survey date: July 13, 2001) 64 Figure 2.11 - Chapman Creek N and C study reach bed profile (survey date: July 8, 2000) with sampled water surface and energy grade line at Q = 33.6 m3/s 65 Figure 2.12 - Definition sketch for field sampling methodology and analysis (note: gauge located immediately upstream of riffle crest gauge is not shown) 66 Figure 2.13- Constructed SCS 5-minute unit hydrograph for the Brunette River tributary 67 xiii LIST O F FIGURES (continued) Figure 2.14- 1-D Bernoulli energy equation applied across a simple riffle 68 Figure 2.15 - Defined effective flow area (y = 0.47 m) for rock-riffle 7 downstream cross-section, Ouillet Creek, December 15, 1999 (Q = 17.33 m3/s) 69 Figure 3.1 - Conventional view of flow across a riffle-pool sequence 79 Figure 3.2 - Variation in computed riffle energy loss h" with computed mini-reach energy loss hm 80 Figure 3.3 - Variation in computed riffle Manning's n" with relative discharge QIQbf fox all 81 study reaches Figure 3.4 - Variation in computed riffle (solid symbols) and bed (open symbols) Manning's n with relative discharge QIQbf for Beecher Creek 82 Figure 3.5 - Variation in computed riffle (solid symbols) and bed (open symbols) Manning's n with relative discharge QIQbf fox Ouillet Creek 83 Figure 3.6 - Variation in computed riffle (solid symbols) and bed (open symbols) Manning's n with relative discharge QIQbf fox Brunette River 84 Figure 3.7 - Variation in computed riffle (solid symbols) and bed (open symbols) Manning's n relative discharge QIQbf fox Chapman Creek 85 Figure 3.8 - Variation in computed riffle energy loss h" with riffle amplitude A 86 Figure 3.9 - Variation in computed riffle energy loss h" with riffle downstream face length U 87 Figure 3.10- Variation in computed riffle Manning's n" with riffle amplitude A 88 Figure 3.11 - Variation in computed riffle Manning's n" with riffle downstream face length U 89 Figure 3.12 - Formation of an equilibrium bed slope S' (dotted line) above simple rock-riffles in a high sediment supply stream. In low-supply streams, sediment accumulation would be minimal, and stable upstream pools would remain 90 Figure 3.13 - Variation in computed Ackers and White upstream bed sediment transport rate with downstream distance on Ouillet Creek; Q = 17.3 m3/s 91 Figure 4.1 - Riffle-pool rehabilitation process 121 xiv LIST O F FIGURES (continued) Figure 4.2 - Phase 2: Rock-riffle design and hydraulic analysis flowchart (see Fig. 4.1) 122 Figure 4.3 - Rock-riffle design template (after Newbury and Gaboury 1994) 123 Figure 4.4 - Specific energy applied across a simple riffle 124 Figure 4.5 - Select rock-riffle maximum crest amplitude design curves 125 Figure 4.6 - Sampled bed, water surface and energy grade line profiles for: (a) Beecher Creek U, Q = 0.87 m3/s; and (b) Ouillet Creek, Q = 17.3 m7s 126 Figure 4.7 - Sediment accumulation analysis flowchart (see Fig. 4.2) 127 Figure 4.8 - Variation in equilibrium rock-riffle spacing and amplitude with: (a) increased X or A; (b) increased Sf; and (c) reduced Sf 128 Figure 4.9 - Modeled bankfull water surface profiles for Ouillet Creek (a) immediately following rock-riffle construction, and (b) after the formation of the estimated equilibrium upstream bed slope 129 Figure A . l - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 13 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 171 Figure A.2 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 13 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 172 Figure A.3 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 12 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 173 Figure A.4 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 12 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 174 Figure A.5 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 11 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 175 Figure A.6 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 11 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 176 Figure A.7 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 10 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 177 Figure A. 8 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 10 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 178 xv LIST O F FIGURES (continued) Figure A.9 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 9 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 179 Figure A. 10 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 9 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 180 Figure A . l 1 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 8 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 181 Figure A. 12 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 8 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 182 Figure A. 13 - Beecher Creek L surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 183 Figure A. 14 - Beecher Creek L surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 184 Figure A. 15 - Beecher Creek L surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 185 Figure A. 16 - Beecher Creek L surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 186 Figure A. 17 - Beecher Creek L surveyed cross-sections for rock-riffle 1 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: crest gauge removed prior to March 2000 samples so rock-riffle 1 was not included in the analysis 187 Figure A. 18 - Beecher Creek L surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 1 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 188 Figure A. 19 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock riffle (a) 9 downstream; (b) 8 crest; and (c) 8 downstream 189 Figure A.20 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at rock riffle (a) 9 downstream; (b) 8 crest; and (c) 8 downstream. Note: crest gauge removed prior to second survey - first survey assumed for second analysis 190 Figure A.21 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at rock riffle (a) 9 downstream; (b) 8 upstream; (c) 8 crest; and (c) 8 downstream 191 Figure A.22 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 7 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 192 xvi LIST O F FIGURES (continued) Figure A.23 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 7 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 193 Figure A.24 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 6 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 194 Figure A.25 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 6 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 195 Figure A.26 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 5a (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 196 Figure A.27 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 5 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 197 Figure A.28 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 5 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: upstream gauge removed prior to second survey - first survey assumed for second analysis 198 Figure A.29 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 5 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 199 Figure A.30 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 4 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 200 Figure A.31 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 4 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 201 Figure A.32 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 3 a (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 202 Figure A.33 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 3a (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 203 Figure A.34 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 204 Figure A.35 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: upstream gauge removed prior to second survey - first survey assumed for second analysis 205 Figure A.36 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 206 xvii LIST O F FIGURES (continued) Figure A.37 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 207 Figure A.38 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 1 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 208 Figure A.39 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 1 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: crest and downstream gauges removed prior to second survey - first survey assumed for second analysis 209 Figure A.40 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 1 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 210 Figure A.41 - Brunette River surveyed cross-sections for analysis of sampled stages at rock-riffle 3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 211 Figure A.42 - Brunette River surveyed cross-sections for analysis of sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 212 Figure A.43 - Brunette River surveyed cross-sections for analysis of sampled stages at rock-riffle 1 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 213 Figure A.44 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at riffle N3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 214 Figure A.45 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at riffle N3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 215 Figure A.46 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at riffle N2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 216 Figure A.47 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at riffle N2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: upstream and downstream gauges removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis 217 Figure A.48 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at riffle N2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 218 Figure A.49 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at riffle NI (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 219 xviii LIST O F FIGURES (continued) Figure A.50 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at riffle NI (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: upstream and downstream gauges removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis 220 Figure A.51 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at riffle NI (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 221 Figure A.52 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 6 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 222 Figure A. 5 3 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 6 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: all gauges removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis 223 Figure A.54 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 6 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: downstream gauge removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis 224 Figure A.55 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 5 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 225 Figure A.56 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 5 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 226 Figure A. 5 7 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 4 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 227 Figure A.58 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 4 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: upstream gauge removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis 228 Figure A.59 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 4 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 229 Figure A.60 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 230 Figure A.61 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream 231 xix LIST O F FIGURES (continued) Figure B. l - Estimated (a) effective storm hyetograph and (b) discharge hydrograph for the tributary upstream of rock-riffle 2 on Brunette River (sampling date Jan. 19, 2001) 246 Figure B.2 - Estimated (a) effective storm hyetograph and (b) discharge hydrograph for the tributary upstream of rock-riffle 2 on Brunette River (sampling date Jan. 21, 2001) 247 Figure B.3 - Estimated (a) effective storm hyetograph and (b) discharge hydrograph for the tributary upstream of rock-riffle 2 on Brunette River (sampling date Feb. 2, 2001) 248 Figure B.4 - Estimated (a) effective storm hyetograph and (b) discharge hydrograph for the tributary upstream of rock-riffle 2 on Brunette River (sampling date Mar. 27, 2001) 249 Figure C . l - Grain size distribution for: (a) upstream beds: (b) riffles: and (c) entire reach in Beecher Creek U 272 Figure C.2 - Grain size distribution for: (a) upstream beds: (b) riffles: and (c) entire reach in Beecher Creek L 273 Figure C.3 - Grain size distribution for: (a) upstream beds: (b) riffles: and (c) entire reach in Ouillet Creek 274 Figure C.4 - Grain size distribution for: (a) upstream beds: (b) riffles: and (c) entire reach in Brunette River 275 Figure C.5 - Grain size distribution for: (a) upstream beds: (b) riffles: and (c) entire reach in Chapman Creek N 276 Figure C.6 - Grain size distribution for: (a) upstream beds: (b) riffles: and (c) entire reach in Chapman Creek C 277 xx P R E F A C E The body of this thesis has been separated in to five main chapters. Chapter 1 is an introductory chapter covering the main objectives of the thesis and providing a background to the problem. Chapters 2 and 3 describe the methodology and results of a hydraulic field study that was conducted to evaluate the flow resistance effects of natural and constructed rock-riffles, while Chapter 4 employs the results of this field study in the development of a hydraulic design and analysis procedure for the rehabilitation of riffle-pool sequences in uniform and channelized gravel-cobble bed rivers. Lastly, chapter 5 summarizes the thesis conclusions and theoretical contribution, and lists recommendations for further research. The appendices at the end of the thesis provide material that could not be effectively incorporated within the individual chapters. Included are the collected field data and developed analysis routines. Portions of chapters 2 and 3 have been published previously in two conference proceedings, however these papers generally lack the details contained herein. A journal paper describing the hydraulic field study has also been tentatively accepted for publication pending some revisions. However, while the general theme and content are the same, the material presented in chapters 2 and 3 of this thesis has benefited from additional analysis and editing completed while the paper was under review. Therefore, it is anticipated that the paper will be accepted for publication following only some minor modifications. A second journal paper outlining the hydraulic design and analysis procedure described in chapter 4 has yet to be submitted for review. xxi The following is a summary of submitted and published material that pertain to this thesis: 1. Walker, D.R., Millar, R.G., and Newbury R.W. (in revision). "Energy profiles across constructed and natural riffles". Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Submitted: March 8, 2002; Tentatively accepted: September 27, 2002 pending revisions. 2. Walker, D.R., Millar, R.G., and Newbury R.W. (2002). "Hydraulic and design aspects of constructed rock riffles in gravel-cobble bed rivers". River Flow 2002. Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Sept. 4-6, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. D. Bousmar and Y. Zech, eds., A .A. Balkema, Lisse, Netherlands, Vol. 1, p. 497-506. 3. Walker, D.R., Millar, R.G., and Newbury R.W. (2001). "Energy losses across natural and constructed riffles and the effect on flood levels". Changing Water Environments: Research and Practice. CWRA BC Branch Conference Proceedings (CD-Rom), May 8-11, 2001, Whistler, BC. Canadian Water Resources Association, Cambridge, ON, 8p. The contents of the submitted and published papers (and of this thesis) represent a collection of my own work. Credit to co-authors acknowledges the advice and review of my supervisors, and any additional insight provided has been referenced appropriately within this thesis. Signature: Dr Robert G Millar (Senior Co-Author of published material) x x i i A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), Forest Renewal British Columbia (FRBC) Watershed Restoration Program, and University of British Columbia are gratefully acknowledged for providing the funding for this study. Essential logistical support was provided by Grant McBain and Jim Wilson of the Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Valerie Cameron of the BC Ministry of Environment Lands & Parks; Rob Lidden at Terminal Forest Products; Ed von Euw, Anthony Lu, Cal Merry and Cam M cGowan at the Greater Vancouver Regional District; John Termuende of Edutech Technologies Corporation; Bob Anstead at Chapman Hatchery; Jim Atwater at UBC; and the City of Burnaby. The author would also like to thank Phil Barton, Tim Fisher, Ian Grant, Ryan Hanson, Trent Hoover, Violeta Martin, Colin Rennie, Shane Uren, Ellen Walker, and Lillian Zaremba for their assistance in the gathering of field data. Further appreciation is extended to Shane Uren who provided a practitioner's viewpoint and helpful suggestions for Chapter 4. Thanks also to my committee members Greg Lawrence, Jim Atwater and Noboru Yonemitsu for their review and comments on the thesis; and also, to Bob Newbury for his guidance and boundless enthusiasm for the subject. Special thanks also are extended to my supervisor Rob Millar for fueling my interest in all things fluvial, and for his continued support and thoughtful advice. And finally, to my wife Ellen and daughter Isla, without whom this thesis could not have been completed... I love you. xxiii 1.0 T H E S I S B A C K G R O U N D A N D O B J E C T I V E S 1.1 INTRODUCTION Traditionally, river engineering has attempted to modify and simplify natural channels to meet specific design objectives such as flood control, improved navigation, and urban, agricultural or industrial development. Regrettably, this conventional approach to river management frequently led to the removal of large roughness elements (e.g. riffle-pool sequences, large woody debris complexes, etc.) and the creation of straight, trapezoidal watercourses with minimal hydraulic and geomorphic complexity, and reduced ecological and aesthetic value (Keller 1975; Brookes 1992). In recent years, however, there has been a move towards alternative methods of river engineering aimed at mitigating the adverse physical and biological effects of traditional approaches, while also attempting to accelerate natural recovery processes in previously disturbed channels (Reeve and Bettess 1990; Hey 1992). Due in part to strengthened legislation and an increased understanding of the intrinsic societal and environmental values of "natural" river systems, this progression in river management has led to the need for new design criteria that integrate natural fluvial processes and features in the attempt to satisfy multi-disciplinary goals and objectives as demands on water resources continue to increase (Fischenich 1994; Ferguson et al. 1998). The rehabilitation of riffle-pool sequences in gravel-cobble bed rivers is but one example of this new trend in river conservation and management. Natural riffle-pool topography is important for creating and sustaining habitat complexity and aquatic diversity within gravel-cobble bed channels (ASCE Task Committee 1992; Rabeni and Jacobson 1993). The associated 1 morphologic and hydraulic distinctions between riffles and pools regulate sediment transport and sorting characteristics within the reach, and help diversify the flow through the formation and maintenance of secondary currents, backwater eddies, hydraulic jumps, and standing waves. In turn, viable populations of benthic invertebrates and fish are supported through the provision of shelter, passage, varied substrates, and suitable feeding, spawning and rearing areas (Reeve and Bettess 1990; Newbury 1995). Therefore, traditional river management practices that tend to limit riffle-pool sequence formation and maintenance through the alteration of discharge, channel roughness and geometry (i.e. width, depth, slope, bed and planform morphology), or sediment supply and composition, can result in complex geomorphic, hydraulic, ecologic and aesthetic consequences both within, and beyond the modified reach (Brookes 1989; Hey 1992). While pools and riffles may begin to reform in the absence of further artificial control and maintenance (Lewin 1976; Gilvear 1999), they tend to be poorly developed with smaller average spacing than is observed in natural channels (Keller 1975; Gregory et al. 1994). Consequently, the resultant bed structure tends to be unstable, and a significant adjustment period (e.g. 101 -10 years) is often required before a more natural equilibrium state can be obtained (Brookes 1989). Thus, the reintroduction of riffle-pool sequences has increasingly become a common rehabilitation alternative for enhancing channel stability and aquatic biodiversity in modified river systems (Table 1.1). However, in the absence of readily available design criteria, rehabilitation initiatives have often lacked sufficient hydraulic analysis to effectively evaluate long-term impacts to water levels and sediment transport capacity (Shields et al. 1995; Ferguson etal. 1998). 2 1.2 THESIS OBJECTIVES There are two main objectives to this study. The first is to investigate the hydraulic characteristics of natural and rehabilitated riffle-pool sequences in gravel-cobble bed rivers so that the potential impacts of riffle construction on flow resistance over a range of discharges up to and including bankfull can be estimated [Note: the "riffles" studied herein encompass both riffle and rapid morphologies following the terminology of Bisson et al. (1982), Grant et al. (1990) and Church (1992); see Table 1.2]. The second is to create hydraulic design guidelines that incorporate the results of this hydraulic analysis in an efficient manner that may be easily and effectively applied by river rehabilitation practitioners. The overall aim is to develop a conceptual hydraulic design framework within which the potential impacts to flood levels and sediment transport capacity can be evaluated in terms of governing geomorphic, hydraulic, hydrologic, and ecologic principles; specific catchment and reach characteristics; and the individual rehabilitation objectives. While it is anticipated that such a design procedure would have particular relevance to the implementation of riffle-pool sequences in areas where elevated flood levels are to be avoided, it is also expected that this study will provide valuable insight into natural riffle-pool hydraulics, and the design of channel rehabilitation projects in general. 1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW 1.3.1 Natural Riffle-Pool Morphology and Hydraulics Stable, semi-rhythmic riffle-pool sequences are characteristic morphological features in straight and meandering gravel-cobble bed rivers with moderate (<4%) slopes (Bisson et al. 1982). By 3 contributing to overall channel stability, their development has been viewed as a self-organizing method of energy dissipation, which contributes to the formation of dynamic equilibrium within natural rivers (Keller and Melhorn 1978). Yet, while it is generally recognized that the occurrence of riffle-pool sequences is related to the interaction between discharge, flow hydraulics, resistance, sediment mobility, and channel morphology (Thompson et al. 1998), the precise mechanism(s) behind their formation and maintenance is still unknown (Sear 1996). Often referred to as topographic highs within an undulating longitudinal bed profde, the typically wider riffles (Table 1.3) tend to be located at points of inflection where secondary currents cause the main current, or "thalweg", to diverge and cross from one bank to the other. In contrast, the intervening pools, or topographic lows, are commonly associated with a concentration of the thalweg at the channel margins or bends (Keller 1972). This wandering thalweg pattern leads to the formation of riffles and pools which are characterized by an average spacing A, of 5 to 7 bankfull widths in both straight and meandering channels (Leopold et al. 1964; Keller and Melhorn 1978). However, the exact spacing of individual riffles and pools within a particular system or reach can be highly variable (Table 1.4), with lower mean values commonly associated with increasing channel gradient (Wohl et al. 1993); greater numbers of "forcing elements" such as large woody debris, bedrock outcrops and boulders (Montgomery et al. 1995; Thompson 2001); and stream channelization (Gregory et al. 1994). At higher discharges, the normally symmetrical cross-section of riffles promotes flow divergence and coarse sediment deposition, while the more asymmetrical pools encourage flow convergence and channel bed scour. Conversely, at low discharges, riffles act similarly to broad-crested weirs 4 and are distinguished by sediment scour, faster velocities, and shallower depths, while pools normally possess flatter, near-horizontal water surface slopes, and finer bed surface materials (Richards 1976a; Keller and Melhorn 1978). Although the flow in a pool is typically subcritical, riffles may exhibit critical and supercritical flow on the crest and downstream face of individual bed elements, and also in the chutes between elements. As a result, small hydraulic jumps that help to re-aerate the flow may occur both at the entrance to pools, and on the riffle face as supercritical flow enters deeper downstream water pockets (Grant et al. 1990; Newbury 1995). 1.3.2 Flow Resistance The effect of riffle-pool sequences on flow resistance is important in understanding the hydraulic characteristics of these structures. One approach to modeling flow resistance in gravel-cobble bed channels is to divide it into grain and form components (Meyer-Peter and Muller 1948; Einstein and Barbarossa 1952; Millar 1999). The grain component represents the shear drag imparted on the flow by virtue of the substrates or grains lining the channel; while the form component accounts for the drag associated with flow separation and secondary currents, or eddies, generated by bedforms (e.g. pebble clusters, bars, riffle-pool sequences, etc.) and variations in channel planform geometry (Bray and Davar 1987). It has been suggested that form resistance is significant only at low flows, and as discharges approach bankfull, bedforms are increasingly "drowned out" and the grain resistance becomes dominant (Dunne and Leopold 1978; Parker and Peterson 1980; Hey 1992; Leopold 1994). However, other studies have indicated that form roughness can represent a significant proportion of the total flow resistance at higher discharges (Prestegaard 1983; Hey 1988; Griffiths 1989; 5 Millar 1999; Sear et al. in review, by permission of author). This suggests that riffle reconstruction may result in elevated flood levels and more frequent over-bank flooding. Accordingly, riffle-pool rehabilitation would be best limited to incised channels or rivers with excess floodplain capacity. Either way, this apparent discrepancy can have a significant impact on the enhancement of uniform and channelized rivers, especially in areas with added flood risk (e.g. urban streams). 1.3.2.1 Energy Principles The Bernoulli energy equation provides a reference for evaluating flow resistance in natural and constructed riffle-pool channels (Fig. 1.1). Derived through the application of Newton's second law (i.e. force = mass x acceleration) to an element of water and integrating with respect distance traveled along a streamline, the Bernoulli equation states that the total energy head H at any position on a streamline is equal to the sum of the pressure, potential and kinetic energy heads per unit weight of fluid at that location, or: P v2 H = — + z + — = constant (11) Y 2g where P is the pressure; y = pg is the specific weight of water; z is the vertical elevation above a specified datum; v is the water velocity; p is the density of water; and g is the gravitational constant (Henderson 1966). The sum of the pressure head Ply and potential energy head z is sometimes referred to as the piezometric pressure, while kinetic energy head v2!2g is often called the velocity head. In an isolated system, H by definition must be conserved (Morris 1963), and Eq. 1.1 can be 6 written as: P v,2 P2 v\ - + zl+T- = - + z2+-r~ (1.2) 7 2g y 2g where the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to an upstream and downstream point on a particular streamline, respectively. It is this particular form of the energy equation that has found extensive use in hydraulic applications. However, there are a number of key assumptions made in its derivation that might restrict its use and validity in river channels. For example, the Bernoulli equation is derived assuming steady flow conditions. In other words, Eqs. 1.1 and 1.2 are limited to situations where the velocity at a point on the streamline can be considered more or less constant with time. While the use of the Bernoulli equation for gradually varying unsteady flow may result in only minimal error, the local flow acceleration will need to be incorporated in circumstances where flow conditions change rapidly. Alternatively, it may be possible to transpose a rapidly varying unsteady condition to a steady one by changing the viewpoint of the observer, in which case the integration of the local acceleration component of the flow would be avoided, and the analysis thereby simplified (Henderson 1966). A further constraint to the application of the Bernoulli equation in river channels is that it only strictly applies to a specific streamline within the flow stream. However, this restriction may be relaxed somewhat by assuming that the velocity is uniform throughout, and that the pressure is hydrostatic (Henderson 1966). Under these circumstances, both the piezometric pressure and velocity head are constant for all streamlines, and Eq. 1.1 can be applied across the entire depth of flow. Furthermore, since Ply at any point in the flow equals the depth of that point below the water surface in a hydrostatic pressure distribution, the piezometric pressure at a given cross-section corresponds to the water surface elevation, and Eq. 1.2 becomes: 7 2 2 F 1 + z 1 + ^ - = 72 + z 2 + ^ - (1.3) where F is the channel depth, v is now the uniform cross-sectional flow velocity, and z is the channel bed elevation (Fig. 1.1). However, due to the inherent variability in the geometry of natural river cross-sections, average Y, v and z values are often used in analysis. This form of the Bernoulli equation has the distinct advantage of requiring only a measure of the average flow depth to describe the pressure head in the system. However, care must be exercised when using Eq. 1.3 to ensure that the flow can be adequately described by a hydrostatic pressure distribution, or that the streamlines are essentially horizontal and parallel, and flow accelerations in the vertical direction are negligible (Henderson 1966). Specifically, the flow must be approximately one-dimensional and the channel bed slope S0 = tan 0 must be "small". The bed slope is considered to be sufficiently small where sin 6 « tan 6, and sec 0 « 1 (Morris 1963); or where S 0 is less than say 10% (0 < 6°). Consequently, slope restrictions on the use of Eq. 1.3 are unlikely to be of concern in natural riffle-pool channels (cf. Bisson et al. 1982). Even so, the hydrostatic distribution assumption may still be invalid for flow over a riffle face, in the zone of flow separation located immediately downstream of the riffles, and in other regions of the channel where the flow would be expected to be highly two- or three-dimensional. As indicated above, Eq. 1.3 also presumes essentially uniform flow, or constant velocity across the entire cross-section. However, the velocity distribution is seldom uniform in natural rivers owing to boundary drag effects. As a result, the kinetic energy head calculated from the average channel velocity may not necessarily equal the true velocity head at a cross-section (Henderson 8 1966). Consequently, a correction coefficient a is occasionally applied to the velocity head component in Eq. 1.3 to account for the effects of a non-uniform velocity profile, where: a = N f N \ 2 Zv/V/ j>/ i- V i J ( N V i (1.4) and where \\i = WY is the cross-sectional area; Wis the cross-sectional width (Fig. 1.1); and / = 1 to N are regions of approximately uniform velocity. The larger the value of N, the greater the number of subdivisions of the cross-section and the more representative will be the resulting velocity head. Since the coefficient a is typically less than 1.15 for turbulent flow conditions in single well-defined channels with smooth and gradual velocity variations, it is often ignored. However, in the case of overbank flow, or in natural channels with multiple flow paths and/or regions of significantly varying mean velocities, the value of a may be sufficiently larger than 1 to necessitate its incorporation in the analysis (Henderson 1966). The derivation of the Bernoulli equation also assumes an irrotational and inviscid fluid; that is to say, friction or flow resistance has not been considered. In reality however, there will always be some amount of energy loss in river channels as the result of viscous drag at the channel boundaries, and bedform- and geometry-induced flow separation and eddying. Thus: H]^H2 + h (1.5) or: 2 2 Y + z. +a, — = K +z, +a, — + h (1.6) where h equals the friction head or the amount of energy lost from the system through 9 conversion of kinetic energy to heat (Morris 1963; Henderson 1966). While the energy loss along a particular length of channel can be determined from direct measurements of the upstream and downstream total energy (Fig. 1.1), often the aim is to predict either H\ or H2 based on a known or anticipated value for the other. Therefore, an estimate of an appropriate value for h will be an important consideration in the application of the energy equation in open channels. In general however, the direct calculation of h is difficult, and frictional losses are either ignored, or empirically derived loss coefficients (e.g./ n, etc.) are assumed. 1.3.2.2 Resistance Partitioning As discussed above, an understanding of the added influence of riffle-pool sequences to flow resistance will be of practical interest in the investigation of channel hydraulics and flood levels in both natural and rehabilitated gravel-bed rivers. As such, several studies have attempted to isolate the resistance provided by riffles and bars by partitioning the observed total flow resistance into grain and form components (e.g. Parker and Peterson 1980; Prestegaard 1983; Hey 1988). The total friction head along a length of channel L can be thought of as the sum of grain (ho) and form (hf) components, or: h = hG + hF (1.7) and alternatively: s f = j = T + i : = S G + S F ( L 8 ) where Sf is the friction slope, or the slope of the energy grade line EGL (Fig. 1.1); and So and SF are the effective grain and form friction slopes, respectively. Using this approach, Meyer-Peter 10 and Muller (1948) derived an expression for the flow resistance in terms of the average shear stress x = yRSf. x - yRSG + yRSF = XG + t f (1.9) where R = \\i/Yl is the hydraulic radius, which may be approximated as the channel depth Y in "wide" (i.e. W/Y>10-15) channels; and n = 2Y+ Wis the wetted perimeter (Fig. 1.1). Einstein and Barbarossa (1952) derived a similar relation for the average shear stress but, unlike Meyer-Peter and Muller, they assumed the friction slope to be fixed and defined X G and XF based on an equivalent grain and form hydraulic radius RG and RF. However, since equilibrium flow conditions in an open channel reflect the interaction between opposing gravitational and frictional forces (Henderson 1966), it seems more conceptually appropriate to partition the average shear stress into source components based on the energy loss or friction slope, rather than the hydraulic radius (Parker and Peterson 1980; Griffiths 1989). Frequently, resistance to flow in open channels is expressed in terms of a roughness coefficient such as the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor/or the Manning's roughness coefficient n (m l /6): / = — (1.10) pv n = ^ R / i S f 2 (1.11) v where rj = 1 m1 /2/s is a unit conversion factor when v and R are in SI units (Yen 2002). Of note, the average bed slope S0 or water surface slope Sw is often substituted for Sf in the above equations under the assumption of uniform flow (Bray and Davar 1987). Combining Eqs. 1.9 and 1.10 leads to a relationship for the flow resistance in terms of/: 11 f=fG+ff (1.12) where fa and fp are the grain and form friction factors, respectively. Likewise, an equivalent expression in terms n can be developed using Eqs. 1.8 and 1.11, or by simply recognizing that n , and therefore: n2 = nG2 + nF2 (1.13) Partitioning the total flow resistance enables the evaluation of the roughness associated with bedforms providing an estimate of the grain resistance can be obtained. Typically, the latter is achieved using the Keulegan equation, which was derived for fully developed uniform turbulent flow in "rough" plane bed channels with rigid boundaries assuming a Prandtl-von Karman logarithmic velocity distribution (Keulegan 1938): v 2.30, . = s + log VG * K (1.14) 1/2 where vG* = (tc/p) is the average particle shear velocity; K « 0.4 is von Karman's universal constant; kG is the equivalent grain roughness height; and s is a coefficient (Hey 1979; Griffiths 1989). A channel boundary is considered to be sufficiently rough when the particle Reynolds number vG*kG/v is greater than about 70 (Nikuradse 1933); a trait of most natural gravel-bed rivers (Bray 1980). Under these conditions, flow resistance is independent of kinematic viscosity u, and depends only on the relative roughness R/kG (Keulegan 1938; Henderson 1966). The Keulegan equation may also be rewritten as 1 = Plog \kG j (1.15) 12 where (5 = 2.03 for K = 0.4; while £, = 1 0 ° 1 7 8 varies depending on the cross-sectional shape of the channel and the characteristics of the roughness elements (ASCE Task Force 1963; Hey 1979). According to Hey (1988), £, can be approximated by: where Ymax is the maximum flow depth. However in practice, £, is commonly assumed to be roughly 12.2 (p = 2.03) as recommended by Keulegan (1938) for all rectangular and trapezoidal channels regardless of their relative dimension. The main difficulty in applying the Keulegan equation to estimate riffle or bar resistance in channels with non-uniform sediments is determining an appropriate &G (Prestegaard 1983; Clifford et al. 1992). Often &G is assumed to be some multiple of a characteristic grain size; usually D 5 0 , D & 4 , or D 9 0 (Millar 1999; Yen 2002). For example, Parker and Peterson (1980) assumed an equivalent grain roughness height of kg = 2D90 based on a series of flume experiments over a heterogeneous bed conducted by Kamphuis (1974). Using this value, Parker and Peterson then partitioned the reported average channel slopes (0.0003 < S0 < 0.0200) for a selection of the 62 natural gravel-bed rivers originally described by Kellerhals et al. (1972), and later republished in part by Bray (1979). Despite a large amount of scatter and a resulting best fit equation of SG « 0.SSO with approximately half of the study reaches demonstrating negative bar friction slopes, Parker and Peterson concluded that bar resistance was negligible at dominant discharges within the channels investigated. However, in a re-examination of the Kamphuis' data, Prestegaard (1983) indicates that the average depth, rather than the hydraulic radius, was used to estimate the shear velocity and relative roughness in the comparatively narrow flume, R \ -0.314 (1.16) \ max / 13 and as a result, kG = 2Dgo may actually overestimate the actual grain resistance observed. This implies that Parker and Peterson may have inadvertently attributed a portion of the form resistance to grain roughness, and therefore losses due to flow expansion and secondary circulation may have in fact represented a more significant component of the total resistance. As an alternative, Prestegaard (1983) used kG = D^4 to subdivide the reach average water surface slope SW in 12 straight and divided riffle-pool rivers in the western United States (0.0012 < SW< 0.0360) under the assumption that the larger particles in a heterogeneous sediment mixture contribute the most to grain resistance (Leopold et al. 1964). Based on this approach, bar resistance was shown to be significant at the bankfull stage, ranging between approximately 50 and 75% of the total. Moreover, the estimated SF were found to correlate reasonably well with the ratio of bar amplitude to wavelength (A/X) leading Prestegaard to theorize that "this division of resistance [i.e. into grain and bar components with kG - D^] may have some physical significance" (p. 476). Conversely, Hey (1988) reasons that the true grain resistance in gravel-bed rivers cannot be estimated from mean hydraulic characteristics since reach-averaged flow depths and velocities reflect the presence of bedforms, and would therefore tend to vary from the uniform conditions for which the flow resistance equations strictly apply. Specifically, Hey suggests that the use of reach-averaged flow characteristics by both Parker and Peterson (1980), and Prestegaard (1983), likely underestimated the grain resistance in the channel studied as the observed Y would tend to be greater than for uniform flow in the absence of bedforms, while v would be less. Moreover, Hey contends that the underestimation of grain resistance is further compounded in these two 14 studies through the selection of a relatively small kg as compared to values reported elsewhere for heterogeneous gravels (e.g. Hey 1979; Bray 1980). Paradoxically, Hey (1988) indicates that had Parker and Peterson assumed an equivalent roughness height of kc = 3.1Z>9o, as was determined by Bray (1980) for the entire Kellerhals et al. (1972) data set, a greater proportion of the channels may have demonstrated negative form losses suggesting that bars act to lower flow resistance at higher discharges. This would appear to challenge Hey's claim that the use of reach-averaged flow depths and &G = 2Z>9o underestimates the grain roughness in Parker and Peterson's study. It is also worth mentioning that Bray's equivalent roughness height to which Hey refers was in fact determined by fitting the Keulegan equation to observed reach-averaged velocities (Bray 1980), and presumably would therefore include both grain and form resistance effects. In other words, &G = 3.1A>o is, as Bray himself describes, an "effective boundary roughness height", and thus may be liable to overestimate the resistance due to grains alone. These apparent discrepancies aside, Hey (1988) proposes an alternative procedure for the estimation of bar resistance in gravel-bed rivers whereby an equivalent form roughness height &F in a reach containing two riffle-pool sequences is assumed equal to the difference between the total equivalent roughness height, and an estimated grain roughness height, or kp = kt- & G - The latter is determined from the solution of Eqs. 1.10 and 1.15 using the average flow characteristics at the riffle crests, or can be estimated as &G = 3.5Z)rg4 after Hey (1979), where Dr%4 is the riffle characteristic grain size at which 84% is finer. As such, Hey's methodology inherently assumes that form roughness is negligible for the locally uniform flow conditions that tend to occur at, or 15 near the riffle crests. Hey (1988) demonstrated his methodology using the observed bankfull reach and riffle flow dimensions provided by Hey and Thorne (1986) for 62 gravel-bed rivers in the United Kingdom (0.0012 < S0 < 0.0215). In 43 of these reaches, the estimated kF was shown to range between 4 and 86% of the calculated kt (mean = 0.36k,; standard deviation = 0.21&,), implying that bar resistance can represent a significant component of the total resistance in these channels at higher stages. Interestingly, negative bar roughness heights were observed in the remaining 19 reaches (approximately 30% of those studied), which suggests that ko may in fact have been overestimated. Hey (1988) attributes this latter result to errors in defining riffles and pools in these channels at higher discharges, and contends that reclassification of the riffle control sections would also lead to positive estimates for kF. However, a replication of Hey's (1988) methodology using the original Hey and Thorne (1986) data set indicates that the results reported may be suspect. For example, when £,G values are estimated from Eq. 1.16, they are found to range between 12.2 and 14.2 (mean = 13; standard deviation = 0.4); typical values for rectangular and trapezoidal channels (e.g. ASCE Task Force 1963; Hey 1979). However, when t,G are back-calculated from Hey's (1988) reported equivalent grain roughness heights using Eqs. 1.10 and 1.15, they vary significantly, ranging between approximately 0.8 and 30, with a mean and standard deviation of 9 and 5.3, respectively. Moreover, when ko are re-estimated using the more typical cj<? values, the results are found to be approximately 32% greater on average than those reported. In contrast, a similar approach to the re-evaluation of k, demonstrates only minor discrepancies between the re-calculated and reported values (i.e. roughly -0.3% on average). Thus, it would appear that the Hey's (1988) estimated equivalent grain roughness heights are in 16 error, and as a result, the reported kp do not reflect the actual bar roughness heights as defined. Incorporation of the re-calculated Z,g (i-e. from Eq. 1.16) further increases the number of reaches demonstrating negative form roughness heights from 19 to 41. A similar result is also obtained when kg is set equal to 6.8Dr$o; a value that can be assumed roughly equivalent to 3.5A-84 (Bray 1980; Bray and Davar 1987). Since it is difficult to perceive that the riffle control sections were ill defined in approximately 66% of Hey and Thome's data (cf. Hey 1988), it seems that estimating the bankfull kg based on riffle crest flow conditions tends to overestimate the reach averaged equivalent grain roughness height (and therefore underestimates RF). This may be due in part to the riffles no longer acting as controls at higher stages. However, it is interesting to note that sizeable values (mean = 0.35&,; standard deviation = 0.21A:,) are still observed for the remaining 21 sites, implying that riffle resistance is exerting a significant influence on flood levels in these channels. It is generally recognized that empirical best-fit relationships for the equivalent grain roughness height such as kg = 3.5Z)g4 recommended by Hey (1979, 1988) are liable to be an artifact of the grain resistance conditions from which they were developed. As a consequence, their performance may vary for differing sediment distributions and sorting characteristics (Prestegaard 1983; Church et al. 1990; Clifford et al. 1992). Given also the large degree of scatter that is typically observed in their derivation, several researchers have suggested that their use may inherently include some amount of form roughness in the estimate of grain resistance (Robert 1990; Church et al. 1990; Clifford et al. 1992; Millar 1999). For example, Clifford et al. (1992) used detailed investigations of the variance in spatial bed elevation and 3-dimensional 17 near bed velocity fields in 3 riffle reaches (S0 = 0.05) of the River Quarme (United Kingdom) to propose that empirical multipliers of a characteristic sediment size reflect a combination of both grain and form roughness effects, the latter of which is associated with the occurrence of larger particles and micro-topographic bedforms (e.g. pebble clusters, dunes etc.) in heterogeneous gravels. However, Clifford et al. reason that since the small-scale form roughness effects are related to the size, shape, packing density and relative protrusion of the boundary sediments, it is appropriate to consider them as a component of the total grain resistance. In an alternative approach, Millar (1999) theorizes that, since roughness height was originally defined by Nikuradse (1933) using uniform sand grains, a &G value set equal to the median grain diameter D5o would represent the condition where flow resistance could be credited to grain roughness alone. Using this reasoning, Millar then demonstrated a distinct lower bound to the observed flow resistance in 172 gravel-bed rivers described in the literature, and concluded that the difference observed between the reported values, and those determined assuming kg = D5o, could be attributed to the varying degrees and sources of form roughness present. As noted earlier, Prestegaard (1983) found that bar friction slopes estimated using kg = Z>84 demonstrated a strong correlation with barform geometry and, not surprisingly, Millar makes a similar observation in a re-analysis of the same data assuming kg - D$o = .D84/1-9 after Bray and Davar (1987). However, Millar also notes that when &G is set equal to 3Ds4, no significant relationship between the estimated bar friction slope and barform geometry is apparent in Prestegaard's data. Accordingly, Millar suggests that riffles can represent a substantial source of form resistance in channels with well-defined riffle-pool sequences, and proposes that empirical grain roughness heights such as 1D84 or 2Doo may in actual fact incorporate some amount of form roughness, 18 thereby resulting in an overestimation of the grain resistance in gravel-bed channels. 1.3.2.3 Morphologic Resistance A common assumption in the above approaches is that some multiple of the characteristic grain size can be used to effectively estimate the form resistance in gravel-bed rivers. However, a general consensus on a suitable measure for grain roughness in a heterogeneous sediment mixture has not yet been obtained (Church et al. 1990; Clifford et al. 1992; Yen 2002). An alternative approach that would avoid some of the subjectivity involved in estimating a suitable grain roughness would be to consider how the total flow resistance varies in response to large-scale morphologic features. Several studies have attempted to correlate the flow resistance observed over a series of small-scale bedforms in alluvial channels (e.g. dunes and ripples) with some measure of bedform dimension (e.g. Vittal et al. 1977; van Rijn 1982; Shen et al. 1990; Karim 1995). This approach would have certain appeal from a riffle design point of view as post-rehabilitation flow resistance could be related to a design-specific variable such as riffle amplitude and/or length. However, the applicability of the empirical results from these studies would be questionable for the larger and more static bedforms found in gravel-bed rivers. In another study, Egashira and Ashida (1991) evaluated the resistance across two separate regions of flow in flumes with artificial beds intended to mimic step-pool morphology. In particular, measured friction factors for sub- and super-critical flows over a length of channel defined by two adjacent steps were found to compare favourably with those estimated from the 19 weighted sum of two effective friction factors: one for the upper region extending from the crest of the upstream step to the downstream extent of flow separation; and another for the lower channel section continuing from this point to the crest of the downstream bedform. The upper value was estimated from a quasi-theoretical relationship relating flow resistance to the amplitude of the step-pool waveform and the average flow depth, while the lower was determined using the Keulegan equation (Eq. 1.15) assuming kg = £>so- In mixed flows, the agreement between the observed and estimated friction factors was not as good, a result which was attributed to a failure to incorporate the additional energy loss associated with hydraulic jumps in the estimated values. Of particular interest in the Egashira and Ashida study is the notion that a channel can be separated into distinct lengths or regions with expectantly similar resistance processes. In gravel-bed rivers for example, flow resistance along a reach could be evaluated in terms of the resistance associated with individual riffles, pools, runs or other specific morphologic features, each with its own intrinsic grain and form components. Ferguson et al. (1998) applied this approach in a hydraulic analysis of rehabilitated fish habitats in 10 reaches (0.0002 < S0 < 0.0090) of the River Blackburn in Northern Ireland. Specifically, each reach was divided into smaller sub-reaches representing a specific habitat type or feature (e.g. spawning gravel, nursery area, low stone weir, region of high bed roughness, etc.), and representative Manning's n values were determined for a range of measured water surface profiles assuming gradually varied flow and a = 1. At lower discharges, the estimated n were shown to vary between habitat types, with sub-reaches containing low stone weirs demonstrating values in excess of 0.2, while nursery areas typically fell below 0.06. As discharge increased however, the variation in n along a 20 particular reach tended towards a constant value regardless of habitat type. Despite this inclination towards a uniform resistance coefficient at higher stages, Ferguson et al. also emphasize that the range and magnitude of the estimated n at all discharges was much larger than that specified elsewhere for similar rivers. They conclude therefore, that the reintroduction of habitat features can significantly increase channel roughness. However, it remains to be seen whether the trends observed by Ferguson et al. also apply to rehabilitated riffle-pool sequences in higher gradient channels. 1.4 THESIS OUTLINE There has been considerable debate concerning the relative effect of riffles on flow resistance at higher stages. Bankfull riffle and bar form resistance has been shown to be either negligible or highly significant depending upon the assumptions made in the particular analysis. This is a direct result of the prevailing limitation associated with energy or resistance partitioning; that is, form roughness cannot currently be measured independently in the field, and thus its estimation must rely upon an assumed grain roughness. However, a general consensus on a suitable measure of grain roughness in gravel-cobble bed rivers has yet to be obtained. Indeed, as Hey (1988, p. 1503) points out, the "flow response to bedforms will depend on the interaction of grain and barform roughness effects, and any differentiation into component parts is rather arbitrary". An alternative approach, and one that would be of particular value in riffle rehabilitation, would be to determine the total resistance associated with a given morphologic feature. It is this latter concept that is used to address the stated objectives of this study (see Chapter 1.2). Specifically, Chapters 2 and 3 describe the methodology and results of a hydraulic field study of four gravel-21 cobble bed rivers in southwestern British Columbia where the total flow resistance over a mixture of natural and reconstructed riffle-pool sequences was measured for a range of discharges up to, and including bankfull. The results of this field study are then used in Chapter 4 to develop a hydraulic design and analysis procedure for the evaluation of the potential long-term flooding and sediment transport effects of rock-riffle reconstruction in uniform, channelized and/or incised gravel-cobble bed rivers. Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the thesis results and contribution, and provides recommendations for further research and analysis, while Appendices A to E contain a summary of collected field data, and the MATLAB® (The Math Works, Inc. 1996) routines that were developed to ease the computational time and effort involved in analysis. 22 Table 1.1 - Examples of Riffle Reconstruction in Modified Channels Channels Rehabilitation objectives Reconstruction comments/effectiveness Reference Various gravel bed streams in Scotland Maintain trout habitat in dredged, diverted and/or realigned channels Gravel piles left on channel bed at 5 to 7 channel widths. After several flood seasons, artificial riffles stabilized and appeared "natural". Stuart (1959); Leopold et al. (1964) Trinity River, California, USA Aquatic habitat enhancement below two dams Constructed riffle substrate was too small to support the diversity of macroinvertebrates found on natural riffles. Boles (1981) Olentangy River, Ohio, USA Aquatic habitat enhancement in a channelized reach Diversity and abundance of aquatic biota in mitigated reach similar to a natural reach 4 to 6 years after riffle construction. Edwards et al. (1984) River Styx, Ohio, USA Fish habitat enhancement in a channelized reach 1 year after reconstruction, mitigated areas had greater fish densities than channelized areas but the increase was not statistically significant. Carline and Klosiewski (1985) Stensbaek River, Denmark Enhance stability in a channelized reach by reinstating past channel geometry Regularly placed gravels permitted to disperse to form riffles. Additional stone protection was required to limit localized bed instabilities. Brookes (1987) Hamilton Creek, Mink Creek, Pine River, Whiteshell River and Wilson River, Manitoba, Canada Enhance stability and/or fish habitat in channelized and uniform reaches Riffle construction met desired objectives. Minor settling occurred after implementation. In one case, additional bank protection was required after a 40-year flood event. Newbury and Gaboury (1994) continued... 23 Table 1.1 - Examples of Riffle Reconstruction in Modified Channels (continued) Channels Rehabilitation objectives Reconstruction comments/effectiveness Reference Chapman Creek, Ouillet Creek, and Twin Creeks, British Columbia, Canada Stability and habitat enhancement in channelized coastal streams Beds stabilized and habitat diversity improved. One riffle washed out after construction, and bank and face erosion occurred at another. The remaining riffles are stable. Newbury et al. (1997) Beecher Creek, British Columbia, Canada Protect exposed sewer crossings and enhance complexity in a channelized urban stream Pool area increased 10 fold. Riffles artificially infilled owing to low sediment recruitment. Riffles stabilized following minor initial adjustments. Atwater (1998) Stoney Creek and Brunette River, British Columbia, Canada Stability and habitat enhancement in channelized urban streams Initial observations indicate habitat improvement. Minor rock settling and/or movement detected. Some additional bank protection required. von Euw and Coulter Boisvert (2000) Sinmax Creek, British Columbia, Canada Bank stabilization and fish habitat recovery in a widening and aggrading channel Capture and removal of sediment upstream of a constructed riffle partly attributed to improved habitat complexity. Bates and Thorne (2001) River Waveney, Suffolk, England Enhance flow and substrate diversity in a resectioned channel Hydraulic diversity improved but riffles lacked sediment complexity. Some local scour and sorting noted. Increased form roughness and bankfull water levels predicted post-rehabilitation. Sear et al. (in review, by permission of author) 24 C O CD , O CD IS 5 o o CO CD S u o 3 ; i 3 co K w in "2 O -tn 03 S In -5 |H l- o s C O -» -» 03 -4—» X! r<-> I 3 -1 X> CD © CD o C ? s i ° o 1-1 o O is •3 - S y 5 TO 3 is § 8 2 03 — -O " CD OS 3 o <o _ 2 CD o 3 ^ 2 3 h o cc o c a u co O X> aJ2 -o C O OH CD bO . 3 *-4-» & e ra co OS O O O . O X ! CO s-c O M ^ O CD O T3 • S i 0) o x> x> (D o a CO - - H ° X i 2 s2 o 3 a A o CZ) 3 O X a u bO u ^ s bO 2 > •-"SO > X! o ^ u C A . M § a O : CN o o S y r -c ^ „ 4J _ T CD a a? 3 © , i E £ x ll o T: g * § CD CN — OO § C O 1 — 1 C O S « C O £ ° I 8 C S C h « t vo = \a a h £ -fa - S «0 .2 —i b o a 2 6 « s co a h « 7 3 -2 a «> S ^ £ S ^ I 8 ps ^ o o a o a TS5 o J o c co <+H ^ oi T3 CH &0 03 O O C T3 & a - o - R S i n +5 a a ~ OT S5 a M a | a ^ I <u t5 S ° co _ ^ V "K ?• a u t. a u + J » H 03 O (D c .a & lo a x i co CD a 03 O <D ^ 2-1 i a »n co fe -? C —> PH CU co o x> ii B o co C O x o (U CN C O v O r o a 03 o O N a 13 fe c ^ a © 2 ol Os rS .-a a O - 1 ^ c g P «i « ^5 O C " 03 <U CN a , (-1 o o o <a - a g a co ^ V « g ja o c a cu 1-g X ) co CN "a o x> a S? C O C O C O S • c OH C O 3 O co X> t H O C O T ; U X I c -* B A co LH <D T3 •a ., a co o J 3 03 O a b 0 °- « ^ S J3 " 1^-bO kH e 0) a . I-1 — 0 a co a CN 3 "O O Co 3 03 X ! co V 03 <U a t i o 13 „ xo •a ^ °^ o .2 3 C r J? co O Co V XI O CN h ON O Table 1.3 - Relative Dimensions of Natural Riffles and Pools* Reference River (# reaches) Reach S0 (%) Relative dimension (range) Notes Dolling (1968) Bronte Creek WplWr=\2 YpIYr = 1.83 low flow; W = width of wetted channel Richards (1976a,b; 1978) River Fowey (3) 0.13-0.56 * y ^ = 0.88B tfy^r = o.90A'B WpIWr = 0.84A,C YplYr = 1-17B V ^ = 2.16A,B YplYr = 3A7A'c A low flow B "straight" reaches c "curved" reaches Bisson et al. (1982) var. (19) 1 -8 LplLr = 0.64- 1.45 ratio of smallest and largest avg. length for 6 separate pool types to avg. riffle length Hey and Thorne (1986) var. (62) 0.12-2.15 WrIW= 1.03 WplW^O.91 YplYr = 1.10 Thompson (1986) Skirden Beck 0:48 YplYr =\.% Grant et al. (1990) Lookout (1), & French Pete(l)Cr. 2.2-3.8 LpIW=Q.9-\.\ LrlW= 1.3-1.4 W= active width (unvegetated) Wohl et al. (1993) Ten Mile(l), Mattole (1), & Bear (3) Rivers 0.2-17.2 Lp/Lr = 0.52- 1.28 YplYr = 2.75 - 6.25 7 ^ = 0.041-0.074 YrlLr = 0.0064 - 0.034 Lp, Lr&Yp tend to increase with decreasing S0 Carling and Orr (2000) River Severn (3) 0.4-0.65 LPIW= 1.1-2.04 LrIW= 1.31 - 1.83 Lp/Lr = 0.92- 1.12 Thompson (2001) var. (85) 0.1-2 LplW= 1.33 constriction dominated reaches Thompson (2001) var. (7) 0.38-1.69 LplLr = 0.42- 1.43 constriction dominated reaches * all values are at bankfull unless otherwise indicated 26 Table 1.4 - Reported Riffle-Pool Spacings X* Reference River (# reaches) Reach S0 (%) Spacing X (range) Notes Leopold and Wolman (1957) var. flume (6)& natural (23) 0.009-0.5 (incomp.) A. = 6.5 W[A XIW= 5.7A W=4.8 (2 .6 -8 .3 ) B A linear best-fit relation; B avg. & range of all data; assuming meander wavelength = 2X Leopold and Wolman (1960) var. model (3)& natural (46) A. = 5.45 Wim X/W=6.4A X/W=6.2 (2.6- 16)B combined with Leopold and Wolman (1957): X/W=6.2A X/W=5.7 (2.6- 16)B Harvey (1975) Wollop (7), Ter(13),& Nar (8) Xr = 1.59 W0JS median values; W= width at mean annual Q Keller and Melhorn (1978) var. (11) 0.10-0.89 Xp = 5.42 Wr 1 0 1 V ^ - = 4 . 9 - 7 ° y ^ r = 5.9 (1.5-23.3)B W= width of bed material; ° avg. reach values Hey and Thorne (1986) var. (62) 0.12-2.15 V^=6.31 (4- 10)D V^=7 .34 E Xr/W=6.28 (2-20) F D reported best-fit and range; E recalculated best-fit; F recalculated median & range Thompson (1986) Skirden Beck 0.48 5 (2.5-10.4) Gregory et al. (1994) Highland Water (1) V^=6.2(1.5-28) forested and partially channelized Montgomery et al. (1995) var. (46) "forested" 1 - 3 ° 0.3-4 H 0.2-3.5 J Xp/W= 2.43 - 3 . 7 ° Xp/W= 2.3- 13.2H Xp/W= 0.21 -3.35 J XpIW=2.14G'nj pool-riffle; plane-bed; J forced pool-riffle; XplW reduces with LWD loading & frequency Carling and Orr (2000) River Severn (3) 0.4-0.65 V ^ = 3 . 0 1 (2.5-3.76) Thompson (2001) var. (7) 0.38-1.69 XjJW= 3.12- 11.1 constriction dominated channels * all values are at bankfull unless otherwise indicated 27 Figure 1.1 •D Bernoulli energy equation applied along a length of channel 2.0 S T U D Y M E T H O D O L O G Y S U M M A R Y The sampling approach adopted for this study involved measuring the average hydraulic characteristics of individual riffles and pools to permit the application of 1-dimensional energy principles based on average channel dimensions and assumed steady, uniform or gradually varying, flow conditions. This chapter provides a description of the field sites selected for the hydraulic field component of this thesis, and outlines the study methodologies adopted for water surface profile sampling, sample discharge estimation, bed material characterization, total station surveying, and data analysis. Further details, including the field data collected, are provided in Appendices A through E. 2.1 F I E L D SITES Four gravel-cobble bed rivers located in south-western British Columbia (Fig. 2.1) were selected for this study based on their ease of access and the presence of both natural and constructed riffle-pool sequences (Table 2.1). 2.1.1 Beecher Creek Beecher Creek is a small, incised stream channel that flows through an urban green belt. Its drainage basin constitutes part of the much larger Still Creek-Brunette River watershed, a minor tributary to the lower Fraser River. In 1997, a total of fourteen riffles were constructed as part of an initial stream enhancement strategy to improve the hydraulic complexity and fish habitat within the channelized creek, while simultaneously protecting several residential sewer 29 connections that had become exposed on the channel bed (Atwater 1998). The initial design of the riffles was based on the 100-year flow event and the methods described by Newbury et al. (1997); however, structure spacing and amplitude were also dictated by the need to ensure adequate protection of the exposed sewer connections, and sand bags and pea gravel had to be used to artificially infill the structures owing to poor gravel recruitment in the creek (Atwater 1998). Owing in part to its particularly flashy nature, and also to the presence of small tributaries, Beecher Creek was initially divided into two relatively straight reaches U and L containing constructed riffles 7 to 13 and 1 to 3, respectively (Figs. 2.2-2.5). However, a mass slope failure immediately downstream of riffle 7 dislodged the downstream gauge prior to the start of sampling and, though attempts were made to return the gauge to its original location, the introduction of a large amount of material to the channel made it difficult to distinguish the boundary between the original constructed riffle and the newly created run. As a result, the extent of Beecher Creek U was limited to constructed riffles 8 to 13 for this study. 2.1.2 Ouillet Creek In 1978, the lower 0.5 km of Ouillet Creek near Gibsons, BC was diverted to the edge of its alluvial fan to accommodate a sawmill and commercial log sorting ground. The straightened channel was initially separated into a series of alternating log and rock drop structures, the elevations of which were set to permit access to a constructed floodplain on the channel's left bank at discharges greater than bankfull (Newbury et al. 1997; R. Newbury pers. comm. 1999). However, shortly after construction, the channel bed rapidly incised, undermining the logs and 30 causing the rock drop structures to collapse into the deep scour pools that had formed immediately downstream. The end result was a uniform channelized reach with limited hydraulic diversity. In 1994, twelve riffles were designed and constructed in an attempt to stabilize the channel, restore riffle-pool habitats, and re-establish floodplain access under non-backwatering, bankfull conditions. Within one peak-flow season, pools up to 1.5 m deep were created immediately downstream of each constructed riffle, and by 1996, the natural deposition of gravel upstream had resulted in an essentially even distribution of riffle and pool habitat (Newbury et al. 1997). Of the original twelve riffles built on Ouillet Creek, only those structures located downstream of a small tributary (riffles 1-8) were selected for the study (Figs. 2.6-2.7). However, a "self-formed" riffle (riffle 3.5) located within the study reach was also included, and a second "self-formed" riffle (riffle 5.5) identified after a bankfull event in December 1999 was incorporated in the second sampling season. 2.1.3 Brunette River Brunette River is the main stem of the Still Creek-Brunette River system. Located downstream of Burnaby Lake and Cariboo Dam, the river flows through the cities of Burnaby, Coquitlam and New Westminster, where it discharges to the Fraser River. The study reach, which was straightened and partially rip rapped in the early 1900's, passes through a wooded ravine and is constrained by a municipal access road and sanitary trunk sewer on its left, and a relatively steep valley wall on its right. In 1999, three riffles (Figs. 2.8-2.9) were installed as part of an enhancement partnership formed to improve fish habitat and passage, and to increase stability in 31 the low-gradient channel (von Euw and Coulter Boisvert 2000). The design of the structures was based on the procedures outlined by Newbury et al. (1997) with spacing and amplitude adjusted to create backwater conditions to at least the toe of the next upstream riffle for an estimated 2-year return period flow of 33 m3/s (von Euw and Coulter Boisvert 2000; G. McBain, Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, pers. comm.). 2.1.4 Chapman Creek During the 1950's, one arm of Chapman Creek near Sechelt BC was infilled to create a log booming ground. The corresponding increase in discharge in the second arm destabilized the channel and resulted in the creation of an upstream migrating headcut and the removal of existing riffles and pools (Newbury and Gaboury 1994; R. Newbury pers. comm.). Between 1992 and 1993, six experimental riffles were reintroduced to the channel in an attempt to restore the stability and hydraulic diversity of the degraded reach, and to restore access to existing floodplains. The upper structure (riffle 6) was designed as a drop structure to prevent further upstream migration of the headcut, while the remaining five bedforms were constructed using riffles located upstream of the impacted reach as natural templates. Since construction, original boulders from structures 5 and 4 have been removed and used for the creation of habitat clusters, while structure 3, which was situated on a hardpan ledge, has washed out in to a run (Newbury et al. 1997; R. Newbury pers. comm.). Two separate study reaches were identified on Chapman Creek; an upstream reach "Chapman Creek N " containing three natural riffle-pool sequences (N1-N3), and a downstream reach "Chapman Creek C " containing four of the remaining five constructed riffles (Figs. 2.10-2.11). 32 Riffle 1 was not included as the main channel splits immediately upstream of the structure, which made it difficult to obtain an appropriate discharge estimate for analysis. 2.2 F I E L D S A M P L I N G A total of twenty-four constructed and five "natural/self-formed" riffles were selected for this study (Figs. 2.2-2.11). Referring to the terminology of Bisson et al. (1982), Grant et al. (1990) and Church (1992), the identified structures encompass a collection of both "riffle" and "rapid" habitats differentiated based on the channel slope; the comparative size of the substrate; the relative roughness at high flow; whether or not individual sediment particles are emergent at low flow; the formation (or not) of irregular stone ribs or steps; and the relative amount of free-surface instability and critical/supercritical flow. Due to the consideration of both natural and artificial bedforms, and the inherent subjectivity entailed in the above morphological classifications (see Table 1.2), the individual structures in this study where not further segregated into riffle and rapid habitat types. Rebar rods were used as staff gauges to sample stage changes over the individual riffle-pool structures for varying discharges. The staff gauges, which were manually graduated into 5-cm bands using fluorescent paint, were placed in the high-flow inundation zone near the banks of the channel. One gauge was located at the riffle crest, another immediately upstream, and a third downstream of the zone of influence of each structure. The latter gauge was located so as to include the downstream flow separation effects associated with each riffle, and to limit the potential for rapidly varying flow conditions within the sampled cross-section. A suitable location for this gauge was estimated from the observation of scour pools on the channel bed 33 under low flow conditions. Each study reach was divided into a number of smaller "mini-reaches" of length Lm; each containing an upstream bed section of length L', and a riffle section of length L" (Fig. 2.12). Two consecutive downstream gauges typically defined the extent of a mini-reach, while the upstream bed section extended from the upper downstream gauge to the crest gauge, and the riffle section from the crest gauge to the lower downstream gauge. Thus, the riffle section also included the related downstream scour pool. Where an upper downstream gauge did not exist (i.e. upstream most structures in Chapman Creek N and C, Beecher Creek U and L, and Brunette River), or where a non-surveyed structure was present upstream of the riffle being evaluated (e.g. rock-riffle 2 in Chapman Creek), the upstream gauge was used to define the upper boundary for the mini-reach and upstream bed section. In these cases, the upstream gauge was placed further upstream to obtain a better estimate of the water surface profile prior to the structure. For the remaining rock-riffles, measurements made at the upstream gauge were used in the estimation of the average channel velocity in the upstream bed and mini-reach only. The staff gauge and cross-section geometry at each sampling location were surveyed using a total station (see Appendix A). The tops of the surveyed staff gauges were used as a reference for the measurement of the water surface elevations during sampling. This was achieved through directly estimating the distance from the gauge top to the water surface in the field, and/or by subsequently analyzing digital video taken at the time of sampling. Using this approach, the error in the sampled water surface elevations is estimated to be less than approximately ± 1 cm relative to the top of the gauge. A typical sampling period ranged between 10 and 60 minutes depending 34 on the reach, the number of staff gauges being sampled, and the relative amount of time spent sampling each gauge (Table 2.2). The adopted field methodology assumes that the discharge and the mean dimensions of the reach remained relatively constant over the sampling period. Thus, stage and discharge measurements were coordinated during sampling (Tables 2.3-2.7) and post-sampling total station surveys of the sampled cross-sections and gauge elevations were conducted (Table 2.8; see also Appendices A, E). It was assumed that the channel characteristics varied systematically between cross-sections and that the variation in friction slope and energy loss was approximately linear between sampling points. 2.3 S A M P L E D I S C H A R G E E S T I M A T I O N 2.3.1 Beecher Creek Beecher Creek is ungauged, so discharge estimates in each study reach were obtained during sampling using a hand-held electronic flow meter. A velocity-area approach was adopted whereby a select channel cross-section was divided into a number of smaller panels, and the average velocity through each was recorded. The products of the measured velocity and panel cross-sectional area were then summed to get an estimate of the total channel discharge (see Appendix B; Tables B.1-B.13) Average velocity measurements were obtained by slowly lowering the flow meter from the water surface down to the channel bed, and then back up again. This approach was adopted to help speed the sampling process after several test measurements were found to be roughly equivalent 35 to both the velocity measured at 0.4 times the depth, and the average of the velocities measured at 0.27 and 0.87. These latter two values are commonly assumed in practice to represent the mean velocity within a water column (Newbury and Gaboury 1994). The flow meter was roughly calibrated in a large flume at the University of British Columbia prior to the commencement of sampling by manually adjusting the meter coefficient until the observed velocity for a range of sample depths was approximately equal to that measured using an acoustic doppler velocimeter. A similar procedure was also used to re-calibrate the meter following a change of batteries. A discharge estimate for each study reach was obtained before and after sampling the water surface profile (see Appendix B; Tables B.1-B.13), and the average was used for analysis (Table 2.3). A discharge survey took approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete, and the entire sampling process (i.e. 2 discharge estimates and a corresponding water surface profile) typically lasted 30 to 40 minutes per reach. 2.3.2 Brunette River The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) granted access to an existing staff gauge and rating curve for discharge estimation on Brunette River (GVRD 1997). The gauge is located at a rock-masonry weir upstream of rock-riffle 3. Visual staff readings were taken immediately prior to, and following sampling, and used as a verification of the gauged 5-minute average discharges values supplied at a later date (Table 2.4). 36 As was also the case for the other study reaches, added inflow from groundwater sources along the length of the Brunette River reach was assumed to be negligible. However, additional discharge inputs from a small tributary located upstream of rock-riffle 2 were estimated for each sample and included in the analysis of the two downstream rock-riffles (Table 2.4). The tributary drains a highly urbanized sub-basin of 1.83 km with an impervious area of 57%, and the underlying soil classified as till. The tributary has a base flow of approximately 0.06 m3/s, and the time of concentration has been estimated to be approximately 0.28 hours based on the Upland's method for ungauged basins (Molavi 2000). Following the procedures outlined by Viessman and Lewis (1995), this information was used in the construction of a 5-minute SCS unit hydrograph for the tributary basin (Fig. 2.13). Five-minute rainfall data collected at three nearby rain gauges (Burnaby Mountain, New Westminster and Coquitlam) were supplied by the GVRD, and the average values were converted to an effective storm hyetograph for a period extending from at least two hours prior to the commencement of sampling. An estimated infiltration rate of 1 cm/hr was assumed for the pervious portion of the tributary basin (Molavi 2000), which corresponds to the saturated hydraulic conductivity for very fine sands, silts and clay silt laminate, and sandy loam (Bedient and Huber 1992; Craig 1992). Finally, the effective storm hyetograph was converted to a simulated storm hydrograph using conventional unit hydrograph lagging methods, and the corresponding tributary average discharge estimate for the sampling period was determined (see Appendix B; Figs. B.1-B.4). The estimated tributary discharges varied between 0.06 to 1.25 m3/s and represented between 1.4 and 29% of the total discharge used in the analysis for rock-riffles 1 and 2 (Table 2.4; see also Figs. B.1-B.4). For the most part, the tributary flows tended to increase with those measured in 37 the main channel with the only notable exception being a 1.25 m3/s value estimated during the smallest sampled event on Brunette River. In all cases however, the inclusion of the estimated tributary discharge in the analysis of the lower two rock-riffles was found to have only a minor impact (i.e. < 1 cm) on both the calculated total flow energy at each cross-section, and the resultant energy loss between cross-sections for the events sampled. 2.3.3 Chapman and Ouillet Creeks Access to existing stream gauges on both Chapman and Ouillet Creeks was granted for the duration of the study, and the corresponding rating curves (Termuende 2000; Bates and Wilson 1999) were used to convert the recorded average hourly water stages to an equivalent Q for analysis (Tables 2.5, 2.6). If the sampling period spanned two reported average hourly stages, a weighted mean co was calculated (Eq. 2.1) and used to estimate the channel discharge, where: © = + ^ - © „ (2.1) and where co, and co„ are the reported hourly average stages (m); Tt is the total sampling time in minutes; and 7} and Tu are the sampling durations completed in hours i and ii, respectively. A staff gauge located at the gauging station on Ouillet Creek also permitted an estimate of the discharge once on site, which was then used as a comparison for the discharge determined from the recorded stream gauge data (Table 2.6). Where the stream gauge data were unavailable, the staff gauge readings were used to estimate an average discharge for analysis. This approach was adopted so as to minimize possible errors in staff readings caused by wave run-up effects. 38 Unlike the gauges on Ouillet Creek and Brunette River, the Chapman Creek stream gauge had modem access, which enabled the observation of the channel stage prior to departure for the reach itself. While this helped to avoid the "storm chasing approach" adopted for the other reaches in this study (i.e. estimating the possible presence of high water stages based on the prevailing weather conditions), this approach was still hampered by the time required to reach the study site (i.e. 2.5 to 3 hours). The Chapman Creek gauge is located immediately upstream of rock-riffle 2; however, no significant tributaries are observed between it and the furthest upstream riffle N3. While water abstraction for a local hatchery does occur between rock-riffles 6 and 5, the amount removed is negligible, ranging between 0.02 and 0.05 m3/s depending on the time of year and how many tanks are in operation (B. Anstead, Chapman Creek Hatchery, pers. comm.). In contrast, the sampling gauge on Ouillet Creek is situated upstream of both the study reach, and a small ungauged tributary named 'Gosden Creek". Accordingly, the additional inputs from this creek had to be added to the gauged discharges to obtain a total discharge for the study reach. The flow rate in Gosden Creek was approximated using existing concrete foundations on the tributary bed that were creating hydraulic conditions similar to that expected for a broad-crested weir. Specifically, a surveyed rebar rod was placed immediately upstream of the foundations in order to measure the upstream water depth prior to, and following sampling within the main channel. The average of these two depths was then used to estimate the tributary discharge from a conventional broad-crested weir formula: 39 Q = \ w ° Y i \ g Y ( 2 - 2 ) where we = w - 0.2 Y is the effective weir width accounting for side-wall contractions (m); w is the width of the weir normal to the flow (m); and Y is the upstream flow depth relative to the weir crest (m) (Henderson 1966; Potter and Wiggert 1997). In all cases, the resultant discharge was found to range between approximately 4 and 10% of the total Q used for analysis (Table 2.7). Given that the actual flows in Gosden Creek were noted to be relatively minor during sampling compared to those in Ouillet Creek, it was assumed that any discrepancies in the calculated tributary discharge would have minimal impact on the average study reach hydraulics. Therefore, no further effort was made to obtain a more accurate tributary flow rate. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the bankfull discharge of 17.3 m3/s measured in this study agrees well with Qaf = 17 m3/s as estimated for the same reach by Newbury and Gaboury (1994). 2.4 Bed Material Characterization A series of random-walk Wolman pebble counts (Wolman 1954) were performed to characterize the surface bed material in each study reach (see Appendix C). Bed material sampling was focused within the individual sampled mini-reaches, and their component upstream bed and riffle reaches. All samples were truncated at a b-axis lower limit of 8 mm after Church et al. (1987). The resultant sample sizes varied with a minimum of 52 clasts selected for the mini-reaches in Beecher Creek, up to 219 clasts for mini-reach 5 in Chapman Creek (see Appendix C). A reduced sample size was adopted for Beecher Creek so as limit the possibility of re-sampling an individual particle within the smaller upstream bed and riffle sections. 40 In the case of Ouillet Creek, a separate data set was also collected along the channel thalweg immediately upstream and downstream of the constructed rock-riffles, and from bed material that was excavated in the summer of 2000 to increase the channel capacity upstream of rock-riffle 8 (see Appendix C; Table C.3). The thalweg data were collected prior to the isolation of individual mini-reaches within the channel, and include bed material sampled from both the scour pools downstream of the riffles, and from the upstream beds. The excavated material data on the other hand, would include both surface and subsurface bed material. In addition to the mini-reach bed material samples collected in Chapman Creek, two separate channel bars were also sampled; one upstream of mini-reach 2, and another upstream of mini-reach 6. Additional data collected in Chapman Creek N prior to the start of the study were also supplied by R. Newbury, and is included in Appendix C (see Appendix C; Table C l 1). 2.5 T O T A L S T A T I O N S U R V E Y I N G As indicated above, the adopted field sampling methodology assumes that the cross-section dimensions and gauge top elevations at a sampling point are known and remain relatively constant over the sampling period. Accordingly, several total station surveys of each study reach were completed over the duration of the study (Table 2.8; see also Appendix A). In addition to cross-sectional geometry and staff gauge elevations (top and bottom) at each sampling location, the channel thalweg centerline (Figs. 2.2-2.11) and rock-riffle dimensions (A, Ld and Sd) of each structure studied were also surveyed (see Appendix A). 41 All surveys for a given study reach were referenced to an initial station defined during the first channel survey. On Beecher, Ouillet and Chapman creeks, these initial stations were assumed to have arbitrary coordinates (x, y, elevation) of 0 m, Om, and 100 m. In contrast, the initial station on the Brunette River was set up over an existing benchmark (Benchmark ID: HUB 10720), the elevation of which was noted as 9.22 m on an existing site plan of the reach (GVSDD 1999). The northing (x) and easting (y) coordinates for this station were once again assumed to be 0 m and 0 m, respectively. 2.6 D A T A A N A L Y S I S The experimental approach adopted for this study involved the application of the steady 1-dimensional Bernoulli equation to individual riffle-pool sequences (Fig. 2.14): where co is the measured water surface elevation (m); a is correction coefficient for non-uniform velocity profiles; v is the mean cross-sectional velocity (m/s) computed from the measured discharge Q and surveyed cross-sectional geometry; g is the gravitational constant (m/s2); and the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to an upstream and downstream channel cross-section, respectively. The deduced energy loss between monitored cross-sections, h (m), is a result of flow resistance created by grain roughness, form elements (e.g. boulders and riffles), and other instream channel components such as bank vegetation and large woody debris. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that the velocity distribution at each sampling location was uniform and a = 1. co, + a = co2 + a 2 — + h 2g (2.3) Field data were collected within the six study reaches between December 1999 and March 2001 (Table 2.2; see also Appendix E). A total of 41 water surface profiles were sampled, with the 42 number of surveyed cross-sections per sample ranging from 8 on Beecher Creek L, up to 31 on Ouillet Creek. The sampled discharges extended from near baseflow in Beecher Creek, up to bankfull, or approximately bankfull, in Ouillet and Beecher creeks. The maximum sampled flows in Brunette River and Chapman Creek approached one-third and one-half of the corresponding bankfull estimates, respectively (Tables 2.1, 2.2). For analysis purposes, the surveyed cross-sections in each study reach were interpolated, in Surfer® using the kriging interpolation approach (Golden Software, Inc. 1999). This interpolation method was adopted since it retains the original surveyed data points, and was found to provide a complete interpolation (i.e. without large gaps in the cross-sectional geometry) for the surveyed cross-sections. Each sample (i.e. observed water surface elevation, discharge and interpolated cross-section geometry) was then analyzed using a MATLAB® (The Math Works, Inc. 1996) routine created to compute cross-sectional area, surface width, average depth, wetted perimeter, hydraulic radius, average velocity and total energy for a sampling location (see Appendix D.l). While it was assumed that a was equal to 1.0 for analysis, downstream gains in energy were occasionally predicted between monitored cross-sections due to non-uniform velocity distributions across the study reach. Where this occurred, a separate MATLAB® routine was used to increase the computed cross-sectional energy at the upstream cross-section (see Appendix D.2). Specifically, an effective flow area ("EFA") was characterized for the upper cross-section based on a defined channel depth y below which it was assumed that water was not being actively conveyed, and the downstream velocity component was negligible. In order to avoid any inherent subjectivity in the specification of an appropriate EFA, the selected y was chosen to be the minimum necessary (to the nearest centimetre) to result in a predicted 43 downstream energy loss (see Appendix E). To reiterate, this procedure was only completed if the calculated energy was observed to increase in the downstream direction, and no attempt was made to alter computed cross-sectional energies where a downstream energy loss was demonstrated. An example of a defined EFA is shown in Figure 2.15. From each deduced energy profile, the energy loss along individual sampled mini-reaches, hm, and the corresponding loss for individual riffles, h", and the bed upstream of the riffle crests, h\ were estimated (Fig. 2.12). An equivalent Manning's resistance coefficient n (m l /6) was also determined for each sampled mini-reach using: «m=— R/\l^ (2.4) WY m m Wm+2Ym ( 2 - 5 ) where the subscript m denotes a mini-reach value; r) = 1 m l / 2/s for v and R in SI units; R, W, and Y are the mean hydraulic radius (m), width (m), and depth (m), respectively; and hm/Lm is the slope of the energy grade line Sf (m/m) (Yen 2002). Similarly, the equivalent Manning's roughness coefficients for each riffle and upstream bed reach were computed from: „ " = M J l L (2.6) v" \L" n < = ^ W - (2.7) v' \V where the superscripts " and ' represent the mean values for the riffle (i.e. consecutive crest and downstream sample locations) and upstream bed (i.e. consecutive downstream [if present], upstream and crest sample locations), respectively. 44 Finally, an Ackers and White sediment transport rate for each mini-reach, upstream bed and riffle in a sample analysis was estimated from the procedures outlined by Ackers (1993) for pure bedload transport in channels with coarse (D35>0.0025 m), graded sediment. Under these conditions, the sediment transport rate, Gb (kg/s), is calculated as: PQ (2.8) Ggr= 0.025 0.17^/32^(5,-1) log ^107 ^ 1.78 (2.9) where Ggr is the dimensionless sediment transport rate; iSg = 2.65 is the specific gravity of the bed material; D35 is the characteristic grain diameter at which 35% is finer (m); p- 1000 kg/m3 is the density of water; and Q is the sampled discharge (m Is). The surface bed material D35 , as determined by Wolman pebble counts (see Appendix C), was assumed for analysis. The Ackers and White formula was selected for this study as being representative of a common relationship that might be used in practice. It is worth noting that the exponent 1.78 in Eq. 2.9 differs slightly from 1.50 originally reported by Ackers and White (1973). This is the result of the model recalibration undertaken by Ackers (1993) using a larger experimental data set. Owing to the possibility of adjustment in cross-section geometry and staff gauge elevation with time, most of the observed water surface profiles were analyzed using both pre-, and post-sampling interpolated surveys (see Appendices A, E). The average of the results for the two analyses were then determined and are reported in this study. Where a staff gauge was lost or 45 removed prior to the post-sampling survey, the original surveyed cross-section and staff gauge elevation were assumed for the second analysis (e.g. upstream cross-section, rock-riffle 4, Chapman Creek, June 2000 samples - see Table A.9 and Fig. A.64). In contrast, where a staff gauge was moved (e.g. lowered or moved closer to bank) within an cross-section prior to the post-sampling survey, the original staff gauge elevation with the updated cross-sectional geometry was assumed for analysis two (e.g. upstream cross-section, rock-riffle 5, Chapman Creek, June 2000 samples - see Table A.9 and Fig. A.62). In the case of the December 2nd and 15th, 1999 samples on Chapman Creek N and C, only one analysis was conducted owing to difficulties in securing a total station and sufficient field hands. This meant that the initial cross-sectional and gauge elevation surveys were completed sufficiently beyond the sampling date that consistency in the surveyed and sampled cross-section and staff gauge could not be adequately assumed (Tables 2.5, 2.8). While the three December 2nd, 1999 samples on Ouillet Creek were also obtained prior to an initial total station survey (Tables 2.6-2.8), it was assumed that the channel geometry and staff gauge elevations had not changed significantly in the relatively short time frame between samples and survey (i.e. 4 to 5 days). Accordingly, two analyses for these three samples (i.e. based on the December 6/7, 1999, and April 17,2000 surveys) were completed. Finally, the crest gauge for rock-riffle 1 in Beecher Creek L was lost following the completion of the first channel survey for the March 2000 samples, but prior to the commencement of sampling (Table 2.8; see also Appendix A ; Table A.2; Fig. A.20). Consequently, this mini-reach had to be removed from the analysis for these sample dates (see Appendix E; Tables E.l-E.4). 46 Table 2.1- Study Reach Characteristics Reach (m3/s) L(m) (m) Ybf (m) So (%) £>35 (m) (m) (m) Drainage (km2) Beecher Creek U 1A 260 5 0.6 2.1 0.060 0.080 0.320 1.3B Beecher Creek L 1A 75 4 0.65 2.4 0.060 0.090 0.320 1.3B Ouillet Creek 17 285 12 0.65 2.4 0.040 0.059 0.237 5.6C Brunette River 33d 300 17 1.2 0.34 0.035 0.050 0.300 68E Chapman Creek N 68 c 200 29 1.3 1.2 0.080 0.120 0.520 72 c Chapman Creek C 68 c 470 25 1.2 1.8 0.060 0.110 0.600 72 c estimated B Atwater 1998 c Newbury and Gaboury 1994 D 2-year event; G. McBain, Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, pers. comm. E Molavi 2000 47 Table 2.2 - Sampled Water Surface Profiles Reach Range of sampling dates Number of profiles Sampled cross-sections per profile Approximate sampling period per profile (min) Range of sampled Q expressed as a proportion of Qbf Beecher Creek U 03/02/00 -11/25/00 6 18 30-40 0.09-0.87 Beecher Creek L 03/02/00 -11/25/00 7 8-9 30-40 0.07 - 0.92 Ouillet Creek 12/02/99 -10/20/00 10 11-31 10-30 0.34-1.02 Brunette River 01/19/01 -03/27/01 6 9 10 0.09-0.33 Chapman Creek 12/02/99 -10/28/00 12 21 30-60 0.12-0.49 48 Table 2.3 - Summary of Estimated Sampling Discharges for Beecher Creek Sampling date Sampling periodA (min) Beecher Creek L Beecher Creek U Q start (m3/s) g end (m3/s) Q avg c (m3/s) Q start (m3/s) Qend (m3/s) e a v g c (m3/s) Mar. 2, 2000 60 - 70B 0.25 0.31 0.28 0.21 0.34 0.28 Mar. 17, 2000 60 - 70B 0.40 0.31 0.36 0.27 0.19 0.23 Mar. 18, 2000 60 - 70B 0.80 0.77 0.79 0.76 0.82 0.79 Mar. 18,2000 60 - 70B 0.88 0.95 0.92 0.88 0.85 0.87 Nov. 23, 2000 60 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.06 0.09 Nov. 23, 2000 40 0.53 0.32 0.43 Nov. 25, 2000 65 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.45 0.35 0.40 includes discharge measurement B estimated (not recorded) c assumed for Q sampling 49 Table 2.4 - Summary of Estimated Sampling Discharges for Brunette River and Tributary Sampling date Sampling time Q staff* (m3/s) Q gauge8 (m3/s) Q tributary (m3/s) Ratio ofQ tributary to Q sampling0 (%) Jan. 19, 2001 12:15-12:25 5.16 4.38 0.06 1.4 Jan. 21,2001 8:45-8:57 11.03 10.09 0.74 6.8 Jan. 21,2001 10:05-10:15 9.81 8.89 0.21 2.3 Jan. 21,2001 10:20-10:30 9.14 7.54 0.12 1.6 Feb. 2, 2001 9:50-10:00 4.47 3.66 0.06 1.7 Mar. 27, 2001 13:20-13:32 3.75 3.05 1.25 29 A mean of manual staff gauge readings B mean of measured 5-minute averages; Q gauge = Q sampling for rock-riffle 3 c rock-riffles 1 and 2 only; Q sampling = Q gauge + Q tributary 50 Table 2.5 - Summary of Estimated Sampling Discharges for Chapman Creek Sampling date Sampling time Hourly recorded discharge data Assumed Q sampling (m3/s) Hour Q Max. (m3/s) Q Min. (m3/s) Q Avg. (m3/s) Dec. 2, 1999 11:20-12:15 11 12 11.22 10.56 9.32 8.70 9.92 9.60 9.83A Dec. 15, 1999 9:50-10:40 9 10 14.11 18.65 10.24 11.92 11.59 14.47 13.88A Jun. 12, 2000 10:44-11:43 10 11 34.81 45.62 20.98 24.46 26.03 31.13 29.71A Jun. 12, 2000 13:11 - 13:38 13 44.19 26.03 33.55 33.55 Jun. 12, 2000 14:27-15:04 14 15 42.08 36.74 24.96 21.45 31.13 27.15 30.69A Oct. 17, 2000 9:00-9:40 9 16.51 11.59 13.35 13.35 Oct. 17, 2000 13:00-13:27 13 9.92 7.28 8.40 8.40 Oct. 20, 2000 10:00-10:45 10 27.68 15.29 19.55 19.55 Oct. 20, 2000 12:00-12:43 12 18.20 11.92 14.47 14.47 Oct. 28, 2000 9:00-9:35 9 24.46 14.11 17.36 17.36 Oct. 28, 2000 10:00-10:35 10 20.01 12.27 15.29 15.29 Oct. 28, 2000 11:00-11:28 11 16.51 11.22 13.35 13.35 A calculated from weighted mean of recorded average hourly stages 51 Table 2.6 - Summary of Estimated Discharges for Ouillet Creek above Gosden Creek Sampling date Sampling time Hourly recorded Q (m3/s) Measured staff gauge 2(m3/s) Assumed 0 ( V / s ) Max. Min. Avg. Start End Avg. Dec. 2, 1999 9:00-9:25 6.67 5.94 6.22 nr nr nr 6.22 Dec. 2, 1999 10:20-10:30 6.52 5.79 6.07 nr nr nr 6.07 Dec. 2, 1999 13:15-13:25 5.79 5.13 5.38 nr nr nr 5.38 Dec. 6, 1999 9:00-9:20 6.38 5.67 5.94 nr nr nr 5.94 Dec. 15, 1999 8:35-9:10 nr nr nr 11.88 12.64 12.26 12.26 Dec. 15, 1999 11:20-11:45 nr nr nr 15.31 16.15 15.73 15.73 Jun. 12, 2000 12:13-12:35 8.88 7.80 8.14 9.49 9.26 9.37 8.14 Jun. 12, 2000 15:34-15:52 7.63 6.52 6.97 7.52 7.32 7.42 6.97 Oct. 17, 2000 10:30-11:00 6.22 5.26 5.66 nr 6.52 nr 5.66 Oct. 20, 2000 8:17-9:00 8.88 7.63 8.14 9.72 9.04 9.37 8.14 nr - not recorded 52 Table 2.7 - Summary of Estimated Discharges for Gosden Creek Sampling date Sampling time Measured upstream depthA (m) Estimated <2(m3/s) % o f g sampling0 Start End Avg. B Dec. 2, 1999 9:00-9:25 0.32 0.30 0.31 0.63 9.2 Dec. 2, 1999 10:20-10:30 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.50 7.6 Dec. 2, 1999 13:15-13:25 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.29 5.2 Dec. 6, 1999 9:00-9:20 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.64 9.7 Dec. 15, 1999 8:35-9:10 0.48 0.51 0.495 1.27 9.4 Dec. 15, 1999 11:20-11:45 0.57 0.59 0.58 1.60 9.2 Jun. 12, 2000 12:13-12:35 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.90 9.9 Jun. 12, 2000 15:34-15:52 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.80 10.3 Oct. 17, 2000 10:30-11:00 nr 0.15 0.15 0.22 3.7 Oct. 20, 2000 8:17-9:00 0.34 0.31 0.325 0.69 7.8 nr - not recorded A relative to weir crest B assumed for Q estimation C Q sampling = Q Gosden + Q Ouillet above Gosden (see Table 2.6) 53 Table 2.8 - Summary of Total Station Surveying Study Reach Survey Date Surveyed Beecher Creek January 11 & 13,2000 cross-section geometry; gauge elevation May 4, 2000 cross-section geometry; gauge elevation; riffle length & amplitude September 12, 2000 centerline October 11,2000 cross-section geometry; gauge elevation July 5, 2001 cross-section geometry; gauge elevation; partial riffle length & amplitude Ouillet Creek December 6 & 7, 1999 cross-section geometry; gauge elevation April 17, 2000 cross-section geometry; gauge elevation; riffle length & amplitude July 30, 2000 centerline October 10, 2000 gauge elevation; partial cross-section geometry; partial centerline; partial riffle length & amplitude July 14, 2001 cross-section geometry; gauge elevation Brunette River January 12 & 16, 2001 centerline; cross-section geometry; gauge elevation; riffle length & amplitude June 12 & 21, 2001 cross-section geometry; gauge elevation Chapman Creek January 28 & 29, 2000 cross-section geometry; gauge elevation April 27 & May 9, 2000 cross-section geometry; gauge elevation; riffle length & amplitude July 8, 2000 centerline October 13 & 24, 2000 gauge elevation; partial cross-section geometry July 13,2001 cross-section geometry; gauge elevation 54 Figure 2.1 - Study reach location map: (1) Beecher Creek; (2) Ouillet Creek; (3) Brunette River; (4) Chapman Creek 55 Figure 2.2 - Beecher Creek U and L study reach thalweg centerline (survey date: Sept. 12, 2000) and sample cross-section locations (survey date: Oct. 11, 2000). Beecher Creek U and L study reaches are depicted in greater detail in Figs. 2.3 and 2.4, respectively 5 6 -200 -220 -240 -260 I-280 I -300 o £ -320 I -340 -360 -380 -400 rock-riffle 8 rock-riffle 9 rock-riffle 10 rock-riffle 12 rock-riffle 11 rock-riffle 13 thalweg centerline surveyed cross-sections 275 300 325 350 x coordinate (m) 375 400 Figure 2.3 - Beecher Creek U study reach thalweg centerline (survey date: Sept. 12, 2000) and sample cross-section locations (survey date: Oct. 11, 2000) 57 20 10 ^ - 1 0 B 3 I "20 o o o ^-30 -40 -50 -60 / \ . • rock-riffle 2 V." V \ rock-riffle 3 rock-riffle 1 thalweg centerline surveyed cross-sections 540 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 x coordinate (m) Figure 2.4 - Beecher Creek L study reach thalweg centerline (survey date: Sept. 12,2000) and sample cross-section locations (survey date: Oct. 11, 2000) 58 Figure 2.5 - Beecher Creek U and L study reach bed profde (survey date: Sept. 12, 2000) with sampled water surface and energy grade line at Q = 0.87 m3/s (Beecher Creek U) and Q = 0.92 m3/s (Beecher Creek L) 59 Figure 2.6 - Ouillet Creek study reach thalweg centerline (survey date: July 30, 2000) and sample cross-section locations (survey date: July 14, 2001) 6 0 102 101 100 99 98 Q o CO c g '1 W 97 96 H 95 H 94 H 93 H 92 91 50 / 3 "self-formed" riffles 100 150 200 Downstream Distance (m) energy profile water surface channel bed 250 300 Figure 2.7 - Ouillet Creek study reach bed profile (survey date: July 30, 2000) with sampled water surface and energy grade line at Q0/= 17.3 m3/s (note: riffle 5.5 was not sampled at this discharge) 61 Figure 2.8 - Brunette River study reach thalweg centerline and sample cross-section locations (survey dates: Jan. 12 and 16, 2001) 62 10 9 -8 -2 1 H o energy profile • water surface • channel bed 0 50 100 150 200 250 Downstream Distance (m) 300 350 Figure 2.9 - Brunette River study reach bed profile (survey date: Jan. 12, 2001) with sampled water surface and energy grade line at Q = 10.1 m3/s (rock-riffle 3) and Q : riffles 1 and 2) 10.8 m7s (rock-63 100 0 -100 <a -200 "S o o u -300 -400 -500 -600 -700 riffle N3 C h a p m a n Creek N rock-riffle 6 rock-riffle 5 Chapman rock-riffle 4 Creek C thalweg centerline surveyed cross-sections rock-riffle 2 0 50 100 150 x coordinate (m) 200 250 300 Figure 2.10 - Chapman Creek N and C study reach thalweg centerline (survey date: July 8, 2000) and cross-section locations (survey date: July 13, 2001) 64 Figure 2.11- Chapman Creek N and C study reach bed profile (survey date: July 8, 2000) with sampled water surface and energy grade line at Q = 33.6 m3/s 65 Figure 2.12 - Definition sketch for field sampling methodology and analysis (note: gauge located immediately upstream of riffle crest gauge is not shown) 66 60 Time (minutes) Figure 2.13 - Constructed SCS 5-minute unit hydrograph for the Brunette River tributary 67 c o 2 Figure 2.14 - 1-D Bernoulli energy equation as applied across a simple riffle 93 1 1 , , 1 1 1 , , , , 1 , , , , 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Distance from Right Bank (m) gure 2.15 - Defined effective flow area (y = 0.47 m) for rock-riffle 7 downstream cross-section, Ouillet Creek, December 15, 1999 (Q = 17.33 m3/s) 6 9 3.0 E N E R G Y P R O F I L E S A C R O S S C O N S T R U C T E D A N D N A T U R A L R I F F L E S S U M M A R Y Riffle-pool reconstruction has become an important river rehabilitation technique in disturbed channels. However, design has often lacked sufficient hydraulic analysis to adequately assess the potential effects to flood levels and sediment transport. This chapter describes the results of a hydraulic field study of four gravel-cobble bed rivers where it was found that the estimated energy loss across natural and constructed riffle-pool sequences varied between 50 and 100% of total mini-reach loss over a range of discharges. This suggests that riffle reconstruction may influence flooding and sediment transport within a project reach, and that the additional flow resistance should be an important consideration in design. Importantly, a significant relationship is also observed between riffle energy loss and amplitude for the structures sampled, suggesting that flood level impacts in similar channels can be investigated without the need to specify appropriate resistance coefficients for the riffle-pool sequence. It is believed that such an approach would represent a useful tool in the design of riffle-pool rehabilitation projects. 3.1 I N T R O D U C T I O N Stable riffle-pool topography is important for creating and sustaining habitat complexity and aquatic diversity within gravel-cobble bed channels (ASCE Task Committee 1992; Rabeni and Jacobson 1993). The associated morphologic and hydraulic distinctions between riffles and pools regulate sediment transport and sorting characteristics within the reach, and help diversify the flow through the formation and maintenance of secondary currents, backwater eddies, hydraulic jumps, and standing waves. In turn, viable populations of benthic invertebrates and fish are 70 supported through the provision of shelter, passage, varied substrates, and suitable feeding, spawning and rearing areas (Reeve and Bettess 1990; Newbury 1995). Anthropogenic disturbances such as urban development, poor logging practices and flood control works, often create a degraded, channelized reach devoid of the natural riffle-pool topography. The result is a homogeneous watercourse with minimal hydraulic and geomorphic complexity, and reduced ecological and aesthetic value (Brookes 1992). Correspondingly, the reintroduction of riffle-pool sequences has become an important and integral part of river rehabilitation (Clifford and Richards 1992). Yet, in the absence of design guidelines, rehabilitation has often lacked sufficient hydraulic or geomorphologic analysis, leading to fears of increased flooding and channel instability (Millar et al. 1999; Sear et al. in review, by permission of author). One concern is the lack of knowledge regarding energy losses across constructed riffles, and their corresponding effect on flood levels and sediment transport capacity. Conventional thinking suggests that riffles act as weirs at low flow but become "drowned out" (Fig. 3.1) as the associated frictional losses decrease with increasing discharge (Dunne and Leopold 1978; Parker and Peterson 1980; Leopold 1994). The implication, therefore, is that riffles have little or no impact on flood levels. However, in a re-analysis of published flow resistance data, Millar (1999) suggests that bedform resistance can be significant at higher discharges, and warned that higher water levels and more frequent over-bank flooding may be associated with riffle reconstruction in gravel-cobble bed rivers. This apparent discrepancy can have a significant impact on riffle-pool rehabilitation design; especially in areas with additional flood risk (e.g. urban streams). 71 The water surface profile, discharge, and cross-section geometry data collected from the four field sites described in Chapter 2 (see also Appendices A, B, and E) are analyzed in this chapter. Specifically, the deduced energy profiles across the sampled natural and constructed riffles are evaluated, and the relationship between the computed riffle resistance and structure dimension is examined. In addition, the effects on flood levels, sediment transport capacity and riffle reconstruction design are discussed. The results of this analysis were subsequently used in the development a hydraulic design and analysis procedure to assist with the evaluation of rock-riffle rehabilitation initiatives in gravel-cobble bed rivers (see Chapter 4). 3.2 E N E R G Y H E A D A N D H Y D R A U L I C R E S I S T A N C E The variation in riffle energy loss, h", with total mini-reach energy loss, hm, for each study reach is displayed in Fig. 3.2. The estimated h" was found to be substantial, representing between 50 and 100% of hm over the entire range of discharges sampled (see Table 2.2). The riffle and bed energy loss data were also analyzed in terms of equivalent Manning's resistance coefficients (Figs. 3.3 to 3.7), and while the constructed n" and n' values in Ouillet and Chapman Creeks were typically found to be greater than those for the natural/self-formed mini-reaches in these channels, the computed Manning's n for individual riffles tended to be larger than the corresponding upstream bed figures in all study reaches (Figs. 3.4 to 3.7). This suggests, therefore, that the natural and constructed riffles investigated represent a significant component of the total flow resistance over the range of discharges sampled in each reach. A wide disparity in Manning's resistance was also observed in this study (Figs. 3.3 to 3.7). Not only does n differ significantly with the discharge, the river, and the reach, but also at distinct 72 locations along the channel depending on the relative degree to which the large-scale riffles impact the flow. This observation particularly highlights the problems associated with selecting a uniform Manning's n from empirical relationships or published values to describe the hydraulic resistance along a given channel over a range of discharges. For example, the computed Manning's n, and in particular n", have a much larger magnitude and extent than would be predicted using the empirical Strickler's equation n = 0.042 Dso1 / 6 (Figs. 3.4 to 3.7). Ferguson et al. (1998) also found a wide variation in the magnitude and range of n along a channel when investigating the resistance characteristics of reconstructed pool, spawning and nursery habitats in low gradient (< 1%) rivers. However, they observed a tendency towards a uniform Manning's resistance coefficient for all habitats with increasing discharge. Although the magnitude and range of the estimated Manning's resistance coefficients in this study also tended to decrease as the discharge increased (Figs. 3.4 to 3.7), equalization between n" and ri was not observed. This suggests, therefore, that the riffles sampled are not being "drowned out" with rising stage (cf. Parker and Peterson 1980), and that riffle reconstruction in general may increase channel hydraulic resistance at high flows. 3.3 R I F F L E R E S I S T A N C E A N D S T R U C T U R E D I M E N S I O N The variation in h" and n" shown between individual riffle sections in Figs. 3.2 to 3.7 implies that the riffle section resistance may depend to some extent on structure amplitude and/or length. Other researchers have also attempted to relate a measure of bedform dimension to flow resistance (e.g. Prestegaard 1983; Millar 1999), but these studies have primarily been concerned with the variation in form resistance calculated as the difference between the measured total 73 resistance and an estimated grain roughness. A common assumption in this approach is that some multiple of the characteristic grain size D can be used to effectively describe the grain roughness in gravel-bed rivers. However, a general consensus on a suitable measure of grain roughness in a heterogeneous sediment mixture has yet to be obtained (Church et al. 1990; Yen 2002). An alternative approach that would avoid some of the subjectivity involved in estimating grain resistance would be to consider how the total flow resistance in the vicinity of morphologic features varies in response to some dimension of these features. This latter concept is adopted for the rock-riffles sampled in this study. The variation in the estimated riffle resistance with both structure amplitude A, and downstream face length Ld (see Fig. 2.12) is illustrated in Figs. 3.8 to 3.11. As shown in Fig. 3.8, all the estimated riffle energy losses plot within a narrow band defined by the limits h" ~ A for the weir controlled structures in Beecher Creek, to h" « 0.5.4 for the natural and self-formed riffles in Ouillet and Chapman Creeks. The estimated h" also tends to increase with the length of the downstream riffle face in most of the individual study reaches, however, a well-defined trend between h" and Ld is not as evident for the entire data set (Fig. 3.9). Similarly, there seems to be a slight tendency for the computed riffle Manning's resistance coefficient to increase with structure amplitude in several study reaches (Fig. 3.10), with the most notable exception being the constructed riffles in Beecher Creek where n" does not appear to be related to either A or Ld (Figs. 3.10, 3.11). Poor correlation between the calculated n" and Ld is also indicated for the natural and constructed riffles in Chapman Creek (Fig. 3.11). 74 3.4 S E D I M E N T T R A N S P O R T C A P A C I T Y In addition to the potential impacts to flow resistance, a second important effect of riffle reconstruction is a change in the sediment transport capacity. In particular, the resulting velocity and the shear stress that develops in the lower gradient sections upstream of the riffle crests limit the channel transporting capacity of each mini-reach. In streams with low sediment supply, such as Beecher Creek and Brunette River (see Figs. 2.5, 2.9), limited deposition is observed above the constructed riffles and relatively deep stable upstream pools remain. However, in high sediment supply streams like Ouillet and Chapman Creeks (see Figs. 2.7, 2.11), the reduction in shear stress promotes the deposition of sediment and a corresponding reduction in the capacity of the upstream channel (Fig. 3.12). This accumulation of sediment would be expected to continue until an equilibrium slope is achieved whereby sufficient velocity or shear stress is available so that the sediment transport capacity is essentially equal to the rate of sediment input to the reach given the prevailing discharge, sediment, and channel characteristics (Lane 1955; Heede 1986). The tendency towards the formation of an equilibrium bed slope upstream of constructed riffles in high sediment supply streams is evident in Ouillet Creek (see Fig. 2.7) where computed values of the Ackers and White bankfull bed sediment transport capacity (Ackers 1993) are remarkably similar, ranging between 10 and 30 kg/s with a mean of 17 kg/s (Fig. 3.13). Despite the inherent limitations associated with the use of empirically derived relationships, this comparatively narrow range in the estimated GY indicates that the bankfull transporting capacity remains fairly constant throughout the entire reach, implying that the channel has adjusted to a state of dynamic equilibrium; at least over the short term. However, it worth noting that Ouillet Creek study reach is an alluvial fan stream, and the periodic removal of deposited sediment at the upstream end is 75 necessary to maintain channel capacity, and to avoid the possibility of rock-riffle burial and subsequent channel avulsion over the longer term (R. Newbury, pers. comm.). 3.5 D ISCUSSION A N D D E S I G N I M P L I C A T I O N S Elevating water levels to regain access to abandoned floodplains and/or raise adjacent water table levels might be a deliberate, and appropriate, rehabilitation initiative, in which case the data depicted in Figs. 3.2 to 3.7 suggest that increasing the flow resistance through riffle reconstruction could be a viable alternative given the geomorphic and biological constraints of the channel. This idea is supported by Sear et al. (in review, by permission of author) who predicted an increase in bankfull water surface elevations of up to 0.08 m due to increased form roughness associated with rehabilitated gravel bedforms in a low gradient (0.02%) channel. However, both of these results also imply that riffle reconstruction may be best limited to incised and degrading channels in urban areas and more importantly, the impact of the additional riffle resistance should be considered during the design process, especially where increased water levels may result in significant flood risk. In order to account for this additional flow resistance, the river practitioner must either specify an appropriate resistance coefficient, or estimate directly the resultant riffle energy loss. Typically, the former is used, however, these coefficients cannot be measured directly and the designer is often required to estimate a Manning's n value based on empirical relationships (e.g. Strickler's equation), experience and/or published values for "similar" rivers (e.g. Hicks and Mason 1991). This can make the selection of an appropriate design value very difficult since, as is shown in Figs. 3.3 to 3.7, n can vary significantly with the river and flow conditions. 76 Alternatively, this study indicates that the additional energy loss associated with both natural and reconstructed riffles sampled can be related directly to the riffle amplitude (Fig. 3.8). This result is particularly noteworthy as it suggests that the evaluation of water surface profiles in similar steep, coarse-bedded channels could be accomplished using a single project-specific variable. For example, where riffle reconstruction is to occur in a stream with additional flood risk, water surface profiles could be estimated assuming h" = A, with the structure dimensions and spacing adjusted so that design flows are contained within the existing banks. On the other hand, the estimated riffle energy loss could be set at 50% of the design amplitude where the rehabilitation goal is to re-establish abandoned floodplains, and/or elevate nearby water tables. In both cases, however, the formation of an equilibrium bed slope upstream of the riffles in high sediment load streams, and the potential impact on channel capacity, will also have to be considered if long-term estimates of flood stage are to be obtained. In recent years there has been a move towards "softer" methods of river engineering aimed at mitigating the adverse physical and biological effects of traditional approaches while also helping to accelerate natural recovery processes in previously disturbed channels (Reeve and Bettess 1990). Due in part to strengthened legislation and an increased understanding of the intrinsic societal and environmental values of "natural" river systems, this progression in river management has led to the need for new design criteria that integrate natural fluvial processes and features in the attempt to satisfy multi-disciplinary goals and objectives as demands on water resources continue to increase (Shields et al. 1995; Ferguson et al. 1998). 77 Ultimately, effective riffle rehabilitation design should consider not only the hydraulic, geomorphic and ecological processes occurring within a channel, but must also incorporate an understanding of the relationships between bedform and fluvial hydraulics, sediment transport capacities and aquatic habitats. With this in mind, the results of this study were incorporated into a proposed hydraulic design and analysis procedure developed to complement existing riffle reconstruction methods (see Chapter 4). The procedure is aimed at furthering the design of reconstructed riffles in gravel-cobble bed rivers through the use of a steady, one-dimensional modeling package in the hydraulic evaluation of riffle spacing and dimension, and the associated impacts on equilibrium flood levels and sediment transport capacities. It is believed that this approach, in combination with appropriate geomorphic and ecological evaluation, should represent a valuable tool in the design of riffle-pool sequences. 3.6 C O N C L U S I O N S The hydraulic analysis of riffle structures in four gravel-cobble bed rivers in southwestern British Columbia has indicated that the riffle energy loss is substantial over the range of high flows sampled, varying between 50 and 100% of the total loss. This implies that these structures are not being "drowned out" with increasing stage, and more importantly, that a comprehensive hydraulic evaluation procedure is required so that the potential impacts on water levels and sediment transport capacities related to riffle reconstruction can be effectively evaluated. Accordingly, the strong relationship observed between riffle energy loss and structure amplitude in this study should prove useful in the design of future riffle-pool rehabilitation projects in similar gravel-cobble bed rivers. 78 79 Mini-Reach Energy Loss h m (m) Figure 3.2 - Variation in computed riffle energy loss h" with computed mini-reach energy loss h 80 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 « 0.5 C/3 U 0.4 1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 • • • • • • • • H 0 d * A A A A A o 8S | B S . A l a §1 I B • Beecher A Brunette n Chapman constructed • Chapman natural o Ouillet constructed o Ouillet self-formed 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Relative Discharge QIQbf 1.1 Figure 3.3 - Variation in computed riffle Manning's n" with relative discharge QIQbf for all study reaches 81 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 s GO 1 °-4 ^ 0.3 -0.2 -0.1 -0 • • • i< • • • - § - B -• constructed n" ° constructed n' Strickler n • • • • 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Relative Discharge QIQbf 0.9 1 1.1 Figure 3.4 - Variation in computed riffle (solid symbols) and bed (open symbols) Manning's n with relative discharge QIQbf for Beecher Creek 82 0.14 0.12 0.1 £ 0 . 0 8 I 0.06 0.04 0.02 * a • s 1 9 • o h • • i c cP • o • • constructed n " • self-formed « " • constructed « ' o self-formed n' — Strickler n o u a T • • 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Relative Discharge QIQbf 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 Figure 3.5 - Variation in computed riffle (solid symbols) and bed (open symbols) Manning's with relative discharge QIQbf for Ouillet Creek 0.25 0.2 A ^ 0 . 1 5 H in a 0.1 0.05 H D ft s-• constructed n" n constructed « ' Strickler n 0.1 0.2 0.3 Relative Discharge QIQbf 0.4 Figure 3.6 - Variation in computed riffle (solid symbols) and bed (open symbols) Manning's with relative discharge QIQbj'for Brunette River 0.35 0.3 0.25 A B, 0.2 i e "bp 0.15 H 03 0.1 H 0.05 H • o • • • o o <9< c o o o t t D o o • o • 0.1 • constructed n" • natural n" • constructed n' o natural «* Strickler n ot ©8 3 g • o 0.2 0.3 0.4 Relative Discharge QIQbf 0.5 0.6 Figure 3.7 - Variation in computed riffle (solid symbols) and bed (open symbols) Manning's n with relative discharge QIQbf for Chapman Creek 85 Riffle Amplitude A (m) Figure 3.8 - Variation in computed riffle energy loss h" with riffle amplitude A 86 1.4 0.2 A 0.0 1.2 -1.0 -^ 0.8 -GQ 3 & 0.6 -J-H • 1 W 1 °'4 " J III i i f 8 8 i 8 • • • Beecher A Brunette o Chapman constructed a Chapman natural o Ouillet constructed o Ouillet self-formed "i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r 10 15 20 25 Riffle Face Length L j (m) 30 35 40 Figure 3.9 - Variation in computed riffle energy loss h" with riffle downstream face length Lj 87 0.9 0.8 H 0.7 0.6 H e 0.5 H "bp 0.4 H 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 • • • • • • • ••t • * • • • z H 0 I §§ i 8 8 8 • Beecher A Brunette o Chapman constructed o Chapman natural o Ouillet constructed o Ouillet self-formed b 8 • o 8 8 — i 1 1 1 — 0.0 0.2 0.4 • • — i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1 Riffle Amplitude A (m) Figure 3.10 - Variation in computed riffle Manning's n" with riffle amplitude A 88 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 c 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 09 "bo • • .1 • • • • • • • 0 • • Beecher * Brunette • Chapman constructed D Chapman natural • Ouillet constructed ° Ouillet self-formed 8 a B B • - I — i — i — I — | — I — i — I — I — | — I — I — I — I — | — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — I — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — r 10 15 20 25 30 Riffle Face Length L j (m) 35 40 Figure 3.11 - Variation in computed riffle Manning's n" with riffle downstream face length Ld 89 EGL Figure 3.12 - Formation of an equilibrium bed slope S' (dotted line) above simple rock-riffles in a high sediment supply stream. In low-supply streams, sediment accumulation would be minimal, and stable upstream pools would remain 90 100 5 c H — OJ 00 - a o .23 io H • constructed o self-formed -1 i i i I i — i — i — i — l — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — r 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Downstream Distance (m) Figure 3.13 - Variation in computed Ackers and White upstream bed sediment transport rate with downstream distance on Ouillet Creek; Q = 17.3 m3/s 91 4.0 H Y D R A U L I C D E S I G N O F C O N S T R U C T E D R I F F L E S I N G R A V E L - C O B B L E B E D R I V E R S S U M M A R Y The reintroduction of riffle-pool sequences has increasingly been promoted as an appropriate rehabilitation alternative for the re-naturalization of modified gravel-bed channels. However, in the absence of hydraulic design guidelines, enhancement efforts often fail to evaluate the subsequent impacts to flood levels and sediment transport capacity. This chapter describes a hydraulic design and analysis procedure developed for the evaluation of constructed rock-riffles in gravel-cobble bed streams. The procedure addresses specific design issues such as rock-riffle location, configuration, amplitude and stability, and the associated impacts to flow resistance, sediment transport efficiency, flood capacity, and aquatic habitat. Based on this analysis, design project-reach profiles can be developed for the individual catchment and reach characteristics, the governing fluvial processes, and the particular rehabilitation goals and objectives. With proper geomorphic, hydraulic, hydrologic and ecologic appraisal, this approach should therefore represent a valuable resource in the design and rehabilitation of riffle-pool sequences in uniform, channelized or incised gravel-cobble bed rivers. 4.1 I N T R O D U C T I O N Traditional river management practices often result in the removal of natural riffle-pool sequences from gravel-cobble bed rivers in an attempt to meet specific design objectives such as flood control, improved navigation, and urban, agricultural or industrial development. Although these characteristic bedforms may eventually recover in the absence of further artificial control 92 and maintenance (Lewin 1976), the associated impacts to channel geometry, roughness, discharge, and sediment supply and composition, can inhibit the formation of a stable river morphology, resulting in complex long-term geomorphic, hydraulic, ecologic and aesthetic consequences both within, and beyond the impacted reach (Brookes 1989; Hey 1992). Accordingly, the reintroduction of riffle-pool sequences has increasingly become a common enhancement alternative for improving channel stability and aquatic biodiversity in modified river systems (see Table 1.1). However, in the absence of readily available design criteria, rehabilitation initiatives have often lacked sufficient hydraulic analysis to effectively evaluate the potential long-term impacts to water levels and sediment transport capacity (Shields et al. 1995; Ferguson et al. 1998). Not only may this lead to over-design and limit the potential for success, it often means that there is a reluctance to reconstruct in areas where there is significant physical and/or economic risk should the structures "fail". This chapter describes a hydraulic analysis scheme that was developed based on the results of the hydraulic field study described in Chapter 3. The primary motivation for this procedure, which extends the design process described by Newbury et al. (1997), was to aid river practitioners in the hydraulic design and analysis of rehabilitated riffle-pool sequences in uniform, channelized, and incised gravel-cobble bed streams. To this end, the approach assists in the evaluation of rock-riffle configuration, spacing, and stability, and the associated effects on channel flood levels, sediment transport capacity, and aquatic habitat diversity. Consequently, the hydraulic analysis procedure proposed should, when used in collaboration with appropriate geomorphic, hydrologic and ecologic assessment, represent a valuable resource in river rehabilitation design. 93 4.2 R I F F L E - P O O L R E H A B I L I T A T I O N To be successful, river re-naturalization must respect the watershed as an integrated whole so that local enhancement measures can be implemented in view of existing catchment-scale processes that regulate discharge, sediment load and caliber, channel stability, and habitat quality and quantity. This requires the creation of clear rehabilitation goals and objectives, and the adoption of a multi-disciplinary approach that not only considers hydraulic, hydrologic, and geomorphic principles, but also incorporates an understanding of the complex relationships existing between natural fluvial processes, channel dynamics, and the development of stable aquatic ecosystems (Osborne et al. 1993). Ultimately, a proposed river improvement scheme must be appropriate to the channel, the underlying formative processes, and the specific factors which limit biological success (Kellerhals and Miles 1996; Kondolf et al. 2001). For example, riffle-pool rehabilitation may provide little long-term benefit where water quality is lacking, or where channel typology, stability, sediment load and discharge do not naturally support their formation and continued maintenance (Keller 1975; Shields 1983). Therefore, the suitability of reconstructing riffle-pool sequences, or any other channel form, should not be presumed, but rather established based on the rehabilitation objectives, and the specific characteristics df the individual catchment and project reach. Once suitability has been ascertained, the aim then becomes to replicate the form, stability and function of the natural channel morphology (Newbury et al. 1997; Hey 1998). In reaches where the natural riffle-pool topography has been removed or is lacking, constructed 94 rock-riffles can be used to enhance channel stability and create ecologically valuable habitat (Newbury et al. 1997). As with other stream improvement initiatives, the rehabilitation of riffles and pools using rock-riffles is comprised of five fundamental phases: 1) catchment and reach assessment; 2) design and hydraulic analysis; 3) construction; 4) monitoring and maintenance; and 5) project evaluation (Fig. 4.1). Each phase in turn is defined by the overall project objectives, and requires the integration of appropriate geomorphic, hydrologic, hydraulic, and ecologic input and assessment. While the primary focus of this study is on phase 2, the relative significance of the remaining phases should not be discounted. Indeed, each phase should be considered equally important to the successful realization of the project goals. Further details concerning the phases not discussed here can be obtained from Kondolf and Micheli (1995), Newbury et al. (1997), and Hey (1998), among others. 4.3 R O C K - R I F F L E D E S I G N A N D H Y D R A U L I C A N A L Y S I S The information collected in phase 1 of the rehabilitation process provides a valuable reference for rock-riffle design and analysis. Surveys of natural reaches within the system offer insight into governing variable characteristics, and potentially stable river morphology and habitat features. If natural conditions are in short supply, historical records, empirical regime-type equations (e.g. Hey and Thorne 1986), or other nearby streams may also act as suitable guides, providing similar governing processes exist (Kondolf and Micheli 1995; Hey 1998). However, since the dimensions of an incised or channelized reach often vary from regional or regime values, rehabilitation will also likely need to be tailored to the individual project site characteristics (Shields et al. 1999). In particular, rock-riffle design aspects such as location, configuration, and stability will need to be evaluated in terms of the predicted or expected regime channel 95 geometry, and the potential long-term impacts to project reach hydraulics, flood capacity, sediment transport efficiency, and aquatic habitat sustainability (Fig. 4.2). 4.3.1 Location and Spacing An initial estimate of rock-riffle locations may be obtained by superimposing an average spacing criterion X on the enhancement reach profile (Newbury et al. 1997). The particular criterion applied should reflect both the spacing observed in the representative reaches, and the predicted natural or equilibrium bankfull width Wbf for the rehabilitation site. Where representative data are lacking, an average spacing of 5 to 7 ^/(Leopold et. al. 1964) may be used, with lower mean values (e.g. X « 2 to 4 Wbf) reserved for steeper channel gradients (e.g. S0 > 2 to 4%), or where large numbers of riffle and/or pool forcing elements (e.g. large woody debris, boulders, etc.) may be present (Wohl et al. 1993; Montgomery et al. 1995; Thompson 2001). Alternatively, an examination of the project reach may help locate inflection points in the meander or flow geometry where riffle development would be expected (Keller 1972), and may even detect sites where they have already started to reform. However, since the project reach may have yet to reach a state approaching dynamic equilibrium, any suggested rock-riffle locations need to be evaluated to determine whether they would promote a stable post-rehabilitation morphology. Once the initial positioning is complete, the location of individual structures can be modified further to take advantage of local geomorphic features (i.e. existing bed and bank topography), or to enhance the variability in rock-riffle spacing and aquatic habitat conditions (Thompson 2001). 4.3.2 Configuration A preliminary design template for the configuration of the rock-riffles (Fig. 4.3) can be 96 developed in reference to the attributes of the particular project reach, the observations of natural riffle characteristics, and the specific rehabilitation objectives. While the structure top and base width (WT and WB) of the rock-riffles will be dictated by the existing channel geometry, the average crest amplitude A will also depend on the upstream depths required to create suitable aquatic habitat and fish passage at low to intermediate stages, and the channel capacity needed to convey the design discharge Qd (Hey 1992; Newbury et al. 1997). For example, the design depth may be dictated by the need to capture and/or retain adequately sized spawning gravels, or to provide sufficient cover during low flow periods. Similarly, the selection of an appropriate Qd will be influenced by the rehabilitation objectives and the project reach attributes. In heavily incised, urban streams for instance, rock-riffle amplitude may be limited only by the requirement to contain extreme discharge events (e.g. 100-year flood flow) within existing banks. Conversely, where the aim is to "re-naturalize" the channel and its processes, the design Qd should reflect the natural bankfull discharge g^/with the understanding that higher flows may overtop the banks and inundate adjacent floodplains. Once again, an approximate magnitude for the natural Qbf can be attained from observations of nearby reference reaches. Otherwise, it can be approximated from the catchment area using regional curves, or where flow records are available, it can be assumed equal to the 1.5-year annual maximum instantaneous flood, which is typically considered the effective or channel maintaining discharge in gravel bed channels (Leopold et al. 1964; Newbury et al. 1997; Hey 1998). An estimate of the maximum design A for a particular location within the project reach can be obtained from specific energy principles assuming no energy losses or sediment accumulation 97 upstream of the rock-riffle, and critical non-backwatering flow conditions at the structure crest (Fig. 4.4). Under these circumstances, Amax (m) is calculated as: r * 2 ) 3 2 [s J where YD is the maximum permissible upstream water depth, or the depth to top of bank (m); q = QJWis the design unit discharge (m /s); IF is the mean channel width (m); and g = 9.81 m/s is the gravitational constant. Solving Eq. 4.1 for a range of q and subcritical YD also leads to the development of a series of maximum crest amplitude curves that can be used as a quick reference for design (Fig. 4.5). Following the selection of the initial design amplitude, rock-riffle length Lr (Fig. 4.3) can be estimated from the direct observation of natural riffles, or from common dimensions described in the literature. For example, average Lr values ranging between approximately 1.3 and 1.8 times the active or bankfull channel width have been reported by Grant et al. (1990) and Carling and Orr (2000), while Brookes (1989) suggested that rehabilitated riffles (and pools) should not exceed 3 channel widths in length, or be less than 1. The downstream rock-riffle face slope Sd should also reflect natural riffle configurations. Typical values are generally less than 10% on average, however mean slopes of approximately 4% have been reported in some lower gradient channels, while gradients of up to 17% have been observed in steeply sloped boulder-dominated reaches (Newbury et al. 1997; Carling and Orr 2000). In contrast, the upstream rock-riffle face is designed to be steeper (Su « 25 to 100%) and shorter than the downstream face so that relatively deep flow depths are created above the structure, and 98 the deposition and accumulation of sediment is encouraged (Hey 1992; Newbury et al. 1997). In straight channels with limited room to meander, the cross-sectional profde of the rock-riffles should be symmetrically v-shaped (Fig. 4.3) and oriented perpendicular to the banks. This will tend to focus the flow to the middle of the channel, and in turn, will help limit bank erosion at the structure site and assist in the formation and maintenance of a central downstream scour pool (Newbury et al. 1997). Alternatively, where sufficient land is available, the rock-riffles may be slightly angled to promote the initiation of a meandering planform and facilitate the creation of asymmetric pools on alternate channel banks (Hey 1992). Based on natural riffle observations, Newbury et al. (1997) suggest a cross-sectional profile that is angled downwards by 5 « 0.3 to 0.6 m, whereas Whyte et al. (1997) depict rock-riffle side slopes Sv in the range of 10%. Nevertheless, the final rock-riffle cross-sectional shape must also reflect the required discharge capacity and average design elevation at the structure crest, and the comparative extent and type of scour desired downstream. 4.3.3 Hydraulic Analysis Following the development of the initial rock-riffle spacing and configuration design templates, the associated flow resistance, sediment transport, and channel hydraulic effects need to be assessed in terms of equilibrium river processes, preferred habitat characteristics, and the defined enhancement goals and objectives. 4.3.3.1 Flow Resistance Rock-riffle design is based in part on the channel capacity required to maintain natural bankfull 99 discharges within the existing banks. Shields (1983) suggested that water levels resulting from the construction of series of simple habitat structures could be estimated by increasing the roughness coefficient in the Manning equation. However, as the data collected in this study indicates (see Chapter 3), the selection of an appropriate n for such an approach would be difficult. Not only did the calculated n" for the rock-riffles sampled vary with discharge, a large variation was also observed between the individual rock-riffles, and between study reaches (see Figs. 3.3 to 3.7). In contrast, the estimated energy losses across all the sampled rock-riffles (/?") demonstrated comparatively minor variation with discharge, and were found to range consistently between 50 and 100% of the rock-riffle amplitude A (see Figs. 2.12, 3.8). Thus, for the rehabilitation of riffles in similar coarse-bedded channels, it is proposed that the relationship between rock-riffle energy loss and structure amplitude could be used to effectively describe the resultant rock-riffle flow resistance over a range of discharges rather than necessitating the selection of an appropriate roughness coefficient, such as Manning's n. In particular, the hydraulic design and analysis of a rehabilitation channel profile can be completed assuming a rock-riffle energy loss h" of 0.5 to 1.0.4 depending on the defined project objectives. For example, a value of h" « A could be used for areas with increased flood risk, while a less conservative approach assuming h" « 0.5.4 could be adopted where the aim is to re-access existing floodplains or elevate streamside water tables. In either case, the potential effects to project reach flood levels and sediment transport capacity can then be analyzed, and the proposed rock-riffle amplitudes and spacings adjusted accordingly in order to meet the overall rehabilitation objectives. 100 4.3.3.2 Sediment Transport In order for the project reach to remain stable over the long term, the channel must be able to effectively transport the bed material supplied to it from upstream without net aggradation or degradation. Initially, rock-riffle construction will create a stepped water surface profile, with flow depths in the pools formed immediately upstream controlled by the outlet conditions at the structure crest. In streams without a significant sediment supply, the upstream pools are stable features, and so long as structure amplitude and spacing are sufficient to maintain outlet control, it may be possible to model the rock-riffles as a series of weirs or drop structures. A good example of this weir-type flow can be observed in Beecher Creek (Fig. 4.6a) where the total energy loss estimated across an individual constructed rock-riffle and its corresponding upstream pool was found to be approximately equal to the structure amplitude over a range of discharges approaching bankfull (see Chapter 3). In high sediment supply streams like Ouillet Creek (Fig. 4.6b) on the other hand, the ponding above the structures promotes the deposition of sediment and the initial upstream pools are steadily infilled. Correspondingly, the outlet-controlled conditions become progressively submerged at higher discharges, and the resulting channel water levels reflect a combination of rock-riffle and inter-structure energy losses. The accumulation of sediment upstream of the rock-riffles in high bedload channels would be expected to continue until an equilibrium bed slope S' is achieved whereby sufficient shear stress is available to transport all additional sediment supplied from above (see Fig. 3.12). In effect, the sediment transport capacity of the channel is limited by the energy dissipated along the bed between structures, which in turn is a function of rock-riffle amplitude and spacing. Accordingly, predicting the A and X necessary to maintain equilibrium transporting conditions is an important 101 component of rock-riffle rehabilitation design. Interestingly, the expected upstream sediment accumulation in high bedload streams suggests that rock-riffles may also represent effective sediment traps in aggrading systems (e.g. Bates and Thorne 2001). However, in the absence of periodic removal, the accumulation of sediment may significantly reduce channel flood capacity, and may even eventually bury the structures. Accordingly, the periodic removal of collected sediment above the upper most rock-riffle in a series of structures has been included as a maintenance feature in the rehabilitation design of alluvial fan streams (R. Newbury pers. comm.). In these cases, a temporary storage zone is typically established on the channel bank, and road access for the subsequent removal of the mined sediment is provided. A sediment accumulation analysis developed to estimate equilibrium upstream bed slopes S' for a design discharge and sediment transport regime is shown in Fig. 4.7. Assuming uniform upstream flow conditions, a trial S' is calculated from: S'= L} Lm-L (4.2) where: Lm=XW (4.3) V (4.4) (4.5) h"= cA (4.6) 102 A = A (4.7) and where Ls is the estimated length of downstream flow separation expressed as a proportion d of the downstream rock-riffle face length Ld = A/Sj (m); c is a coefficient ranging between 0.5 and 1; and the scripts m,' and " denote the energy loss h (m) and channel length L (m) of a mini-reach, upstream bed, and riffle reach respectively (see Fig. 2.12). S is the local bed slope, while S0 is the existing or desired average channel slope, which can be altered along the project length to help create smooth transitions at the reach boundaries (Newbury et al. 1997). Once S ' has been estimated from Eqs. 4.2 to 4.7, the corresponding uniform flow depth Y'(m) and velocity v' (m/s) for the design discharge are estimated from the Manning's equation and an assumed upstream bed roughness coefficient ri (m1/6). These values are then used to forecast the limiting bedload transport rate Gb using an empirical sediment transport relationship. In this study, the Ackers and White pure bedload equation (Ackers 1993) is suggested; however, other sediment transport relations (e.g. Meyer-Peter and Muller 1948; Parker et al. 1982) may also be employed with appropriate amendments to the required input variables. For coarse (Z)35>0.002 m) graded sediment, the Ackers and White Gb (kg/s) is calculated as: 3 5 pQt (4.8) 103 Ggr'= 0.025 0.17A/32gZ)35(5g-l)log r\0YA v A 5 y 1.78 (4.9) where Ggr' is the upstream bed dimensionless sediment transport rate; Sg = 2.65 is the sediment specific gravity; D 3 5 is the characteristic grain diameter of the transported material at which 35% is finer (m); Qb/is the design bankfull discharge (m3/s); and p = 1000 kg/m3 is the density of water. The predicted Gb is then compared with the design transport rate GD, and if they are not equal, the structure amplitude or spacing is adjusted and a new upstream bed slope and limiting sediment transport rate are calculated. In addition to the design bankfull discharge, and the initial estimates for rock-riffle spacing and configuration, the sediment accumulation analysis just described also requires the specification of a design sediment transport rate Gb and caliber (e.g. D35), an upstream Manning's roughness coefficient ri, and a downstream flow separation length Ls. In gravel bed rivers, the sediment transport rate corresponding to the regime bankfull discharge has been shown to be the most effective at moving large amounts of material through the system; however, its direct measurement has so far proven problematic (Hey and Thorne 1986). Thus, the selection of an appropriate design Gb (and caliber) will have to rely on proper geomorphic assessment of both the catchment, and local reach, sediment dynamics. Likewise, the Manning's roughness coefficient cannot be measured directly, and will also tend to vary with discharge and channel characteristics (Keller and Florsheim 1993). However, it may be possible to define a suitable ri from bankfull surveys of the discharge, stage and geometry within stable reference reaches (Kondolf and Micheli 1995). If not, design values can be estimated from experience, empirical 104 relationships (e.g. Strickler's equation), and/or published figures for "similar" rivers (e.g. Hicks and Mason 1991). Anticipating an appropriate design value for Ls will also be challenging, and while some guidance may be offered from observations of natural downstream scour pools in the reference reaches, Ls will likely depend to a varying degree on the specific catchment and project reach attributes (Wohl et al. 1993; Thompson 2001), and the individual configuration of the rock-riffles. For example, greater flow separation lengths might be expected with structures whose cross-sectional profile is v-shaped rather than horizontal, while shorter lengths (and deeper scour depths) may result with steeper downstream face slopes. For the channels examined in this study (see Chapter 2), the reach-averaged Ls values range between approximately 0.4 and 1.8 times the downstream rock-riffle face length, and from 0.3 to 1.1 times the bankfull width (Table 4.1). Despite the wide variation in terminology, these values also agree favourably with natural pool lengths reported in the literature (see Table 1.3). However, given the potential design scope for c (Eq. 4.6; see also Fig. 3.8), and the uncertainty associated with the use of empirical bedload transport equations, a more conservative approach to the estimation of equilibrium structure spacing and geometry would be to assume that h" is primarily focused on the downstream face of the rock-riffles (i.e. Ls = 0) rather than estimating probable flow separation lengths based on natural or reported scour pool dimensions. 4.3.3.3 Hydraulic Modeling The likely impacts to discharge capacity and channel hydraulics of a proposed rehabilitation profile can be assessed using 1-dimensional river analysis packages, such as HEC RAS 105 developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Brunner 2001). Standard 1-dimesional models have been found capable of effectively reproducing observed average cross-sectional depths and velocities over a range of discharges, with their overall success improving as flows approach bankfull (Miller and Wenzel 1985; Keller and Florsheim 1993; Carling and Wood 1994). Therefore, while more complex 2- and 3-dimensional models may be required to fully investigate local or fine-scale hydraulics, 1-dimensional models should prove satisfactory for the evaluation of average post-rehabilitation flow conditions, especially at higher stages. HEC RAS uses a standard stepwise numerical procedure to compute steady subcritical, supercritical, and mixed flow profiles based on known or estimated boundary flow conditions, and the solution of the one-dimensional energy and momentum equations at intervening surveyed cross-sections (Brunner 2001). Energy losses are typically determined using Manning's equation, and from expansion and contraction losses associated with variations in channel geometry; however, a prescribed energy loss can also be applied between adjacent cross-sections. This latter capability is particularly amenable to the hydraulic design and analysis of rock-riffle rehabilitation schemes as the designer can specify a riffle energy loss h". Based on the results of this study (see Chapter 3), a riffle energy loss of 0.5A<h"<l.0A could be used, with h" « 0.5.4 assumed where overbank flooding is desirable, and h" « A applied where the potential for elevated flood risk is to be minimized. Using this approach, the designer can rapidly simulate the flow conditions following the implementation of a specific project reach profile, and then appropriately modify the design rock-riffle amplitudes and spacing should it appear that the discharge capacity of the proposed channel is insufficient, or that the desired habitat requirements will not be met. After several iterations, it should be possible to develop a design 106 profile for the project reach that suitably addresses the specific rehabilitation goals and objectives. 4.3.4 Stability In order to create effective habitat complexity, the range of rock sizes selected to construct the rock-riffles should reflect the full distribution of sediment found in natural riffles (Boles 1981), with sufficiently stable larger material used to build the structure crest, and placed randomly on the downstream face to help diversify flow conditions and armor the bed (Newbury et al. 1997). An estimate of the stable rock size for the maximum within channel flood stage can be obtained from the Shields entrainment function (Henderson 1966): n _ 1A YdSd r50~xpg(Sg-iK*~x(ss-iK* ( 4 - 1 0 ) where Drso is the characteristic rock-riffle grain size at which 50% is finer (m); x</ is the design average bed shear stress acting on the downstream face (N/m2); and Yd is the maximum uniform flow depth (m) over the structure as defined by the elevation of the channel banks above the crest (Newbury et al. 1997). xc* is the critical dimensionless shear stress at the threshold of particle motion, which can range from 0.03 up to approximately 0.06 for the turbulent flow conditions in gravel-cobble bed rivers, and % is a correction factor used to account for the weight component acting to move a bed particle in the direction of flow on a steeply sloped (>5%) bed. From Stevens et al. (1976), % is calculated as: tan© X = cosG 1 (4.11) tancj) where 0 is the bed or downstream face slope angle (°); and <|> is the natural angle of repose of the sediment (°), which can vary with size and relative degree of angularity, but is typically around 107 40° for sediment diameters greater than 0.1 m (Henderson 1966). Assuming a xc* of 0.06, the estimated stable rock diameter then becomes: Dr50 =-YdSd (4.12) K To ensure a greater degree of stability, however, it is recommended that a factor of safety be included in Eq. 4.12, and/or the assumed xc* should be reduced. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1995) recommend a safety factor of 1.2 in sizing bed and bank material for flood control channels, while a reduction in xc* from 0.06 to 0.03 represents a more conservative approach, and would be equivalent to applying a safety factor of 2. Nonetheless, it is important to realize that the stability of the rock-riffles cannot be assured, and in particular, the larger materials placed on the structure face are prone to movement as smaller material is sorted around them (Newbury et al. 1997). Accordingly, post-rehabilitation monitoring and maintenance will be important to the overall success of the final design. A further consideration in rock-riffle design is structure stability at the interface with the existing channel. Specifically, the foundation material should be keyed into the bed and banks as much as possible to prevent failure by sliding, while the banks should also be protected with riprap or suitable bioengineering techniques so as to guard against erosion and structure outflanking (Hey 1992; Newbury et al. 1997; Shields et al. 1999). In addition, geotextile filter cloth may be required to prevent the loss of finer material from the channel bed and banks at higher stages (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995). Finally, in low sediment supply streams, additional infill material may be necessary to improve structure stability and to assist in maintaining flow over the rock-riffles at lower discharges (Atwater 1998). 108 4.4 O U I L L E T C R E E K D E S I G N E X A M P L E For illustrative purposes, the sediment accumulation analysis procedure described above was applied to Ouillet Creek (Fig. 4.6b). Four separate design scenarios were considered (Table 4.2). In each, the design discharge (Qbf = 17 m3/s), sediment transport rate (Gb =17 kg/s) and caliber (D35 = 0.04 m), and average project reach channel slope (S0 = 2.4%) and width (W= 12 m) were fixed based on values measured or estimated in this study (see Table 2.1, Fig. 3.13). An initial trial crest amplitude of Amax = 1 m was estimated from Fig. 4.5 and the average pre-rehabilitation channel depth of Yb = 1.8 m (Newbury 1994), while a preliminary rock-riffle spacing of X = 3.5 was assumed corresponding to an inter-crest horizontal distance of 42 m. Finally, the downstream rock-riffle face-slopes were set at Sd = 10% after the initial rock-riffle design for Ouillet Creek (Newbury 1994). 4.4.1 Sample Calculations Sample calculations for the second design scenario described in Table 4.2 are shown below. In this scenario, the rock-riffle energy loss design coefficient c is assigned a value of 0.5, while 0.03 and 0 are assumed for the upstream bed Manning's ri and flow separation length design coefficient d, respectively (Table 4.2b). For the ease of reference, the sample calculations are divided into sequentially numbered steps. Two iterations of the analysis procedure are shown, and an estimation of the stable rock size required for the resulting rock-riffle amplitude and spacing is provided. 109 4.4.1.1 Maximum Crest Amplitude As indicated above, the maximum crest amplitude of 1 m for all design scenarios was determined from Fig. 4.5 and the average pre-rehabilitation channel depth Y0. Alternatively, Amax could have been computed directly from Eq. 4.1 as follows: f ^ \ A M A V =Yh + max o V V 3 (4.1) A m a x =l-8 + Qbf _ 17 = 1.4 wbf ~ 12 ( 1.42 >  3 U g l . 8 2 J 2 1 s J = 0.95 « 1 (4.13) (4.1) where q is the design unit discharge (m2/s) for the project reach. 4.4.1.2 First Iteration Step 1: From Eq. 4.3, the initial length of each mini-reach (Lm) is computed as: Lm = XW= 3.5*12 = 42 m (4.3) Step 2: From Eqs. 4.4 and 4.7, the rock-riffle amplitude A and length L" are: L"=^- + Ls={\ + d)Ld (4.4) A _ A - \ = 132 S_ X_0M4 " (4.7) Sd 0.10 J 4 _ = L 3 2 = 1 3 2 rf 5rf 0.10 v 110 L" = (\+0)Ld= 13.2 m where L d is the length of the rock-riffle downstream face slope (m). (4.4) Step 3: From Eq. 4.5, the mini-reach energy loss hm is: hm=LmS0 = 42*0.024 = 1.01 m (4.5) Step 4: From Eq. 4.6, the rock-riffle energy loss h" is: h" = cA = 0.5*1.32 = 0.66 m (4.6) Step 5: From Eq. 4.2, the estimated equilibrium upstream bed slope S1 becomes: 5._ V ^K-h" = 1-01-0-66 = 0.35 Q Q 1 2 V Lm-L" 42-13.2 28.8 (4.2) Step 6: From Manning equation with wide channel approximation (i.e. i?' « Y) and Eq. 4.13: qn i \/5 / 1 T/S1) { V0.012 1.4* 0.03 V s 0.56 (4.15) where Y is the upstream bed uniform flow depth (m) for the assumed rock-riffle A and X. Step 7: Thus, the upstream bed uniform channel velocity v' (m/s) for the assumed rock-riffle A and X is: Y'Wbf 0.56*12 (4.16) Step 8: From Eq. 4.9, the computed Ackers and White dimensionless sediment transport rate for 111 the upstream bed Ggr' is: G g /= 0.025 nl.78 0.17^/32^(5,-1)108 ( i o r ^ (4.9) Ggrx= 0.025 il.78 2.52 0.17^32g* 0.04(2.65-1) log '10*0.56^ -1 = 0.0077 v 0.04 j (4.9) Step 9: Thus, from Eq. 4.8, the estimated Ackers and White sediment transport rate for the upstream bed Gb (kg/s) becomes: Gb'= G S £>„ gr g 3 5 P G V = 0.0077 * 2.65 * 0.04 0.56 1000*17 = 24.8 (4.8) Step 10: The estimated Gb is greater than the design Gb. Therefore, either the rock-riffle spacing X must be decreased, or the rock-riffle crest amplitude A must be increased. Since the initial A assumed equals the estimated Amax, a reduced A, of 3.2 will be selected for the next iteration. 4.4.1.3 Second Iteration Step 11: From Eq. 4.3, the new mini-reach length becomes: Lm = 3.2*12 = 38.4 m (4.3) Step 12: From Eqs. 4.4, 4.6 and 4.7, A (= 1.32 m), hn (= 0.66 m), and L" (= 13.2 m) remain unchanged since the assumed A for analysis is unchanged. 112 Step 13: From Eqs. 4.5 and 4.2, the new mini-reach energy loss and estimated equilibrium upstream bed slope are calculated as: hm = 38.4*0.024 = 0.92 m (4.5) f = 0.92- 0.66 _ f t M 38.4-13.2 25.2 (4.2) Step 14: From Eqs. 4.13, 4.15 and 4.16, the estimated average uniform flow conditions in the upstream bed section are: Y'= 1.4*0.03 Vo.oio . v = • _17 0.59*12 = 0.59m 2.40 m/s (4.15) (4.16) Step 15: From Eqs. 4.9 and 4.8, the resulting upstream bed Ackers and White sediment transport rate becomes: Ggr'= 0.025 2.40 0.17^32g* 0.04(2.65-1) log 10*0.59 0.04 1.78 = 0.0056 0.0056*2.65*0.04 0.59 1000*17 = 17.0 kg/s (4.9) (4.8) Step 16: The estimated Gb equals the design Gb. Therefore, rock-riffles with a crest amplitude of A = 1 m and spacing of A, = 3.2 are predicted to maintain equilibrium sediment transporting 113 conditions for the specified design variables and assumed c, n' and Ls. Step 17: Compile the project reach profile and proceed to hydraulic modeling. 4.4.1.4 Stable Rock Diameter Step 18: Assuming that hydraulic modeling indicates that rehabilitation channel profile is suitable, the stable rock diameter Drso for the riffles can then be estimated from Eq. 4.10: D ' " ' ^ K ' ( 4 ' 1 0 ) where Yd = YD - A = 0.8 m is the maximum uniform flow depth over the structure. Step 19: From Eq. 4.11, the slope correction factor % is calculated as: X - cosO 1-tanO tanrj) tan 9 = Sd Q = tani 5,, = tan1 0.1 = 5.71c X = cos 5.71* 1 0.1 tan 40 = 0.876 (4.11) (4.17) (4.18) (4.11) where 9 is the slope angle for the design Sj. An angle of repose § = 40° was assumed for the rock-riffle material. Step 20: Thus, from Eq. 4.10 and assuming a critical dimensionless shear stress xc* of 0.06: 114 Step 21: Applying a safety factor between 1.2 and 2 results in a stable rock-riffle grain size Dr5o in the range of approximately 1.1 to 1.8 m. Therefore, for the second design scenario described in Table 4.2, rock material of this range should be used to construct the rock-riffle crest, and help diversify the flow conditions on the downstream face. 4.4.2 Discussion of Results The trends illustrated in Table 4.2 are as expected. In each individual design scenario, the resulting rock-riffle amplitude is shown to vary directly with structure spacing, a consequence of the friction slopes across the rock-riffle (Sf) and upstream bed (Sf) being constant for a specified set of design input variables. In order to sustain equilibrium transporting conditions therefore, X and A must mutually adjust to ensure that the average friction slope across the mini-reach S/m is consistent with the average channel gradient (Fig. 4.8a). If this mutual adjustment does not occur, net channel aggradation (Sfm < S0) or degradation (Sfm > S0) could result. This same reasoning applies to the relative variation in computed structure spacing and amplitude observed between design scenarios. For example, in order to offset a steeper equilibrium Sf predicted with a larger ri (Table 4.2c), the distance between rock-riffles of a specified A must either expand for a constant Sf, or the structure amplitude must lower (Fig. 4.8b). Likewise, if a smaller c or longer Ls is chosen for analysis (Table 4.2b, d), the design Sf is effectively reduced, and X must either be reduced for a given equilibrium Sf, or A must be enlarged to facilitate the development of the desired channel slope (Fig. 4.8c). 115 As discussed, the selection of appropriate design variables will depend on the specific attributes and objectives of the project. In the case of Ouillet Creek, one of the main goals was to re-access a constructed floodplain on the channel's left bank (Newbury et al. 1997). Therefore, a c value of 0.5 might be assumed, with a suitable upper design limit for X and A defined by the estimated maximum crest amplitude for the existing bed and bank profile. Based on the results shown in Table 4.2b, this upper limit would correspond to an estimated equilibrium upstream bed slope of roughly 1%, and an approximate structure spacing of 3.2 times the channel width, or around 38.5 m. However, it would be beneficial to evaluate each proposed rock-riffle independently so the estimated X and A can be better tailored to the existing local conditions, and greater hydraulic and geomorphic variability can be incorporated in design. Fig. 4.9 displays the results of an elementary mixed steady-flow analysis that was performed for Ouillet Creek assuming c - 0.5 and A = 1 m. Two modeled profiles are shown: the first without sediment accumulation upstream of the structures (Fig. 4.9a), and the second following the formation of the estimated upstream equilibrium bed slope (Fig. 4.9b). For simplicity, the project reach was assumed to be rectangular in cross-section, and the uniform flow depth was used to define the initial flow conditions at the reach boundaries. Lastly, the default expansion and contraction loss coefficients were adopted for analysis following the work of Keller and Florsheim (1993), and Sear et al. (in review, by permission of author). In both models, the bankfull water level is predicted to remain at or below the existing bank elevation for the specified X and A, and the design limiting conditions. Prior to the accumulation of bed material, the modeled water surface is stepped and deep pools are created upstream of the 116 structures (Fig. 4.9a); however, as the pools are infilled and the upstream bed builds towards the estimated equilibrium slope, the relative upstream flow velocities increase, inter-riffle losses become more significant, and the simulated profile smoothes out (Fig. 4.9b). In other words, the model results generally reflect the anticipated hydraulic impacts discussed previously. A more thorough analysis involving detailed surveys of the pre-rehabilitation channel and floodplain, and a better estimation of the expected flow depths at the model boundaries, would likely improve the estimate of the resultant water surface profile and average channel hydraulics following rock-riffle construction in Ouillet Creek. Likewise, expanding the modeled section to include portions of the upstream and downstream channel would be also worthwhile so that the potential hydraulic conditions at the ends of the project reach can be effectively explored. Finally, due to the inherent subjectivity involved in the hydraulic design process (e.g. c, n', Gb, Ls, etc.), a sensitivity analysis should be performed in order that the potential risks and benefits associated with a proposed enhancement reach profile can be better evaluated with respect to the defined project objectives, and the governing geomorphic, hydraulic, hydrologic and ecologic principles (Shields et al. 1999). Furthermore, adequate allowance for minor modifications to structure location and configuration, as well as suitable provisions for post-construction monitoring, maintenance, and evaluation, will be important to overall rehabilitative success (Shields 1983; Kondolf and Micheli 1995). 4.5 S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N S The support for the reintroduction of riffles and pools in modified and degraded channels has strengthened in recent years. However, this evolution in river management has led to the need for 117 new design criteria that integrate natural fluvial processes and features in the attempt to satisfy multi-disciplinary goals and objectives. To this end, a new hydraulic design procedure has been presented for the rehabilitation of riffle-pool sequences in gravel-cobble bed rivers using rock-riffles. Included are design components for the evaluation of rock-riffle spacing, amplitude and configuration, flow resistance, sediment transport efficiency, hydraulic modeling, and structure stability. The procedure is presented as an iterative process whereby the effects of an assumption made in any given step can be directly assessed in terms of the resultant project reach profile, the prevailing hydraulic conditions, and the defined project goals and objectives. Finally, while it is anticipated that this approach will have particular relevance to the design of riffle-pool sequences in areas where elevated flood levels are to be avoided (e.g. urban streams), with proper geomorphic, hydrologic, hydraulic and ecologic appraisal, it should also represent a valuable resource in the enhancement of uniform, channelized or incised gravel-cobble bed rivers in general. 118 Table 4.1 - Estimated Study Reach Downstream Flow Separation Lengths Ls Expressed as a Ratio of Rock-Riffle Downstream Face Length Ld and Channel Bankfull Width Wbf Reach LJLd LJWbf Range Average Range Average Beecher Creek U 0.25-1.08 0.74 0.39-1.76 0.96 Beecher Creek L 0.30-0.95 0.55 0.53-1.08 0.83 Ouillet Creek 0.13-0.70 0.37 0.09 - 0.48 0.28 Brunette River 1.67-2.03 1.82 0.99-1.14 1.09 Chapman Creek N 0.31-0.70 0.52 0.32-0.51 0.42 Chapman Creek C 0.16-2.40 1.31 0.11-0.89 0.53 119 Table 4.2 - Predicted A,,-A, A and S' in Ouillet Creek for 4 Design Scenarios Design variables Analysis output c ri Ls A, A(m) A(m) S (%) (a) Reference 1 0.03 0 3.5 0.48 0.63 1.0 1 0.03 0 7.3 1 1.32 1.0 (b) Reduced c 0.5 0.03 0 3.5 1.09 1.43 1.0 0.5 0.03 0 3.2 1 1.32 1.0 (c) Increased ri 1 0.04 0 3.5 0.21 0.28 1.9 1 0.04 0 16.6 1 1.32 1.9 (d) Increased Ls 1 0.03 Ld 3.5 0.55 0.72 1.0 1 0.03 Ld 6.4 1 1.32 1.0 120 122 123 124 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2 Design Unit Discharge q (m Is) Figure 4.5 - Select rock-riffle maximum crest amplitude design curves 125 Figure 4.6 - Sampled bed, water surface and energy grade line profiles for: (a) Beecher Creek U, Q = 0.87 m3/s; and (b) Ouillet Creek, Q = 17.3 m3/s 126 (a) Increased X or A (c) Reduced Sf Figure 4.8 - Variation in equilibrium rock-riffle spacing and amplitude with: (a) increased X or A; (b) increased Sf; and (c) reduced Sf 128 bank profile - - - - energy profile — • — water surface channel bed 50 100 150 200 250 Downstream Distance (m) 300 350 100 150 200 Downstream Distance (m) 250 300 350 Figure 4.9 - Modeled bankfull water surface profiles for Ouillet Creek (a) immediately following rock-riffle construction, and (b) after the formation of the estimated equilibrium upstream bed slope 129 5.0 C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 5.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Natural riffle-pool sequences in stable gravel-bed rivers create a complex variety of hydraulic habitats that are important to the aquatic organisms that have evolved to exploit them (ASCE Task Committee 1992; Rabeni and Jacobson 1993). Typically located at an approximate spacing of five to seven times the bankfull width (Leopold et al. 1964), these characteristic bedforms are often removed in an attempt to relocate and/or channelize a reach for anthropogenic purposes (e.g. urban development and flood control). Although the biodiversity of the modified reach may eventually recover as channel dimensions and planform geometry naturally adjust to a state of dynamic equilibrium, the return to a morphologically and ecologically stable condition may take on the order of several decades (ASCE Task Committee 1992; Brookes 1992). The reintroduction of riffle-pool sequences is an example of an "environmentally sensitive" management alternative that has been increasingly advocated for improving channel stability and aquatic biodiversity in channelized river systems (Hey 1992). However, a general consensus on the effect of riffle-pool sequences on flow resistance is lacking, and as a consequence, rehabilitation design has often failed to suitably evaluate the potential long-term consequences to channel capacity and sediment transport within the modified reach. This in turn, has led to increased flooding and instability concerns (Shields et al. 1995; Millar 1999; Sear et al. in review, by permission of author). Accordingly, there were two main objectives to the study. The first was to investigate the effects of natural and constructed riffle-pool sequences on flow resistance over a range of discharges up to, and including bankfull; and the second was to 130 develop a hydraulic analysis procedure for the evaluation of potential rock-riffle reconstruction effects on flood levels and sediment transport capacity in uniform and degraded gravel-cobble bed rivers. Rock-riffle design will likely be influenced in part by the channel capacity required to maintain natural bankfull discharges within bank. Consequently, an understanding of how these structures might impact flow resistance is important to the rehabilitation process. To this end, a hydraulic analysis of five "natural" and twenty-four constructed riffle-pool sequences in four gravel-cobble bed streams (0.0034 < S0< 0.024) was undertaken in order to obtain additional insight in to the variation in energy across constructed riffles at varying discharges. Notably, riffle energy loss was found to be substantial over the range of discharges sampled (i.e. >50% of total mini-reach loss), which indicates that the structures sampled are not being "drowned out" within increasing stage, and suggests that riffle-pool sequences in similar gravel-cobble bed rivers may have significant impact on channel flow resistance at high flows. Consequently, a comprehensive hydraulic analysis procedure should be an integral component of rock-riffle rehabilitation design. A result of particular significance from the conducted hydraulic field study was the observation that the estimated riffle energy loss consistently ranged between 50 and 100% of the structure amplitude for all sampled discharges. This suggests that the flow resistance associated with reconstructed rock-riffles can be effectively evaluated using a project-specific design variable. Drawing on this observation, a hydraulic analysis procedure was developed for the evaluation of appropriate rock-riffle design characteristics (i.e. location, spacing, amplitude, configuration, and stability) given the existing channel attributes, and the predicted long-term consequences to post-131 rehabilitation flow resistance, flood capacity, and sediment transport efficiency. The procedure is presented as an iterative process whereby the effects of an assumption made in any given step can be directly assessed with regard to the resultant project reach profile, the prevailing hydraulic conditions, and the specific rehabilitation goals and objectives. While yet to be field-tested, it is believed that this new hydraulic analysis procedure will provide river practitioners with a valuable resource for rock-riffle rehabilitation design in steep gravel-cobble bed rivers. 5.2 THESIS CONTRIBUTION It is important to realize that the type of hydraulic design and analysis proposed in this thesis is seldom done in practice. This seems to be the consequence of two main factors: first, the widespread view that riffles become "drowned out" at higher discharges and thus become hydraulically insignificant at flood stage; and second, the general absence of suitable quantitative guidelines and analysis approaches for hydraulic design. This study addresses both of these issues. Specifically, it is shown that in the relatively steep gravel-cobble bed rivers studied, the energy loss across self-formed and constructed riffles may still be significant at high flows. Therefore, the influence of riffle reconstruction on flow resistance and flood levels in similar channels must be considered an essential component of rigorous hydraulic design and analysis. Accordingly, a methodology for the hydraulic design and analysis of rock-riffle structures in uniform, channelized or incised gravel-cobble bed rivers is developed. This procedure, which includes quantitative guidelines for the design of rock-riffle amplitude, spacing and stability, considers both the expectant energy loss and the potential effects on channel sediment transporting 132 capacity. When used in association with appropriate geomorphic, hydraulic, hydrologic and ecologic appraisal, this new hydraulic analysis approach should therefore provide a sound basis for the effective design and evaluation of riffle-pool rehabilitation initiatives. 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations are made for future research and analysis: 1. The results of the field investigation conducted in this study reflect to some degree the specific range of hydraulic conditions found in the study reaches, and therefore may not apply in channels with dissimilar characteristics. Therefore, it would be useful to undertake a similar analysis on natural and reconstructed riffle-pool sequences in lower gradient and/or meandering channels where riffle resistance may be less significant at higher stages. Likewise, extending the analysis to include other morphologic features (e.g. LWD complexes, step-pools, cascades, etc.) may provide further insight in to flow resistance and habitat hydraulics in both natural and rehabilitated channels. However, the sampling methodology developed in this study might not be easily transferable to other channels or study regions. For example, the "storm chasing approach" adopted for the Beecher Creek, Ouillet Creek and Brunette River study reaches may prove problematic in more remote areas, while obtaining a valid estimate of the discharge in the absence of a rated stream gauge will be difficult in larger streams. 2. The results in Fig. 3.8 suggest that the relationship observed between h" and A is not only valid within individual study reaches, but across them as well. However, the apparent 133 relationship between h" and A observed in this study should not be construed as causal (cf. Hey 1988). In general, h" will be a function of the specific geomorphic, hydraulic and boundary roughness characteristics of the riffles sampled. Further research, including appropriate statistical analyses of the extensive database collected in this study, and additional 2- or 3-dimensional experimentation and fine-scale hydraulic mapping in the field, is required to help identify added factors (e.g. riffle area, configuration, relative roughness, etc.) that may have significant bearing on the resultant riffle energy loss. 3. Given the direct implications to structure stability, flow resistance and habitat diversity, the relationship between riffle dimension and the extent of downstream flow separation and/or scour warrants further analysis. Presumably the slope, configuration and comparative roughness of the riffle crest and face will have some influence, but other contributing factors may also include the average channel slope and erodibility of boundary material (cf. Wohl et al. 1993), or the amount of backwatering from further downstream, to name just a few. 4. The distinct lower bound noted between the computed riffle energy loss and the total mini-reach loss in Figure 3.2 (i.e. at h" = 0.50hm) also deserves further investigation. Prestegaard (1983) makes a comparable observation with respect to the estimated form component of the total resistance in channels with well-defined riffle-pool sequences and suggests that the formation of riffles and pools is a means of channel self-adjustment whereby the flow resistance at the bankfull discharge is equally distributed among its primary sources. However, a precise mechanism for the formation and maintenance of 134 riffle-pool sequences remains elusive (Keller and Florsheim 1993; Sear 1996). 5. Further study of the well-defined lower bound observed between h" and structure amplitude (Fig. 3.8) is also required. Moore (1943) found experimentally that the energy loss at the base of a free overfall represented 50% or more of drop structure height for structures with a relative fall height AIYC greater than 7 (where Yc is the critical depth, or the depth at the structure crest). However, Moore (1943) also found that the amount of energy lost reduced to approximately 0.2A for structures with an AIYC of 1. This suggests that it may be possible to model the rock-riffles as a simple drop-structure (or equivalent weir?) based on the relative submergence at the riffle crest. However, further research will be needed to verify the adequacy of this approach, as well as to develop a suitable method for the estimating the added loss associated with roughness on the riffle face, and the creation of secondary currents in the separation zone downstream. 6. The hydraulic analysis procedure developed in this study needs to be tested in a field situation. However, long-term post-rehabilitation assessment will likely be necessary in order for it to be sufficiently evaluated. In the meantime, making the procedure available to restoration practitioners will help to identify possible areas for improvement. 7. Lastly, in completion of this study, a large amount of data concerning flow resistance over a range of discharges has been compiled. This database offers the opportunity to evaluate, and perhaps develop, empirical and theoretical flow resistance relationships for relatively steep gravel-cobble bed rivers with well-defined riffle-pool sequences. 135 N O M E N C L A T U R E The following nomenclature is used in this thesis: A = riffle amplitude; c = riffle energy loss design coefficient ranging between 0.5 and 1; D - grain diameter; D r 5o = riffle characteristic grain size at which 50% is finer; D r 8 4 = riffle characteristic grain size at which 84% is finer; D35 = characteristic grain size at which 35% is finer; D 5 o = characteristic grain size at which 50% is finer; D g 4 = characteristic grain size at which 84% is finer; D90 = characteristic grain size at which 90% is finer; D 9 0 " = riffle reach characteristic grain size at which 90% is finer; d = flow separation length design coefficient; E c = critical specific energy; E G L = energy grade line; g = gravitational acceleration; Gb = sediment transport rate; Gb' = upstream bed sediment transport rate; G g r = Ackers and White dimensionless sediment transport; G g r ' = upstream bed Ackers and White dimensionless sediment transport; H = total energy head; Hi = total energy head of upstream cross-section; H2 = total energy head of downstream cross-section; h = energy loss; h F = form energy loss component; ho = grain energy loss component; h m = mini-reach energy loss; h' = upstream bed energy loss; h" = riffle reach energy loss; k E = equivalent form roughness height; kG = equivalent grain roughness height; kt = equivalent total roughness height; L = channel length; L d = riffle downstream face length; Lm = mini-reach channel length; LP = pool length; L r = riffle length; L s = flow separation length; L' = upstream bed channel length; L" = riffle reach channel length; N = number of observations; n = Manning's roughness coefficient; n G = effective Manning's grain roughness coefficient; n F = effective Manning's form roughness coefficient; n' = upstream bed Manning's roughness coefficient; n" = riffle reach Manning's roughness coefficient; 137 p = pressure; Pi = pressure of upstream cross-section; p 2 = pressure of downstream cross-section; Q = discharge; Qbf = bankfull discharge; Q d = design discharge; q = design unit discharge; R = hydraulic radius; RF = effective form hydraulic radius; R G = effective grain hydraulic radius; R' = upstream bed average hydraulic radius; R " = riffle reach average hydraulic radius; S = local channel slope; sd = riffle downstream face slope; SF = form friction slope; sf = friction slope; Sfm = mini-reach friction slope; sf* = upstream bed friction slope; Sf" = riffle reach friction slope; S G = grain friction slope; Sg = sediment specific gravity; So = average channel slope; S u = riffle upstream face slope; 138 Sv = riffle side face slope; Sw = average water surface slope; S' = upstream bed channel slope; Tj = amount of sampling completed in hour i; Tii - amount of sampling completed in hour ii; • T t = total sampling time; v = average cross-sectional velocity; v; = average velocity of flow region i; vi = average cross-sectional velocity of upstream cross-section; V2 = average cross-sectional velocity of downstream cross-section; V G * = average particle shear velocity; v' = upstream bed average cross-sectional velocity; v" = riffle reach average cross-sectional velocity; W = average channel width; W B = riffle base width; Wbf = bankfull channel width; W p = average pool width; W r = average riffle width; W T = riffle top width; w = weir width normal to the flow; we = effective weir width accounting for side-wall contractions; Y = average channel depth; Yb = channel depth to top of bank; 139 Y b f = bankfull channel depth; Y d = maximum uniform riffle flow depth; Ymax = maximum flow depth; Y P = average pool depth; Y r = average riffle depth; Y i = average channel depth of upstream cross-section; Y 2 = average channel depth of downstream cross-section; y = effective flow area defining depth; z = average channel bed elevation above datum; Z l = average channel bed elevation above datum of upstream cross-section; Z2 = average channel bed elevation above datum of downstream cross-section; / = Darcy-Weisbach friction factor; h = Darcy-Weisbach form friction factor; fc = Darcy-Weisbach grain friction factor; a = Bernoulli velocity head correction factor; O l = Bernoulli velocity head correction factor for upstream cross-section; a 2 = Bernoulli velocity head correction factor for downstream cross-section; P = coefficient in the Keulegan equation; r = specific weight of water; A = riffle crest amplitude; Amax = maximum riffle crest amplitude; 5 = riffle v-apex depth; s = coefficient in the Keulegan equation; 140 T] = unit conversion in the Manning equation; 9 = channel slope angle; K = von Karman constant; X = spacing; Xr = riffle spacing; A,p = pool spacing; £, = cross-sectional shape coefficient; %G = riffle cross-sectional shape coefficient; - reach cross-sectional shape coefficient; IT = wetted perimeter; p = density of water; £ = summation; x = average channel shear stress; X d = design average shear stress acting on the riffle downstream face; XF = effective form shear stress; XG = effective grain shear stress; xc* = critical dimensionless shear stress; u = kinematic viscosity; <j) = angle of repose; X = bed slope correction factor; V)/ = cross-sectional flow area; v|/j = cross-sectional area of flow region i; 141 co = water surface elevation or stage; co; = gauged water surface stage in hour i ; coii = gauged water surface stage in hour ii; coi = water surface elevation of upstream cross-section; and C02 = water surface elevation of downstream cross-section. 142 REFERENCES Ackers, P. (1993). "Sediment transport in open channels: Ackers and White update". Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Water, Maritime and Energy, lOl(December), Technical Note 619, 247-249. Ackers, P., and White, W.R. (1973). "Sediment transport: New approach and analysis". Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 99(HY11), 2041-2060. ASCE Task Committee (1992). "Sediment and aquatic habitat in river systems". Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 118(5), 669-687. ASCE Task Force (1963). "Friction factors in open channels". Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 89(HY2), 97-143. Atwater, J. (1998). "8th Northview Scouts USHP final report and financial statement for 1997/98 grant - Beecher Creek habitat reconstruction". 8th Northview 1997/98 USHP Report. Burnaby, BC. Bates, A., and Thorne, S. (2001). "Five years of restoration at Sinmax Creek". Streamline, Watershed Restoration Technical Bulletin, 6(2), 1-6. Bates, D., and Wilson, J. (1999). Rating Curve for Ouillet Creek Gauge. FSCI Biological Consultants, Halfmoon Bay, BC. 143 Bedient, P.B., and Huber, W.C. (1992). Hydrology and floodplain analysis. Second edition, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, New York, 692p. Bisson, P.A., Nielson, J.L., Palmason, R.A., and Grove, L.E. (1982). " A system of naming habitat types in small streams, with examples of habitat utilization by salmonids during low flow". Acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat inventory information. N.B. Armantrout, ed., Proceedings of a symposium, 28-30 October 1981, American Fisheries Society, Western Division, Portland, Oregon, 62-73. Boles, G.L. (1981). "Macroinvertebrate colonization of replacement substrate below a hypolimnial release reservoir". Hydrobiologia, 78(2), 133-146. Bray, D.I. (1979). "Estimating average velocity in gravel-bed rivers". Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 105(HY9), 1103-1122. Bray, D.I. (1980). "Evaluation of effective boundary roughness for gravel-bed rivers". Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 7(2), 392-397. Bray, D.L, and Davar, K.S. (1987). "Resistance to flow in gravel-bed rivers". Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 14(1), 77-86. 144 Brookes, A. (1987). "Restoring the Sinuosity of Artificially Straightened Stream Channels". Environmental Geology and Water Science, 10(1), 33-41. Brookes, A. (1989). "Alternative channelization procedures". Alternatives in regulated river management. J.A. Gore and G.E. Petts, eds., CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, 139-162. Brookes, A. (1992). "River channel change". The rivers handbook: Hydrological and ecological principles - Volume 2. P. Calow and G.E. Petts, eds., Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 55-75. Brunner, G.W. (2001). HEC-RAS, River Analysis System User's Manual Version 3.0. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA, 320p. Carline, R.F., and Klosiewski, S.P. (1985). "Responses of fish populations to mitigation structures in two small channelized streams in Ohio". North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 5(1), 1-11. Carling, P.A., and Orr, H.G. (2000). "Morphology of riffle-pool sequences in the River Severn, England". Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 25 (4), 369-384. Carling, P.A., and Wood, N. (1994). "Simulation of flow over pool-riffle topography: A consideration of the velocity reversal hypothesis". Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 19, 319-332. 145 Church, M . (1992). "Channel morphology and typology". The rivers handbook: Hydrological and ecological principles - Volume 1. P. Calow and G.E. Petts, eds., Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 126-143. Church, M.A. , McLean, D.G., and Wolcott, J.F. (1987). "River bed gravels: Sampling and analysis". Sediment Transport in Gravel-Bed Rivers. C R . Thorne, J.C. Bathurst and R.D. Hey, eds., John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York, NY, 43-88. Church, M . , Wolcott, J., and Maizels, J. (1990). "Palaeovelocity: A parsimonious proposal". Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 15(5), 475-480. Clifford, N.J., and Richards, K.S. (1992). "The reversal hypothesis and the maintenance of riffle-pool sequences: a review and field appraisal". Lowland floodplain rivers: Geomorphological perspectives. P.A. Carling and G.E. Petts, eds., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 43-70. Clifford, N.J., Robert, A., and Richards, K.S. (1992). "Estimation of flow resistance in gravel-bedded rivers: A physical explanation of the multiplier of roughness length". Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 17(2), 111-126. Craig, R.F. (1992). Soil mechanics. Fifth edition, Chapman & Hall, New York, 427p. Dolling, R. (1968). "Occurrence of pools and riffles: An element in the quasi-equilibrium state of river channels". Ontario Geography, 2, 3-11. 146 Dunne, T., and Leopold, L.B. (1978). Water in environmental planning. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 818p. Edwards, C.J., Griswold, B.L., Tubb, R.A., Weber, E.C., and Woods, L.C. (1984). "Mitigating effects of artificial riffles and pools on the fauna of a channelized warmwater stream". North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 4(2), 194-203. Egashira, S., and Ashida, K. (1991). "Flow resistance and sediment transportation in streams with step-pool bed morphology". Fluvial Hydraulics of Mountain Regions. A. Armanini and G. De Silvio, eds., Lecture Notes Earth Sciences 37, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 45-58. Einstein, H.A., and Barbarossa, N. (1952). "River channel roughness". Transactions, ASCE, 117, Paper No. 2528, 1121-1146. Ferguson, R.M., Lyness, J.F., Myers, W.R.C., and O'Sullivan, J.J. (1998). "Hydraulic performance of environmental features in rivers". Water and Environmental Management, 12(4), 286-291. Fischenich, J.C. (1994). "Instream and streambank environmental feature guidelines". Hydraulic engineering '94 - Proceedings of the national conference on hydraulic engineering. ASCE, New York, NY, 406-410. 147 Gilvear, D.J. (1999). "Fluvial geomorphology and river engineering: Future roles utilizing a fluvial hydrosystems framework." Geomorphology, 31(1-4), 229-245. Golden Software, Inc. (1999). Surfer® version 7. Golden Software, Inc., Golden, CO. Grant, G.E., Swanson, F.J., and Wolman, M . G . (1990). "Pattern and origin of stepped-bed morphology in high-gradient streams, Western Cascades, Oregon". Geological Society of America Bulletin, 102(3), 340-352. Gregory, K.J., Gurnell, A . M . , Hill, C.T., and Tooth, S. (1994). "Stability of the pool-riffle sequence in changing river channels". Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 9, 35-43. Griffiths, G.A. (1989). " Form resistance in gravel channels with mobile beds". Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 115(3), 340-355. GVRD (1997). Synthetic flow rating table for Brunette River at Lower Stop Logs. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Burnaby, BC. GVSDD (1999). Brunette River Study Site Plan, Profile & Rockpiles. District File Sf-2299, Drawing No. SF-2299, Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Burnaby, BC. Harvey, A . M . (1975). "Some aspects of the relations between channel characteristics and riffle spacing in meandering streams". American Journal of Science, 275, 470-478. 148 Heede, B.H. (1986). "Designing for dynamic equilibrium in streams". Water Resources Bulletin, 22(3), 351-357. Henderson, F .M. (1966). Open channel flow. Macmillian Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY, 522p. Hey, R.D. (1979). "Flow resistance in gravel-bed rivers". Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 105(HY4), 365-379. Hey, R.D. (1988). "Bar form resistance in gravel-bed rivers". Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 114(12), 1498-1508. Hey, R.D. (1992). "Environmentally sensitive river engineering". The rivers handbook: Hydrological and ecological principles - Volume 2. P. Calow and G.E. Petts, eds., Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 337-362. Hey, R.D. (1998). "Management and restoration of gravel-bed rivers". Gravel-bed rivers in the environment. P.C. Klingeman, R.L. Beschta, P.D. Komar and J.B. Bradley, eds., Water Resources Publications, L L C , Highlands Ranch, CO, 435-454. Hey, R.D., and Thorne, C R . (1986). "Stable channels with mobile gravel beds". Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 112(8), 671-689. 149 Hicks, D.M. , and Mason, P.D. (1991). Roughness characteristics of New Zealand rivers. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Ltd., Christchurch, NZ, 329 pp. Kamphuis, J.W. (1974). "Determination of sand roughness for fixed beds". Journal of Hydraulic Research, 12(2), 193-203. Karim, F. (1995). "Bed configuration and hydraulic resistance in alluvial-channel flows". Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 121(1), 15-25. Keller, E.A. (1972). "Development of alluvial stream channels: A five-stage model". Geological Society of America Bulletin, 83, 1531-1536. Keller, E.A. (1975). "Channelization: A search for a better way". Geology, 3, 246-248. Keller, E.A., and Florsheim, J.L. (1993). "Velocity-reversal hypothesis: A model approach". Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 18, 733-740. Keller, E.A., and Melhorn, W.N. (1978). "Rhythmic spacing and origin of pools and riffles". Geological Society of America Bulletin, 89, 723-730. Kellerhals, R., and Miles, M . (1996). "Fluvial geomorphology and fish habitat: Implications for river restoration". Ecohydraulics 2000 - Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Quebec, Canada. INRS-Eau, Quebec, A261-279. 150 Kellerhals, R., Neill, C.R., and Bray, D.I. (1972). "Hydraulic and geomorphic characteristics of rivers in Alberta". River engineering and surface hydrology report No. 72-1. Research Council of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. 52p. Keulegan, G.H. (1938). "Laws of turbulent flow in open channels". Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 21, RP1151, 707-741. Kondolf, G.M. , and Micheli, E.R. (1995). "Evaluating stream restoration projects". Environmental Management, 19(1), 1-15. Kondolf, G.M. , Smeltzer, M.W., and Railsback, S.F. (2001). "Design and performance of a channel reconstruction project in a coastal California gravel-bed stream". Environmental Management, 26(6), 761-776. Lane, E.W. (1955). "The importance of fluvial morphology in hydraulic engineering". Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, 81, Paper No. 745, 17p. Leopold, L.B. (1994). A view of the river. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, M A , 298p. Leopold, L.B., and Wolman, M.G. (1957). "River channel patterns: Braided, meandering, and straight". U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 282-B, 39-85. 151 Leopold, L.B., and Wolman, M.G. (1960). "River meanders". Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 71, 769-794. Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G. , and Miller, J.P. (1964). Fluvial processes in Geomorphology. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA, 522p. Lewin, J. (1976). "Initiation of bed forms and meanders in coarse-grained sediment". Geological Society of America Bulletin, 87(2), 281-285. Meyer-Peter, E., and Muller, R. (1948). "Formulas for bed-load transport". Proceedings 2nd Meeting International Association of Hydraulic Research. IAHR, Stockholm, Sweden, 39-64. Millar, R. (1999). "Grain and form resistance in gravel-bed rivers". Journal of Hydraulic Research, 37(3), 303-312. Miller, B.A., and Wenzel, H.G. (1985). "Analysis and simulation of low flow hydraulics". Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 111(12), 1429-1446. Molavi, M . (2000). Hydraulic analysis of the Still Creek - Brunette River system. CIVL 597 Report, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Montgomery, D.R., Buffington, J.M., Smith, R.D., Schmidt, K . M . , and Pess, G. (1995). "Pool spacing in forest channels". Water Resources Research, 31(4), 1097-1105. 152 Moore, W.L. (1943). "Energy loss at the base of a free overfall". Transactions, ASCE, 8, Paper No. 2204, 1343-1360. Morris, H . M . (1963). Applied hydraulics in engineering. The Ronald Press Company, New York, NY, 455p. Newbury, R. (1994). Ouillet Creek working drawing. Newbury Hydraulics Ltd., Lake Country BC. Newbury, R. (1995). "Rivers and the art of stream restoration". Natural and anthropogenic influences in fluvial geomorphology. J.E. Costa, A.J. Miller, K.W. Potter and P.R. Wilcock, eds., American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 137-149. Newbury, R., and Gaboury, M . (1994). Stream analysis and fish habitat design: a field manual. 2ndEdition. Newbury Hydraulics Ltd., Gibsons, BC, 262p. Newbury, R., Gaboury, M . , and Bates, D. (1997). "Restoring habitats in channelized or uniform streams using riffle and pool sequences". Fish habitat rehabilitation procedures. Watershed restoration technical circular no. 9. P.A. Slaney and D. Zaldokas, eds., Watershed Restoration Program, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Vancouver, BC, 12.1-12.22. 153 Nikuradse, J., 1933. "Strdmungsgesetze in rauhen Rohren". VDI-Forschungsheft 361. Beilage zu Forschung auf dem Gebiete des Ingenieurwesens Ausgabe B Band 4. Translation: "Laws of flow in rough pipes". Technical Memorandum 1292, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, D . C , 1950, 62p. Osborne, L.L., Bayley, P.B., Higler, L.W.G., Statzner, B., Triska, F., and Moth Iversen, T. (1993). "Restoration of lowland streams: An introduction". Freshwater Biology, 29(2), 187-194. Parker, G., and Peterson, A.W. (1980). "Bar resistance of gravel bed rivers". Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 106(HY10), 1559-1575. Parker, G., Klingeman, P .C , and McLean, D.G. (1982). "Bedload and size distribution in paved gravel-bed streams". Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 108(HY4), 544-571. Potter, M . C , and Wiggert, D.C. (1997). Mechanics of fluids. Second edition, Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 752p. Prestegaard, K.L. (1983). "Bar resistance in gravel bed streams at bankfull stage". Water Resources Research, 19(2), 472-476. Rabeni, C.F., and Jacobson, R.B. (1993). "The importance of fluvial hydraulics to fish-habitat restoration in low-gradient alluvial streams". Freshwater Biology, 29, 211-220. 154 Reeve, C.E., and Bettess, R. (1990). "Hydraulic performance of environmentally acceptable channels". International conference on river flood hydraulics. W.R. White, ed., John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 279-287. Richards, K.S. (1976a). "The morphology of riffle-pool sequences." Earth Surface Processes, 1, 71-88. Richards, K.S. (1976b). "Channel width and the riffle-pool sequence". Geological Society of America Bulletin, 87, 833-890. Robert, A., 1990. Discussion of "Bar form resistance in gravel-bed rivers" by R.D. Hey (1988). Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 116(12), 1548-1549. Sear, D.A. (1996). "Sediment transport processes in pool-riffle sequences". Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 21, 241-262. Sear, D.A., Newson, M.D., and Johnson, S. (in review). "Hydraulic assessment of gravel bedform rehabilitation in a lowland water course, River Waveney, Suffolk, U K " . Regulated Rivers: Research & Management Shen, H.W., Fehlman, H.M. , and Mendoza, C. (1990). "Bed form resistance in open channel flows". Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 116(6), 799-814. 155 Shields, F.D. Jr. (1983). "Design of habitat structures for open channels". Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, 109(4), 331-344. Shields, F.D. Jr., Brookes, A., and Haltiner, J. (1999). "Geomorphological approaches to incised stream channel restoration in the United States and Europe". Incised river channels: Processes, form, engineering, and management. S.E. Darby and A. Simon, eds., John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 371-394. Shields, F.D. Jr., Cooper, C M . , and Knight, S.S. (1995). "Experiment in stream restoration". Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 121(6), 181-198. SPSS Inc. (2000). SPSS for windows student version - Release 10. SPSS Inc., Chicago IL. Stevens, M.A. , Simons, D.B., and Lewis, G.L. (1976). "Safety factors for riprap protection". Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 102(HY5), 637-655. Stuart, T.A. (1959). "The influence of drainage works, levees, dykes, dredging, etc. on the aquatic environment and stocks". Seventh Technical Meeting: Athens: 11-19 Sept. 1958. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. IUCN, Brussels, 4, 337-345. Termuende, J. (2000). Rating Curve for Chapman Creek Gauge. Edutech Technologies Corporation, Gibsons, BC. 156 The Math Works, Inc. (1996). MATLAB® version 5 - Student edition. The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, M A . Thompson, A. (1986). "Secondary flows and the pool-riffle unit: A case study of the processes of meander development". Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 11(6), 631-641. Thompson, D . M . (2001). "Random controls on semi-rhythmic spacing of pools and riffles in constriction-dominated rivers". Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 26(11), 1195-1212. Thompson, D.M. , Nelson, J.M., and Wohl, E.E. (1998). "Interactions between pool geometry and hydraulics". Water Resources Research, 34(12), 3673-3681. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1995). Hydraulic design of flood control channels. ASCE Press, New York, NY, 120p. van Rijn, L .C. (1982). "Equivalent roughness of alluvial bed". Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 108(10), 1215-1218. Viessman, W. Jr., and Lewis, G.L. (1995). Introduction to hydrology. Fourth edition, Harper Collins, Glenview, 111., 760p. Vittal, N. , Rang Raju, K.G. , and Garde, R.J. (1977). "Resistance of two dimensional triangular roughness". Journal of Hydraulic Research, 15(1), 19-36. 157 von Euw, E., and Coulter Boisvert, M . (2000). "Stream improvements in the Brunette watershed: Two case studies in partnering". Watershed management 2000 conference proceedings. Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, V A , 1-16. Whyte, I.W., Babakaiff, S., Adams, M.A. , and Giroux, P.A. (1997). "Restoring fish access and rehabilitation of spawning sites ". Fish habitat rehabilitation procedures. Watershed restoration technical circular no. 9. P.A. Slaney and D. Zaldokas (eds.), Watershed Restoration Program, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Vancouver, BC, 5.1-12.13. Wohl, E.E., Vincent, K.R., and Merritts, D.J. (1993). "Pool and riffle characteristics in relation to channel gradient". Geomorphology, 6, 99-110. Wolman, M . G . (1954). " A method of sampling coarse river-bed material". Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 35(6), 951-956. Yen, B.C. (2002). "Open channel flow resistance". Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 128(1), 20-39. Zar, J.H. (1996). Biostatistical analysis. 3rd edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 662p + appendices. 158 A P P E N D I X A . T O T A L S T A T I O N S U R V E Y D A T A SUMMARY This Appendix summarizes most of the total station data collected in the study reach surveys (see also Chapter 2). Included are the surveyed rock-riffle amplitudes (A), lengths (Ld) and face slopes (Sd) (Table A.l ) , and the surveyed sample gauge elevations and cross-sections, as follows: • Beecher Creek U : Tables A.2-A.3; Figs. A . l - A . 12; • Beecher Creek L: Tables A.2-A.3; Figs. A.13-A.18; • Ouillet Creek: Tables A.4-B6; Figs. A.19-A.40; • Brunette River: Table A.7; Figs. A.41-A.43; • Chapman Creek N: Tables A.8-A. 11; Figs. A.44-A.51; and • Chapman Creek C: Tables A.8-A.11; Figs. A.52-A.61. A summary of the total station survey dates was provided previously in Table 2.8, while the surveyed study reach thalweg centerlines and sample cross-section locations were depicted in Figs. 2.2-2.11. 159 Table A. 1 - Surveyed Rock-Riffle Dimensions* for: (a) Beecher Creek; (b) Ouillet Creek; (c) Brunette River; and (d) Chapman Creek Rock-Riffle Amplitude A (m) Length Ld (m) Face-Slope Sd (a) Beecher Creek 13 0.49 (0.42) 5.00 (5.28) 0.10(0.08) 12 0.63 (0.55) 3.55 (3.70) 0.18(0.15) 11 0.71 (0.74) 8.21 (9.00) 0.09 (0.08) 10 0.62 (0.65) 7.30 (7.36) 0.08 (0.09) 9 0.33 (0.45) 6.87 (7.65) 0.05 (0.06) 8 0.74 (0.80) 10.44 (10.57) 0.07 (0.08) 3 0.35 (0.37) 4.89 (4.44) 0.07 (0.08) 2 0.84 (0.89) 7.95 (8.06) 0.11 (0.11) 1 0.75 (0.79) 7.14 (7.08) 0.11 (0.11) (b) Ouillet Creek 8 1.16 12.03 0.10 7 1.15 11.40 0.10 6 0.79 10.20 0.08 5a (0.28) (4.75) (0.06) 5 0.90 11.29 0.08 4 1.28 11.25 0.11 3a 0.49 6.97 0.07 3 0.87 9.40 0.09 2 0.70 9.87 0.07 1 0.51 (0.51) 8.44 (8.92) 0.06 (0.06) (c) Brunette River 3 0.85 10.75 0.08 2 0.37 9.57 0.04 1 0.76 10.12 0.07 (d) Chapman Creek N3 1.37 37.72 0.04 N2 1.11 21.91 0.05 N I 0.70 20.91 0.03 6 1.10 9.31 0.12 5 1.02 9.20 0.11 4 1.45 29.89 0.05 2 0.74 16.25 0.05 * updated value for sampling season 2 in brackets 160 Table A.2 - Beecher Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained March 2000 Cross-Section First analysis Second analysis Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) 13u 110.62 109.77 110.62 109.81 13c 110.47 109.76 110.47 109.77 13d 110.18 109.41 110.17 109.42 12u 110.08 109.40 110.10 109.35 12c 110.12 109.48 110.12 109.46 12d 109.66 108.84 109.66 108.85 l l u 109.60 108.83 109.58 108.81 11c 109.56 108.75 109.55 108.75 l i d 108.95 108.20 108.95 108.23 lOu 108.73 108.06 108.74 107.92 10c 108.75 107.89 108.76 107.97 lOd 108.35 107.51 108.36 107.54 9u 108.01 107.19 108.03 107.17 9c 107.96 107.13 107.98 107.20 9d 107.70 106.89 107.71 106.92 8u 107.54 106.76 107.55 106.75 8c 107.57 106.58 107.58 106.60 8d 107.04 106.23 107.04 106.26 7u 105.79 104.90 105.80 104.96 7c 105.91 105.18 105.91 105.11 7d 104.89 104.07 104.89 104.11 3u 100.10 99.39 100.11 99.42 3c 100.18 99.44 100.19 99.50 3d 99.74 98.95 99.76 98.96 2u 99.84 99.09 99.85 98.93 2c 99.79 99.17 99.81 99.16 2d 99.19 98.23 99.20 98.27 lu 98.61 97.87 98.63 97.95 lc* 98.71 97.89 NR NR ld 98.15 97.45 98.17 97.47 NR - no reading *gauge lost prior to sampling and second survey; mini-reach not analyzed 161 Table A.3 - Beecher Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained November 2000 Cross-Section First analysis Second analysis Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) 13u 110.55 109.61 110.56 109.71 13c 110.45 109.75 110.46 109.76 13d 110.17 109.40 110.18 109.42 12u 110.08 109.36 110.09 109.27 12c 110.12 109.33 110.13 109.42 12d 109.64 108.86 109.66 108.86 l l u 109.59 108.80 109.57 108.83 11c 109.55 108.70 109.55 108.72 l i d 108.95 108.16 108.96 108.23 lOu 108.74 107.98 108.74 108.08 10c 108.77 107.93 108.77 108.02 lOd 108.35 107.62 108.35 107.62 9u 108.05 107.26 108.04 107.29 9c 107.98 107.18 107.96 107.18 9d 107.71 106.94 107.71 106.90 8u 107.55 106.76 107.55 106.86 8c 107.58 106.66 107.58 106.65 8d ' 107.04 106.31 107.04 106.24 7u 105.80 105.01 105.79 105.02 7c 105.91 105.11 105.91 105.20 7d 104.90 104.15 104.89 104.14 3u 100.11 99.40 100.11 99.37 3c 100.20 99.53 100.20 99.43 3d 99.76 98.99 99.75 98.95 2u 99.77 98.89 99.77 99.05 2c 99.79 99.17 99.80 99.17 2d 99.19 98.30 99.20 98.28 lu 98.62 97.89 98.62 97.93 lc 98.74 97.90 98.75 98.01 ld 98.17 97.42 98.17 97.43 162 Table A.4 - Ouillet Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained December 1999 Cross-Section First analysis Second analysis Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) 9d 100.99 99.94 100.96 99.90 8c 100.32 99.40 100.32 99.41 8d 99.61 98.58 99.59 98.56 7u 99.58 98.52 99.55 98.51 7c 99.47 98.55 99.44 98.55 7d 98.92 97.74 98.89 97.78 6u 98.82 97.94 98.80 97.96 6c 98.77 97.79 98.74 97.83 6d 98.02 97.06 97.99 96.96 5u* 97.62 96.57 97.58 96.60 5c 97.86 96.68 97.85 96.68 5d 97.47 96.44 97.44 96.40 4u 97.25 96.19 97.25 96.15 4c 97.25 96.14 97.24 96.14 4d 96.54 95.32 96.52 95.24 3au 96.54 95.39 96.52 95.38 3ac 96.52 95.33 96.51 95.27 3ad 95.97 94.89 95.96 94.87 3u 96.14 95.11 96.12 95.09 3c* 95.65 94.80 95.64 94.83 3d 95.63 94.54 95.63 94.39 2u 94.97 93.96 94.94 93.99 2c 94.92 93.94 94.97 93.98 2d 94.48 93.36 94.47 93.17 lu 94.44 93.40 94.45 93.45 lc 94.12 93.05 94.12 93.06 ld 93.75 92.80 93.76 92.78 * gauge not present for December 2, 2000 samples 163 Table A.5 - Ouillet Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained June 2000 Cross-Section First analysis Second analysis Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) 9d 100.96 99.90 100.95 99.88 8c* 100.32 99.41 100.32 99.41 8d 99.59. 98.56 99.58 98.46 7u 99.55 98.51 99.54 98.49 7c 99.44 98.55 99.44 98.55 7d 98.89 97.78 98.83 97.74 6u 98.80 97.96 98.78 97.91 6c 98.74 97.83 98.72 97.78 6d 97.99 96.96 97.97 96.92 5u* 97.58 96.60 97.58 96.60 5c* 97.85 96.68 97.85 96.68 5d 97.44 96.40 97.43 96.39 4u 97.25 96.15 97.24 96.18 4c 97.24 96.14 97.24 96.15 4d 96.52 95.24 96.52 95.24 3au 96.52 95.38 96.52 95.38 3ac* 96.51 95.27 96.51 95.27 3ad 95.96 94.87 95.96 94.92 3u 96.12 95.09 96.13 95.10 3c 95.64 94.83 95.64 94.85 3d 95.63 94.39 95.64 94.45 2u 94.94 93.99 94.96 93.98 2c 94.97 93.98 94.98 93.95 2d* 94.47 93.17 94.47 93.17 lu 94.45 93.45 94.45 93.44 lc* 94.12 93.06 94.12 93.06 l d * 93.76 92.78 93.76 92.78 * gauge lost or moved prior to second survey; first gauge survey re-used for second analysis 164 Table A.6 - Ouillet Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained October 2000 Cross-Section First analysis Second analysis Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) 9d 100.95 99.88 100.96 99.82 8u 100.52 99.35 100.51 99.38 8c 100.28 99.07 100.28 99.11 8d 99.58 98.46 99.58 98.47 7u 99.54 98.49 99.55 98.49 7c 99.44 98.55 99.44 98.46 7d 98.83 97.74 98.86 97.80 6u 98.78 97.91 98.81 97.98 6c 98.72 97.78 98.75 97.81 6d 97.97 96.92 97.99 96.87 5au 97.93 96.89 97.95 96.93 5ac 97.97 96.79 97.95 96.81 5ad 97.98 96.76 97.99 96.79 5u 97.67 96.48 97.66 96.56 5c 97.71 96.66 97.72 96.77 5d 97.43 96.39 97.46 96.44 4u 97.24 96.18 97.25 96.19 4c 97.24 96.15 97.24 96.14 4d 96.52 95.24 96.54 95.28 3au 96.52 95.38 96.53 95.37 3ac 96.34 95.21 96.35 95.22 3ad 95.96 94.92 95.96 94.85 3u* 96.13 95.10 96.13 95.10 3c 95.64 94.85 95.63 94.84 3d 95.64 94.45 95.64 94.30 2u 94.96 93.98 94.95 93.93 2c 94.98 93.95 94.97 94.00 2d 94.52 93.49 94.52 93.47 lu 94.45 93.44 94.45 93.46 lc 94.23 93.20 94.22 93.24 ld 93.65 92.67 93.64 92.59 * gauge lost or moved prior to second survey; first gauge survey re-used for second analysis 165 Table A. 7 - Brunette River Surveyed Gauge Elevations for All Samples Cross-Section First analysis Second analysis Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) 3u 7.29 6.28 7.28 6.26 3c 7.31 6.42 7.31 6.32 3d 6.86 5.66 6.85 5.68 2u 6.47 5.37 6.47 5.38 2c 6.36 5.22 6.36 5.18 2d 6.41 5.45 6.41 5.52 lu 6.20 5.22 6.20 5.23 lc 6.40 5.44 6.40 5.45 ld 5.86 4.89 5.85 4.89 166 Table A. 8 - Chapman Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained December 1999 Cross-Section First analysis Second analysis Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) N3u 101.23 100.14 N3c 101.17 99.92 N3d 100.09 98.94 N2u 99.95 98.78 N2c 99.55 98.49 N2d 99.04 97.89 N l u 98.66 97.51 N l c 98.66 97.53 N l d 98.25 97.10 6u 96.62 95.47 6c 96.59 95.55 6d 95.68 94.50 5u 95.20 94.28 5c 95.24 94.25 5d 94.34 93.13 4u 93.55 92.47 4c 93.43 92.34 4d 92.33 91.12 2u 89.24 88.13 2c 89.29 88.33 2d 88.69 87.51 167 Table A.9 - Chapman Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained June 2000 Cross-Section First analysis Second analysis Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) N3u 101.22 100.14 101.22 100.15 N3c 101.15 99.95 101.14 99.94 N3d 100.07 98.93 99.82 98.87 N2u* 99.95 98.78 99.95 98.78 N2c 99.53 98.48 99.51 '98.45 N2d* 99.03 97.84 99.03 97.84 N l u * 98.65 97.56 98.65 97.56 N l c 98.65 97.52 98.62 97.47 N l d * 98.25 97.07 98.25 97.07 6u* 96.59 95.43 96.59 95.43 6c* 96.52 95.50 96.52 95.50 6d* 95.63 94.48 95.63 94.48 5u* 95.17 94.27 95.17 94.27 5c 95.22 94.23 95.20 94.28 5d 94.32 93.16 94.32 93.14 4u* 93.53 92.49 93.53 92.49 4c 93.43 92.34 93.39 92.37 4d 92.29 91.07 92.29 91.09 2u 89.27 88.15 89.26 88.16 2c 89.32 88.37 89.31 88.34 2d 88.74 87.57 88.72 87.56 * gauge lost or moved prior to second survey; first gauge survey re-used for second analysis 168 Table A. 10 - Chapman Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained October 17 and 20, 2000 Cross-Section First analysis Second analysis Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) N3u 101.22 100.15 101.21 100.12 N3c 101.14 99.94 101.14 99.95 N3d* 99.82 98.87 99.82 98.87 N2u* 99.58 98.44 99.58 98.44 N2c 99.51 98.45 99.50 98.46 N2d 99.00 98.02 99.02 98.07 N l u * 98.44 97.44 98.44 97.44 N l c * 98.62 97.47 98.62 97.47 N l d * 98.17 97.11 98.17 97.11 6u* 96.48 95.52 96.48 95.52 6c* 96.34 95.44 96.34 95.44 6d* 95.75 94.75 95.75 94.75 5u* 95.17 94.27 95.17 94.27 5c 95.20 94.28 95.15 94.26 5d 94.32 93.14 94.29 93.14 4u 93.59 92.58 93.56 92.49 4c 93.39 92.37 93.37 92.30 4d 92.29 91.09 92.28 91.08 2u 89.26 88.16 89.22 88.14 2c 89.31 88.34 89.27 88.29 2d 88.72 87.56 88.67 87.56 * gauge lost or moved prior to second survey; first gauge survey re-used for second analysis 169 Table A . l 1 - Chapman Creek Surveyed Gauge Elevations for Samples Obtained October 28, 2000 Cross-Section First analysis Second analysis Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) Gauge top (m) Gauge bottom (m) N3u 101.22 100.15 101.21 100.12 N3c 101.14 99.94 101.14 99.95 N3d 100.11 99.04 100.07 99.02 N2u 99.78 98.73 99.75 98.68 N2c 99.51 98.45 99.50 98.46 N2d 99.00 98.02 99.02 98.07 N l u 98.79 97.78 98.78 97.76 N l c 99.00 98.04 99.00 98.05 N l d 98.34 97.21 98.34 97.06 6u 96.82 95.83 96.81 95.77 6c* 96.79 95.74 96.79 95.74 6d* 95.75 94.75 95.75 94.75 5u 95.30 94.26 95.27 94.23 5c 95.20 94.28 95.15 94.26 5d 94.32 93.14 94.29 93.14 4u 93.59 92.58 93.56 92.49 4c 93.39 92.37 93.37 92.30 4d 92.29 91.09 92.28 91.08 2u 89.26 88.16 89.22 88.14 2c 89.31 88.34 89.27 88.29 2d 88.72 87.56 88.67 87.56 * gauge lost or moved prior to second survey; first gauge survey re-used for second analysis 170 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) ^ 113 S 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A . l - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 13 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.87 m3/s (sample 2, Mar. 18, 2000) 171 113 a 112 O | 111 C3 I 110 > PJ 109 / -•-11/10/2000 f - " j f c " " 1 " 12/6/2001 (a) obs. stage* 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 1 6 Figure A.2 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 13 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.40 m3/s (Nov. 25, 2000) 172 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 108 1 • 1 . 1 , ^ 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.3 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 12 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.87 m3/s (sample 2, Mar. 18, 2000) 173 •11/10/2000 • 12/6/2001 obs. stage* 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 Figure A.4 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 12 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.40 m3/s (Nov. 25, 2000) 174 • 13/1/2000 •4/5/2000 obs. stage* 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 Figure A.5 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 11 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.87 m3/s (sample 2, Mar. 18, 2000) 175 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 111 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.6 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 11 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.40 m3/s (Nov. 25, 2000) 176 ^ 111 E 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 111 S 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) S a n o H 107 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.7 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 10 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.87 m3/s (sample 2, Mar. 18, 2000) 177 I l l 3 110 Q > ca •B 108 > Si L U 109 107 (a) 11/10/2000 5/7/2001 obs. stage* 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 1 2 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 12 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 1 2 Figure A. 8 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 10 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.40 m3/s (Nov. 25, 2000) 178 ~ no s 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 110 I 109 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.9 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 9 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. * average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.87 m3/s (sample 2, Mar. 18, 2000) 179 110 •11/10/2000 • 5/7/2001 obs. stage* 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 12 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 12 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 12 Figure A. 10 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 9 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.40 m3/s (Nov. 25, 2000) 180 109 108 107 •8 106 105 (a) •11/1/2000 •4/5/2000 obs. stage* 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 109 108 107 •B 106 105 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 109 108 107 106 105 (c) 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 Figure A . l 1 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 8 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.87 m3/s (sample 2, Mar. 18, 2000) 181 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A. 12 - Beecher Creek U surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 8 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.40 m3/s (Nov. 25, 2000) 182 102 a 101 P > -c •S 99 > 100 98 (a) •11/1/2000 •4/5/2000 • obs. stage* 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 12 102 a i o i CO Q > s •S 99 > 100 98 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 12 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 12 Figure A. 13 - Beecher Creek L surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.92 m3/s (sample 2, Mar. 18, 2000) 183 102 S 5 S3 U > = . G > 101 100 99 98 • - • (a) •11/10/2000 • 12/6/2001 obs. stage* 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 12 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 12 102 a i o i Q u > G a > m 100 98 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 12 Figure A . 14 - Beecher Creek L surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.43 m3/s (sample 2, Nov. 23, 2000) 184 0 2 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 102 -j f i 101 -0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A . 15 - Beecher Creek L surveyed cross-sections for analysis of March 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.92 m3/s (sample 2, Mar. 18, 2000) 185 0 2 4 6 8 Distance from Right Bank (m) 102 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A. 16 - Beecher Creek L surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. * average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.43 m3/s (sample 2, Nov. 23, 2000) 186 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A. 17 - Beecher Creek L surveyed cross-sections for rock-riffle 1 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: crest gauge removed prior to March 2000 samples so rock-riffle 1 was not included in the analysis. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.92 m3/s (sample 2, Mar. 18, 2000) 187 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A. 18 - Beecher Creek L surveyed cross-sections for analysis of November 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 1 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. * average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 0.43 m3/s (sample 2, Nov. 23, 2000) 188 103 E 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Distance from Right Bank (m) 103 T 1 £102 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Distance from Right Bank (m) 103 - i 1 B 3 Q 101 -0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A. 19 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock riffle (a) 9 downstream; (b) 8 crest; and (c) 8 downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for O = 17.33 m3/s (sample 2, Dec. 15, 1999) 189 103 102 101 100 |» 99 w 98 (a) 17/4/2000 10/10/2000 14/7/2001 obs. stage* 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 18 20 22 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 18 20 22 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 20 22 Figure A.20 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at rock riffle (a) 9 downstream; (b) 8 crest; and (c) 8 downstream. Note: crest gauge removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 9.04 m3/s (sample 1, June 12, 2000) 190 1 7 / 4 / 2 0 0 0 * * 1 0 / 1 0 / 2 0 0 0 14/7/2001 o b s . s t a g e * 8 10 12 14 D i s t a n c e f r o m R i g h t B a n k ( m ) 16 2 0 2 2 8 10 12 14 D i s t a n c e f r o m R i g h t B a n k ( m ) 16 2 0 2 2 8 10 12 14 D i s t a n c e f r o m R i g h t B a n k ( m ) 20 2 2 8 10 12 14 D i s t a n c e f r o m R i g h t B a n k ( m ) 16 2 0 2 2 Figure A.21 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at rock riffle (a) 9 downstream; (b) 8 upstream; (c) 8 crest; and (c) 8 downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 8.82 m /s (Oct. 20, 2000). **with updated gauge elevations from Oct. 10, 2001 survey 191 101 1 100 03 99 •B 98 97 (a) •6/12/1999 • 17/4/2000 obs. stage* 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 Figure A.22 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 7 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 17.33 m3/s (sample 2, Dec. 15, 1999) 192 101 i 100 99 •B 98 > 97 _•- w~* J. 17/4/2000** 14/7/2001 (a) obs. stage* 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 20 Figure A.23 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 7 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 9.04 m3/s (sample 1, June 12, 2000). **October 2000 samples include updated gauge elevations from Oct 10. 2000 survey 193 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Distance from Right Bank (m) 96 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Distance from Right Bank (m) 1 0 1 g 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.24 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 6 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream, ^average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 17.33 m 3/s (sample 2, Dec. 15, 1999) 194 - * - 17/4/2000** 14/7/2001 obs. stage* 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 Figure A.25 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 6 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 9.04 m3/s (sample 1, June 12, 2000). **October 2000 samples include updated gauge elevations from Oct 10. 2000 survey 195 96 I ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 • 1 i 1 . 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.26 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 5a (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 8.82 m3/s (Oct. 20, 2000) 196 100 E r3 u C .2 | 96 95 99 1 98 \ 97 (a) 7/12/1999 17/4/2000 obs. stage* 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 18 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 1 8 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 18 Figure A.27 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 5 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 17.33 m3/s (sample 2, Dec. 15, 1999) 197 O ca c .o ed > 100 99 98 97 96 95 (a) 17/4/2000 14/7/2001 obs. stage* 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 18 6 8 10 12 Distance f r o m Right Bank (m) 14 16 18 6 8 10 12 Distance f r o m Right Bank (m) 14 16 18 Figure A.28 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 5 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: upstream gauge removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 9.04 m3/s (sample 1, June 12, 2000) 198 17/4/2000** 10/10/2000 14/7/2001 obs. stage* 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 18 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 18 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 18 Figure A.29 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 5 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 8.82 m 3/s (Oct. 20, 2000). * * w i t h updated gauge elevations from Oct. 10, 2001 survey 199 Figure A . 30 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 4 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. * average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 17.33 m3/s (sample 2, Dec. 15, 1999) 99 98 a C3 G > c .2 | 95 _o w 94 97 96 (a) • 17/4/2000** • 14/7/2001 obs. stage* 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 4 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 Figure A.31 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 4 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 9.04 m3/s (sample 1, June 12, 2000). **October 2000 samples include updated gauge elevations from Oct 10. 2000 survey 201 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 99 ? £^98 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 99 ¥ 9 8 a 03 Q 97 -> 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.32 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 3a (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 17.33 m3/s (sample 2, Dec. 15, 1999) 99 17/4/2000** 14/7/2001 obs. stage* 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 99 98 97 96 E a Q o > o JD CZ = o I 95 m 94 J J p t r — • — * (b) 4 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 6 8 10 Distance from Right Bank (m) 12 14 16 Figure A.33 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 3a (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 9.04 m3/s (sample 1, June 12, 2000). **October 2000 samples include updated gauge elevations from Oct 10. 2000 survey 203 98 £ 93 -I ' 1 ' 1 < 1 ' 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 • 1 1 1 • 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 D i s t a n c e f r o m R i g h t B a n k ( m ) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 D i s t a n c e f r o m R i g h t B a n k ( m ) 98 E E 97 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 D i s t a n c e f r o m R i g h t B a n k ( m ) Figure A.34 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 17.33 m 3/s (sample 2, Dec. 15, 1999) 204 98 17/4/2000** 14/7/2001 obs. stage* 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Distance from Right Bank (m) 4 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 Figure A.35 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: upstream gauge removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 9.04 m3/s (sample 1, June 12, 2000). **October 2000 samples include updated gauge elevations from Oct 10. 2000 survey 205 (a) •7/12/1999 • 17/4/2000 obs. stage* 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 18 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 18 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 18 Figure A . 3 6 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 17.33 m 3/s (sample 2, Dec. 15, 1999) 206 96 95 -94 E 5 -Q o > c •S 93 03 > W 92 (a) •*— 17/4/2000** 14/7/2001 obs. stage* 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 18 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 18 6 8 10 12 Distance from Right Bank (m) 14 16 Figure A. 3 7 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 9.04 m3/s (sample 1, June 12, 2000). **October 2000 samples include updated gauge elevations from Oct 10. 2000 survey 207 (a) 7/12/1999 17/4/2000 obs. stage* 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 Figure A.38 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 1 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 17.33 m3/s (sample 2, Dec. 15, 1999) 208 7/4/2000 14/7/2001 obs. stage* 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Right Bank (m) 16 18 20 Figure A. 3 9 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 1 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: crest and downstream gauges removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 9.04 m3/s (sample 1, June 12, 2000) 209 96 17/4/2000** • 10/10/2000 • 14/7/2001 obs. stage* 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 20 22 24 8 10 12 14 16 Distance from Right Bank (m) 18 20 22 24 8 10 12 14 16 1! Distance from Right Bank (m) 20 22 24 Figure A.40 - Ouillet Creek surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 1 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 8.82 m 3/s (Oct. 20, 2000). * * w i t h updated gauge elevations from Oct. 10, 2001 survey 210 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Distance from Right Bank (m) _ 10 -j 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.41 - Brunette River surveyed cross-sections for analysis of sampled stages at rock-riffle 3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 10.09 m3/s (sample 1, Jan. 21, 2001) 211 (a) 12/1/2001 21/6/2001 obs. stage* 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Distance from Right Bank (m) 10 12 14 16 18 20 Distance from Right Bank (m) 22 24 26 28 30 Figure A.42 - Brunette River surveyed cross-sections for analysis of sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for 0 = 10.83 m3/s (sample 1, Jan. 21, 2001) 212 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.43 - Brunette River surveyed cross-sections for analysis of sampled stages at rock-riffle 1 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 10.83 m3/s (sample 1, Jan. 21, 2001) 213 ^ 103 S | 102 | 101 | 100 a c .2 -*-> > W 99 98 97 (a) •29/1/2000 • obs. stage* 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.44 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at riffle N3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. * observed stage for Q: 13.88 m3/s (Dec. 15, 1999) 214 E 3 d a u > I c .2 > 103 102 101 100 99 H 98 97 -•— 27/4/2000** 13/7/2001 (a) obs. stage* 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.45 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis o f June and October 2000 sampled stages at riffle N3 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. * average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 33.55 m 3/s (sample 2, June 12, 2000). **October 2000 samples include updated gauge elevations from Oct. 13/24, 2000 surveys 2 1 5 103 102 101 100 99 98 H 97 96 95 (a) •29/1/2000 obs. stage* i—1—i—1—r - i — 1 — i — 1 — i — 1 — r i—>—i—i—i—1—r 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.46 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at riffle N2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *observed stage for Q 13.88 m3/s (Dec. 15, 1999) 216 ^ 103 S 102 1 101 Q 100 99 98 97 A 96 95 (a) 27/4/2000 13/7/2001 obs. stage* 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.47 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at riffle N2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: upstream and downstream gauges removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis. * average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q 2000) 33.55 m /s (sample 2, June 12, 217 a 101 Q 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) | 101 Q 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.48 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at riffle N2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q - 19.55 m3/s (sample 1, Oct. 20, 2000). **with updated gauge elevations from Oct. 13/24, 2001 surveys 218 s 3 03 Q 4) 1 03 C .2 -t-» 03 > w 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 — y • • • ^ (a) •29/1/2000 • obs. stage* 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.49 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at riffle NI (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *observed stage for Q: 13.88 m3/s (Dec. 15, 1999) 219 •27/4/2000 13/7/2001 obs. stage* 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 101 E ¥ 1 0 0 | 99 u > o SJ c o 1 96 W 95 98 97 (c) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.50 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at riffle NI (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: upstream and downstream gauges removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q 2000) 33.55 m Is (sample 2, June 12, 220 101 E p o o 3 co gq o > i e . 2 > 98 97 | 96 95 v. *_^ — i _ • - 27/4/2000** - • - 13/10/2000 (a) 13/7/2001 obs. stage* 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.51 - Chapman Creek N surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at riffle N I (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. * average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 19.55 m 3/s (sample 1, Oct. 20, 2000). * * w i t h updated gauge elevations from Oct. 13/24, 2001 surveys 221 99 98 -| 97 i Q ID > o .2 94 03 5 93 96 95 92 (a) •29/1/2000 • obs. stage* ~ i — ' — i — i — i — i — r 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.52 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 6 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *observed stage for Q = 13.88 m3/s (Dec. 15, 1999) 222 99 92 n—1—i—1—i—1—i—1—i—<—i—'—i—•—i—•—i—<—i—1—i—1—i—1—i—1—i—1—i—<—i—'—i—1—i—1—i—1—i—1—i—<—I 0 2 . 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) ^ 99 -r w 98 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.53 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 6 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: all gauges removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 33.55 m3/s (sample 2, June 12, 2000) 223 99 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.54 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 6 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: downstream gauge removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 19.55 m3/s (sample 1, Oct. 20, 2000) 224 98 E 92 T — 1 — i — 1 — i — 1 — i — 1 — i — 1 — i — 1 — i — ' — i — 1 — i — 1 — i — 1 — i — 1 — i — 1 — i — 1 — i — 1 — i — 1 — i — ' — i — 1 — i — < — I 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Distance from Right Bank (m) 98 -, , 92 H 1 i 1 i < i <—i—'—i—i—i—'—i—i—i—'—i—'—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—<—i—i—I 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.55 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 5 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *observed stage for Q = 13.88 m3/s (Dec. 15, 1999) 225 98 E 92 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Distance from Right Bank (m) 98 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Distance from Right Bank (m) ^ 98 E • 92 i , , — . 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A. 56 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 5 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 33.55 m3/s (sample 2, June 12, 2000). """October 2000 samples include updated gauge elevations from Oct. 13/24, 2000 surveys 226 ca Q > o x> C %-» S3 > PQ 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 -•—28/1/2000 (a) obs. stage* ; i ; i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.57 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 4 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. * observed stage for Q = 13.88 m3/s (Dec. 15, 1999) 227 r— 95 e E 94 3 93 a a > Q 92 a 91 c . g > 90 CL) U J 89 (a) •9/5/2000 • 13/7/2001 obs. stage* 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.58 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 4 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. Note: upstream gauge removed prior to second cross-sectional survey - first survey assumed for second analysis, •average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 33.55 m3/s (sample 2, June 12, 2000) 228 95 IT | 94 | 93 > 0 s e . 2 - 3 > — 92 91 90 89 -•— 9/5/2000** -•—24/10/2000 -*—13/7/2001 (a) obs. stage* 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.59 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 4 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for 0 = 19.55 m3/s (sample 1, Oct. 20, 2000). **with updated gauge elevations from Oct. 13/24, 2001 surveys 229 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Distance from Right Bank (m) 91 S I 90-86 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Distance from Right Bank (m) 91 - j 1 1-¥ 90-3 c3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.60 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of December 1999 sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. * observed stage for Q = 13.88 m3/s (Dec. 15, 1999) 230 86 -I 1 1 1 1 1 1 • , 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Distance from Right Bank (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Distance from Right Bank (m) 91 E E 90 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Distance from Right Bank (m) Figure A.61 - Chapman Creek C surveyed cross-sections for analysis of June and October 2000 sampled stages at rock-riffle 2 (a) upstream; (b) crest; and (c) downstream. *average of analysis 1 and 2 observed stage for Q = 33.55 m3/s (sample 2, June 12, 2000). **October 2000 samples include updated gauge elevations from Oct. 13/24, 2000 surveys 231 A P P E N D I X B . B E E C H E R C R E E K A N D B R U N E T T E R I V E R T R I B U T A R Y D I S C H A R G E D A T A S U M M A R Y This Appendix contains the data measured using a hand-held flow meter to obtain an estimation of the discharge in the Beecher Creek U and the Beecher Creek L study reaches (Tables B . l -B.13). Listed are the measured panel cross-sectional areas and average velocities; the products of which were summed to get an estimate of the total channel discharge both prior to, and following sampling. The average of these two total discharge estimates was then used for analysis (see Table 2.3). Also included are the estimated effective storm hyetographs and discharge hydrographs for the tributary located upstream of rock-riffle 2 in Brunette River (Figs. B.1-B.4). The figures were developed from 5-minute rainfall data using a synthetic SCS unit hydrograph (see Fig. 2.13). The corresponding tributary average discharge estimates for the corresponding sampling periods are shown in each figure (see also Table 2.4). 232 0 0 C N © II © © © C N C N CD l -c d "E, C d 00 CD 3 o o c d CD CD 0 0 L . C d O 00 Q M CD CD u t-c (U o CD CD CO CQ CD i—i Xi a H f c d ICO IP f c d 00 o •c c d +-» C O CD c / S H S CD a c d OH CD C c d P H CD CD * c o -4—» c d o o h4 C D w C D c d ^ O H CD a c d OH * c o 3 S c d C D O h-l CD © C N © © © C N © C N © © co © © C N © © C N © © © C O © © © © © V O C N © © r-co © © © © © © © © © © co C O C N © © oo © © V O © © © in C O CO 0 0 vo IT) Os vo I C O oo in r--co V O r-|co C O os © © oo © © C N OS © © Os © © r-c--V O C N © © © © C N C O C O |m C O C O in co 0 0 I in co C N T f ' C O C O I oo C O r--co I os C O C N od C O os C O © V O © in I od C O 0 0 © © © in V O © C N o C N © C N © C N © C N © C N © C N O C N © C N C N © C N © C N © C N © C N © C N © C N © C N C O C O co C N © C O © © C O © C N C N C O C O in C O vo C O OS C N in | in co C O 0 0 C O OS C O vo 0 0 in >n in r~-in C O in m in Os m C N in C O C N in m C N in C N in os\ C N <n co in co co in in C O in r-co m Os C O in © © © © © © © oo © © © © © | C N o © 0 0 © © V O © © © © I vol © © C N © C N © © © O O © © C O © © C O C N © © © © © © © © © v d © m © © in m m in © © © V O in Os in © vo C O V O V O | C O C O V O vo C O | C O Os V O C O C O © © in oo OS] C N in © © © C N V O in "3-S i co co | in C N © C N in m C N in in C N © C N © C N O O C N in 0 0 C N © C N C N C N oo C N in OS © C N C N C O © © C O © C N C N oo C N |m © C O m C O 0 0 Os C N © C N 0 0 C N m| OS C N © co © C N C N © C O in r-co © C N C O C N C O © C N C N C O C N C O © C N © C N C N m Os C N C O in C N C N C O in C O C N C O C O in m C N C O © C N OS in co in C N in C O I OS 0 0 co © C N © C N C N © C N © © m co in Os C N © C O Os C O m C O in co C O V O © oo C O £3 O <D 60 II-a u C O co CN 9 O O O CN o "cl E c3 O O S-i e e c3 £? xi o ca s <u u I i U CD X ! O CD « PQ CN cd H 00 o c 1 0 0 -4—» loo £ ^ 3 P H c3 o O H W 1 s 8 >H. o g S g 0 H ^ £ <D S3 ^ O H O H ^ -ca * I e Co o O w O O o o o o o o as © o O N O O as © lo CN o o o o © o o o CN o © o o o © o o o o o o co CN as CN |00 o CN © v© CN as r- in CN v© v© v© >© |co v© o t--CN m r--CN o 00 CN 00 in O O V© oo 00| in o © o © oo vd CN v© CN CN CN •sr. co CN v© CN CN © CN CN CN CN co o as co co oo o © IT) CN m CN in CN i n CN m CN m CN m CN i n CN i n CN m CN m CN in CN in CN in co CN 00 CN T T co v© co v© CO O N r- CN CN 00 V© CN CN 00 CN CN CN C N 00 CN o co co CO CO CO 00 CO o CO o oo in o o CO o oo o CO CN o oo CN O CO CO o oo CO i n 00 CO o o o © o o o © V © o o o © I C M o © CN CN o r-CN o © o CO o © CN o © o © loo o © CO CN o o o o o o o o o o o o CN o CO CN r-- co in | 00 od COJ 00 o 00 CN i n oo CN O as oo od co O N oo O m CN as as CN o o o o r-- O CN as CN CO o CO CO CO 00 o CO COl CN CO CN CO CO I CO » [ CO 00 o ^1- o CO o o in l CN CO m CN m CN m CN in CN in CN m CN in CN in CN m CN m CN in CN in CN no CN m CN CN CN CN 00 CN CN 3^- in CO co t--CO os as C N CO I m | as CN CN CO in | CN CO T l -co CO CO T f in oi X c o <u 00 -o O CN O r-- o CN o r--c^ CN CN O CN CO o co m as CO in o s o Os r-o II o o o CN 00 J 3 o cd C D I cd OO -4-* C s C D > H =3 C / 3 cd O C D 00 u cd J= o CO s C D C D u l-l C D 4 3 C D C D C D m CO m J D cd H f cd I oo f cd 00 o ts cd loo C D « cd ^ c P H i ^ 1 C D P H 5 ^ £ cd C D co C D * •Be CD >H O C D < Z i us C D cd ^ P H cd o P H ^ co o # Is o o o o o o o o o CN o OS CO o CO o in SO o o d r-o o " v t r--O © Os © © oo vo o Os T f o o o o o o o o o o m CO CN o © VO r -l o o © Os in CO oo CO Os 00 | in os oo CN OS c o | CO CO CN vo VO CN | c o CO CO CO vo VO CO in CN'[ CN CN OS CN CN O © o © in c o CN 00 00 CO in I i n T f oo T f 00 T f VO • v t I 00 T f CN| r-T f © i n c o | CO m "cl-in in in I in | od T f CN| os T f © CN O d in | CN CN in CN in CN m CN i n CN m CN in CN in CN in CN m CN i n CN m CN in CN in CN in CN m CN CN CN CN T T CO VO CO T f CN oo CO o VO 00 • v t c o o in O VO O T f 00 CO CN VO • v t in | oo T f m T t Os T f VO T f o in o T T in T f m T f T t in CO CN c o o VO oo in c o o VO i n oo m c o CN O VO CN O CO o VO CO m oo CO o CN • v t o o o o o o d OS © o d in CN O CN m o oo oo o o oo o o VO o Os • v t o d o vo o T f o oo o o o o o o o o d o d IVO d vo o d in Os CN CO 00 in CN in \os CN CN CN CN CN Os M CN • v t CO I vo CO I© d o CN in m • v t o d o d CO CN O 00 CO T l -|CO vd T f v o I OS T f T f CN T f T f CO l<n vd T f O O T f o d CO CN in CN in CN in CN in CN i n CN in CN in CN in CN in CN m CN m CN in CN CN in CN in CN CN CN ho VO CN VO T f VO m VO T f r--vo m o T f in CO vo in Os CO o CN T f T f in T f | m | vd T f r-T f CN T f in T f Os T f in T f m CN T f VO in CN CN a „ & l - ° <e C o C O I  "O o VO CO VO VO 00 VO CO VO VO 00 CN VO CO CN VO oo CN CO VO CO CO VO 00 CO CN T f "8 E o • » u I* oo o o o C N CD )-< ca CN CO £ ca C/3 S3 s 3 to ca CD OO 1-1 ca O cfl 5 <D CD u CD J3 o CD CD CQ Ti-ed ca H ca OO o !* ca l o o ca l o o CD f fi O r 1 ca ^ c P H V E 5 8 £ t £ < £ CD S3 X ca ^ P H >H, £ * | £ o CD c/ CD $ < C VH P H < CD P H ca ^ o P H W C/3 > ~ £ £ * £3 | £ ca o o o o o © o o o o CN o o NO CN o o CN o ON © 00 o oo © o NO o NO in © CN r-o CN ON © CO wo o o o o o o o NO CO CN 00 I CO I CO 00 in in CO ON r--CO |co CO CO CN CN TT o CN CN ON r-oo CO od «n C N CN m co o o T T in CO CN © © in CN o I© CO 00 l<n CO ON T f ON TT |CN 00 TT CN T f r-|co o m C N m m in © NO m o o in CN O © >n l CN CN m CN in CN m CN m CN in CN m CN m CN in CN in CN in CN m CN m CN m CN m CN in CN CN NO CN -3-co r--in 00 r-NO NO Si NO NO oo CN in NO NO CO Tt-ON C O C N ON co NO O m o in oo TT o in m m ON in in oo in CO CN m co o NO m 00 m CO o SO m 00 CN in CO CN © NO CN O CO O NO CO in oo CO o CN o o o o o o o o © CN o © NO ON O ON 00 O CN 00 o ON oo o © o SO © o ON in o © o o o ON 00 o r--o o o o o o o o o © I oo I 00 NO CN ON CN in CO 00 o 00 © CN ON t - -m CO in CN 00| " O i CN NO | CO CN NO CO in ON m CN CN o © o o CN in co CO 00 NO CN I uo in in oo loo ON CN in m in o ON •3" CN O o CN CN in CN in CN in CN in CN in CN m CN in C N in CN in CN m CN in C N in CN in CN m CN in CN |in CN CN as oo C N ON co in in oo CN CO in NO ho oo CN m co NO T f T f oo m 5 o m o in CN m 00 m r-in CO CN II - O o C o „ so ITS u m CO o NO in oo in co in oo CN in co CN o NO CN O co o NO CO in oo CO o CN T i -es O N o 9 o o o C N en" CN U i CD £ C D > O C 3 O O U l <a -4-> c C D 3 C / 3 c d C D C D £? C d 43 o c/3 Q 44 C D C D U l u u C D 43 O C D C D CQ CQ 3 cd H 00 c d 00 C H o c d -*-» I oo C D c/3 4* $ C D O H c d C D P H ^ C / 3 >1 * Is c d o o h-l C D c/ c d ^ - ^ c P H vt 4> $ c u £ P H < vE C D P H 9 J -P H C D * £3 B £ c d C D C D vii o h-l o o o o o o o o cn CN o CN I co| co o> CM O d in d C M o "vf C D oo oo oo oo rv-co l-v-CD co C M oo co o o o d o cd oo m co cd o C D O •vt oo •vt C M O d CM •«t C D oo in C O oo o C M „ a 4 3 03 j u C O V 60 II " O C D co cd E o o T t -©• II 9 © © © C N i n C N i-i C D £> a CD > O C 3 oo a c C D a C D >-. 3 CO rt CD 00 >-< c d o 5 CD <D u CD - a o CD CD N O PQ J D IS c a H rt o f rt H - H o rt I 35 CD w E O ) ^ rt ^ - ^ c rt. CD O H rt o O H W E * a •B ? rt o o CD c C C N V I rt ^ c O H £ CD O H 0H W >x E CD •| S rt o o © © © © O N C O © © © 00 © © 2 © r--o o © © © © © © © o o C O C N © © |co 00 © T T co| C O 00 N O C N N O r--|>n| C N N O O N C N O N C N 00 C N Tt"' © O N C N O N C N © C N © © C N C O C O O N co N O N O C O N O © T t " O N co © © m N O © m © © m © in © in © in N O C O co C N N O C O N O C N C O C N C O T t " C O in T P «n| in co N O C O O N © T T © T T © O N © C N © O N C N © T f C O © O N co o T f © © © © N O C N © © © © © t--co t--© © in N O © © © © © © © © © © ' | o o | in o co o o © r--O N r--N O C N © C N C N r--C O C N C N C O 00 © in C N © N O O N N O © © C N C N T f O N co C N T f T f TT I 00 | T f T t -O N T T C N © C O O N O © in N O © m © in © in © in © in © in N O C O C O C O C O C N N O C O C O C N in C N 00 C N C N T f T t " T T | m | T T N O T f O N m O N '•a C O e o <L> „ *o -o © T f © T t -© O N © T T C N O N C N © T i -ro © O N co a o o C N d II 9 o o o C N C N 43 O U H cd B c d 00 U H a e co e co U H CO cd CJ CD b  U H cd43 CD CO 5 44 CD CD U H u U H CD 43 O CD CD CQ CQ cd H f cd 00 C M o I cd O O <« o t; cd l o o CD <* cd ^ c 1 §S CD (3 X cd ^ P H CD C cd P H B * I S cd CD CD w o CD c/ S3 cd ^ c P H JE 1 CD P H CD P H ^ B CD * Is o o o o © o o o d o o o d o o o d Ti-r o I© d C O T f o d T f o ON T f o T f o in o o o o o o o o o o o O N C O C N I i n | C N C N O N © si i O N © C N O r-v d C O o C O 00 o t--v d C N C N O d o C N O i n o o C O C O o d d C N T f T f T f i n ON T f 00 d o o CM I C O m c o i n V O O © V O C N v d T f 00 © T f v d o d i n T f o C N o C N o C N O C N O C N O C N O C N O C N O C N O C N O C N O C N O C O C N C O C O o T f I © T f C N V O i n C N o o T f O N T f m m T f i n V O >n C N V O T f V O C N T f i n T f C M C O i n c o i n i n i n r - -i n O N i n C N c o m i n C N i n p -C N i n o\ C N i n CO © © © © © © © © © © © © © © V O © V O C O © © V O C O © © V O T f © © T f T f © © o o C O © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © i n T f O N c o O N 00 C O o o O N v o © © © © C O © C O v o © v d C N r-v d o o C O © © r--v d | i -H 00 V O © © © C N C N O N T f C N o o T f C O © i n i n | C N | C O i n C N T f i n o o © vo O N i n | C N | © m o o © T f 00 C O [ C N 00 C N © © i n T f © C N © C N © C N © C N © C N © C N © C N © C N © C N © C N © C N © C N © C O C O C N T f C O C N T f V O C O C N C O VO CN © i n T f T f i n C N m C O V O V O O N T f T f T f © CN O N ••a 42 <e <u c o u 6 0 -O i n c o i n i n r-- O N C O i n m i n O N i n C N i n c o C N i n i n C N i n C N m O N C N i n c o o N O CO o II o o o CN 43 o 1-1 rt CD I ca oo <2 -4—» c CD a CD I i o o ca CD CD 00 ca 43 o s M CD CD 1-u >— CD 43 CD CD CD CQ J D ca H ca o !« I ca 00 o •C ca CD <* ca ^ c O H > £3 & § 3 1 CD S3 ^ ca ^ O H CD S3 ca O H •B? ca o o CD « 1 § N B CD v ca o O H ^ 1 ^ 6 ca CD O H W o * S3 I e o o o o o o o NO o o o © © CN CN © CN T f © © T t -© r--T f © T f T f © t - -CN © © CN © © © © © © © © © © © CN I 00 © ° CN © © 00 oo r--NO CO © © © TT © CO CN! oo CO | CO T f ON co TT NO CN O N O 00 I CO | CO NO © NO WO © © 00 © CN ON CN TT TT | 00 TT 00 CN CN WO CN N -CN wo M ON wo CO NO WO I t - 1 CN CO © 00 CN WO CO © © wo CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © co © CN C N © CO wo CN T f co T t -CN CO CN 00 CN ON CN T t - CN wo N O WO N O CO ON wo © N O ON wo CN TT © CO wo CO wo wo wo WO ON wo CO wo wo WO r--wo ON wo CN WO CO CN WO wo CN WO CN wo ON CN WO CO © © © © © © CO © © © CN © wo CO © r-wo © © T f N O © © ON wo © © tM CO © oo CO © CO CO © N O © © © © © © © © © © If-N O © 00 © ©I r—I oo © © ' CO wo CO r-N O CN © © ' CO NO'| CO CO CO CN CO co| CO © © ©• CN 00 CO CO © © © CN © © CN © CN © T f | C N CO WO 1 ^ wo 00 wo I 00 O N T f 00 © ' NO WO WO N O I C N N O N O © T f wo CO © 00 © © © T f © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN © <N © CN © CN © CN © CN © CN WO CN CN 00 r-» CN © CO r--wo CO WO wo TT 00 CN O N CN © CO oo r--CN © TT NO WO r--WO CO N O T f NO NO NO ON NO N O WO 00 CO 00 CO TT CN 00 '•a JZ c o „ 6 0 T 3 © CO © WO © © ON © CO © WO © © ON © CN © CO CN © WO CN © CN © ON CN © CO © CO CO o ON o o o CN 4 3 CD U i a J D "E, S c d 00 u c CD CD U i C O c d CD CD EP c d 4 3 CD CO Q l - l 44 CD CD U i u U CD 4 3 CD CD CD CQ ON CQ CD 43 c d H t c d 15/3 O ! * oo o c d I S CD « cd ^ c P H C S. S S £ < £ CD V c d o P H * ~ fe U O * S3 •BE c d CD CD w O u J CD c/ c d c P H > £ CD S3 22 £ O H < ^ CD s ^ c d P H CD S3 c d P H > H B o S3 i s c d CD CD w O o o o o o o o o o V O CO o o o 00 t--o T f o o © T f ON o o o o o V O V O o CN T f o V O CN O o o o © T f C N T f T f | C N T f © o © © o o o o o o O N | 00 i n O N O N O O O O CN CN V O O CN ON O CN o o o CN | C N | T f i n ON © ©| i n c o CN c o i n r- -I C N ON CN ON © d c o CN T f © T f 00 V O CN r--V O t--| o o O N r-© © o o m CN 00 c o o o CN 00 © T f i n CN i n © T f CN M CO i n vd © © m i n CN i n CN i n CN CN i n CN CN CN m CN i n CN i n CN i n CN i n CN m CN CN I m CN © CN CO CO ON CO o T f © T f i n T f O N T f © CO o o CN i n © N O V O r-- o o O N T f o o CO 00 VO T f T f O N CO © CN © CO © OO i n © © CO © o o © c o CN © 00 CN © CO CO © o o CO i n ON CO © © © © © © © © © T f © © CN T f © © © OO © ON r--© i n O N © O N O N © © ON © © © i n © © © c o © T f CN © © © © © © ICN O N CN O N 00 CO i n o o © o o O N 0O 00 O N CN © CN OO © © CN o o j i n ON © CN C N | T f © CNI © © i n ON i n CN c o l © © © V O T f © © CN CN CO 00 V O CO C N l vo i n c o O N r-- 00 CN 00 ICN T f 00 00 CO m © CO © © i n | CN CN m CN i n CN i n CN i n CN i n CN m CN i n CN CN i n CN i n CN m CN CN i n CN i n CN i m CN ON CO CN t--CO T f T f V O T f CN T f r-T f vo T f OO CO r--CN o o CN c o >n | CO © 00 00 CO 00 T f 00 T f 00 T f T f CO T f m c o CO CN S3 „ cd I  _o S3 o u M T 3 O i n c o © vo m o o m c o © V O © CN © V O CN o o CN CO i n c o c o © vo CO © © T f CCS C M O N 3 o o o CN 00 43 o s-C3 s C N CD "3, s rt C/3 c CD CD >-oo rt CD <D 6 0 t . rt 43 CD 5 CD CD I H U k . CD 43 CD CD CD CP CD, rt f rt C/3 v+H O !« rt 11/3 o •c rt I 35 CD « O H t £ 3 5 CD P H CD £3 rt P H CD * £3 1 S o CD C P H V £ c £ £ P H < vH. CD P H ^~H rt CD P H 1 — oo >1 >«, B * £3 •B a rt o o o o o o o o co © O N N O o T T o N O O N o © co © r--o oo wo © i© C O C N O O N O O O O O C N T f C N N O O N 00 C N © N O C O 00 wo 00 wo I C N N O O N 00 © t--o C N C N O N o C N W O t— 00 o C N WO t— C O O © wo C N C O C O C O C N o © o NO N O C N N O O N O © O O © C N od C O C N T f N O co| Tt-' wo 00 00 C N 00 C N C O 00 W O C O oo © N O 00 O N r--© N O C N W O 00 od © o wo l — wo C N wo C N wo C N wo C N WO C N WO C N WO C N W O C N W O C N W O C N W O C N WO C N W O C N WO C N C N C O © C N © wo T T T f N O T f oo T f © wo N O C O C O T T C N O N 00 co 00 N O WO I - -00 r-T t -00 C O 00 oo N O 00 N O 00 C N 00 TT wo oo C O wo C N wo © C O © 00 WO © © C O © 00 © C O C N © oo C N © C O C O © oo C O © © T t -© © © © © © © © © T t -co © f -00 © © oo © © O N 00 © © WO © © 00 © oo C O © r--C N © r--© o © © © © wO I I C N C N ^ \ W O O N © C N c--|co C O 00 00 I C N © © C N © C N N O oo| © © C N W O r--00 © C N WO C N ' I O N N O N O W O It-N O N O C N © © C N W O © © C O C N C N 00 C O N O | 00 od N O C O | W O i - -C O O N t— C N © 00 r--© oo r--© oo 00 C N 00 wo I C O 00 wo N O r--C N N O © wo © N O © © WO t— wo C N wo C N wo C N WO C N WO C N W O C N WO C N WO C N WO C N WO C N WO C N WO C N WO C N WO C N C N C O © C N O N co T f T T 0\ C O T T T f O N C O © wo T J -T T O N C O © C O C N C N 00 C O 00 N O N O r-© oo © 00 00 © oo C O 00 oo t— C N N O © wo C N TT 00 jx> <c Si c o u „ so T3 C D © C O © O O wo © © C O © 00 © C O C N © oo C N © C O C O © oo C O © © ca E o t--o 9 o o o CM CO CN U H CD 43 £ CD > o co I cd C O CD CD l-< 3 cd CD CD 60 U H cd 4-5 CD CO 5 hJ M CD CD u U H CD 43 CD CD CD CQ CD cd H co «H—I O I co M - l o •e cd 135 CD <* 5 OK 1 cd ^ c S §~£ CD P H fe £ ^ CD CO CD * Is CD v 2 o h-1 CD c/ cd ^-^ c S S £ CD P H CD 9 fe O H CO > ~ £ ^ £ * is cd o CD w O O o o © O N o o © o © d N O o o d N O o o N O o o o o o N O o o O N © © O o o o o o o o o o o o CO T f C N o d O N vO I oo I i n ON O N oo o o N O C N O N C N C N CO CO CO © ©I vO C N N O N O N O © O N C N N O CO © © T f T T C N 00 ON CO T f N O T f C N O N T f CO © in co| »n T f © © N6 T f CO N O CO r - l C N CO CN © © T f t o C N >n C N C N C N >n C N i n C N <n C N >n C N l O C N in C N l O © CO 00 O N 00 l O in [ CO i n | CO T f vol T t <n| C N m CO T f I m T f 00 T f in CO ON C N i n co © N O vO OO m CO © N O © C N © N O C N © CO in CO CO CO in CO © © © © © © © © © oo © © O N © © vO © © in © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © N O O N CO © C N T f O i n vO C N ' I CO C N N O O N co CN IT) C N C N T f in O N CO © © © © N O T - H T f © T f © C N in t--O N T f N O O N T f T f T f OO CO | C N © CO oo C N © © T f C N IT) C N C N in C N vO C N in C N l O CN C N C N LO CN in CN © CO 00 O N CO CN T f T f T f T f © in CO in O N T f vO| T f T f OO CO CN CO 44 C ,. w 42 45 £3 o „ 6 0 U vO CO 8 vO oo vO CO © N O vTl 00 © CN © N O CN vO oo CN in CO CO 13 E o C O TT 9 o o o CM-C O CN U H CD X> a CD > O C N rt oo l-H e CD CD oo rt CD 60 »-< rt 43 CD oo 5 >—i M CD CD u CD 43 CD CD CD m C N J D rt H ca S - H o E* f rt <«-H O •c rt l o o CD v. £ 3 I CD £ ^ £ rt O P H W CD S3 rt P H CD •je-SS I s CD -3 O § O K . <D , < 3 CD P H CD S3 rt P H ^ £ ^ CD fcN £ O * S3 8 3 o © N O O © C O © C N C O O r--C O o o TT o ON C O o C O C O o o o o © o o o o" o o o o" T f Tt-C N © © C O ON ON C N WO O O |oo wo O N oo | C O C O C O o o o O wo | C O C N WO I— C O C O C O J od wo C O wo t — oo C N ON r-© N O T r ' 00 o © ON od oo C O I 00 I wo C O r-t — C O o T f ' T f wo ON wo | C O WO C O Tt-' WO wo wo C N C O C N O N O © WO | C N WO wo C N wo C N WO C N WO C N wo C N wo C N WO C N WO C N WO C N WO C N WO C N T I -C S C N WO C O TT C O NO C O N O C O Tt-ON C N T f C N C N t — < N T f c o N O C O i - -C O C N Tt " © WO TT wo C N wo NO TT C O C N o T f o O N W0 o T f o ON O TT C N © O N C N O T f C O o C O o o o © o o o © ON O O © C N C N O © oo C N o © C O T f o TT o o C N C O O N O o WO o N O O O O o o © o o o © o © I wo C N C O co ON I oo | © C N O C N ON C N 00 wo TT C N O N C N WO O N TT l < N ON C N TJ-oo wo O N O © © © ' C N C N r-ON C O 00 © T f C N WO T f 00 O N TT r-' oo ON* WO O N WO I C N wo oo i — Tt- C N © © C N W0 WO C N WO C N WO C N wo C N WO C N WO C N WO C N WO C N WO C N WO C N WO C N I wo C N T f C N C N C N 00 C O C O C O WO wo C N 1 N O C N C O WO C O wo C N C O © TT © TT WO T T © WO ON wo © N O © NO 00 WO wo C N '•a L D JZ e o <D „ so '•8 © TJ-© ON © T f © O N © TT C N © ON C N © TT c o 1> s p C N T t d II O) o o o CN i n C N S-i CO 4=> s CO > o CO f cd 0 0 c co CO U H co cd co e? cd 4 3 o CO Q h J 44 CO CO U H u U H CO 4 3 CD CD CO CQ CO CQ CO f c d loo o i f cd I 0 0 <H-H o tn c d 135 CO « c d , co CD P H c d ^ co P H ^ CD ^H S * S3 1 s cd co CD v i i o CO c P H >E & S E P H < J V £ co o I ^ v " c d CD P H ^ ^H B CD * S3 Is c d t o CD v i i o © © © O O O C N r -o r - -c o O N T t o o o o © vd| o o o C N C N NO NO C N I CO | CO CO vO CN C N C N CO "vf CO o d T t 0 0 o o "vt M o m ON N O C N o vO o vO o lO o I T ) o vO C N NO CO ve-i n i n T t c o O N CO o i n T t i n C N c o CN C O C N O O C N CO C N C N O O C N O © o m o o © T t i n VO CO o o d vo o C N I t -V O V O o C N m C N | C N O N C N CN CN i n CO I o o I d T t T t © i n N O i n m i n i n o i n o o i n o i n o i n N O co NO m T t d CO i n CO ON C O m T t i n C N c o CN CO C N o o CN CO CN C N 0 0 C N o o o i n T t C N CO T t CO m o d o d r - -i n NO CO T t NO CO o o o o o o i n d o d i n NO C N O d i n S3 a 1 4 2 i n c o S3 O CJ i, 6 0 T 3 CJ CN CO CO CJ •*-» cd o gure B. l - Estimated (a) effective storm hyetograph and (b) discharge hydrograph for the tributary upstream of rock-riffle 2 on Brunette River (sampling date Jan. 19, 2001) 0.03 100 200 300 400 Time (min) 500 600 700 100 200 300 400 Time (min) 500 600 700 Figure B.2 - Estimated (a) effective storm hyetograph and (b) discharge hydrograph for the tributary upstream of rock-riffle 2 on Brunette River (sampling date Jan. 21, 2001) 247 0.04 =3 0.01 50 100 150 200 Time (min) 250 300 350 50 100 150 200 Time (min) 250 300 350 Figure B.3 - Estimated (a) effective storm hyetograph and (b) discharge hydrograph for the tributary upstream of rock-riffle 2 on Brunette River (sampling date Feb. 2, 2001) 248 0.04 •a 0.03 g 0.02 "3 0.01 O H (a) 50 50 100 150 Time (min) 200 100 150 Time (min) 200 250 300 250 300 Figure B.4 - Estimated (a) effective storm hyetograph and (b) discharge hydrograph for the tributary upstream of rock-riffle 2 on Brunette River (sampling date Mar. 27, 2001) 249 A P P E N D I X C . S T U D Y R E A C H B E D M A T E R I A L D A T A SUMMARY This Appendix contains the data collected during a series of random-walk Wolman pebble counts (Wolman 1954) performed to characterize the surface bed material in the study reaches (see Chapter 2). Samples were truncated at a b-axis lower limit of 8 mm after Church et al. (1987). Included are the data collected for the individual upstream beds and riffles studied (Tables C.1-C.6), a summary of the resultant characteristic grain sizes (Tables C.7-C.11), and the corresponding study reach grain size distribution for all upstream bed, riffle, and collected data combined (Figs. C.1-C.6). For Ouillet Creek, the data collected along the thalweg immediately upstream and downstream of the constructed rock-riffles, and from the bed material that was excavated in the summer of 2000 to increase the channel capacity upstream of rock-riffle 8 (Table C.3) have been incorporated into the grain size distribution for the entire reach (Table C . l l ; Fig. C.3c). The excavated material data is also included in the upstream beds distribution (Table C . l l ; Fig. C.3a), and was used in the determination of the characteristic grain sizes for rock-riffle 8 (Table C.8). For Chapman Creek C, the data for the channel bar located upstream of mini-reach 2 was included in the upstream beds and entire reach grain size distribution for this study reach (Table C l 1; Figs. C.6a, c); however, it was not used in the estimation of the grain size distribution for mini-reach 2 (Table CIO). The data for the bar upstream of mini-reach 6 were not incorporated in the grain size distributions for either Chapman Creek C or N since it was collected outside of 250 the study reach boundaries. Finally, the additional data supplied by R. Newbury (Table C.5) is included in the entire reach grain size distribution for Chapman Creek N only (Table C . l l ; Fig. C.5c). 251 Table C. 1 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Beecher Creek U Mini-reach 13 Mini-reach 12 Mini-reach 11 Mini-reach 10 Upstream Riffle Upstream Riffle Upstream Riffle Upstream Riffle bed (JV=26) bed (N=26) bed (N=26) bed (N=26) (N=26) (7V=26) (N=26) (N=26) 1 1.5 0.8 1 2 3 1.5 1 1 2 1 4 2 4.5 3 1 1.5 2 1 5 2 4.5 4 3.5 1.5 3 2.5 5.5 2.5 5 4 4 1.5 4 4 6 4 6.5 4 4 2 4.5 4 6.5 4 6.5 4.5 5 2 5.5 5 9 4 7 4.5 5 3 6 5.5 9 4.5 9.5 5 5.5 3.5 6.5 5.5 9 4.5 10 5 6 3.5 6.5 5.5 10 5 10.5 5.5 6.5 3.5 6.5 5.5 10 5.5 11 7 8 3.5 7.5 5.5 12 5.5 11 7 8 4 14.5 6 15 5.5 11 8 12.5 4 15 6.5 17 6 12 8 15 4 16 8 18 6 14.5 8 15 4 17 8 19.5 7 15 9 21 5 17.5 8.5 20 8 15 9 22 5.5 19 8.5 20 8 16 9 22 5.5 25 9.5 21 8.5 23 11 22 5.5 29.5 10 21 9 25 11 26 5.5 32 10.5 21 11 29 15.5 30 6 34 14 24 21 31 17 35 6.5 34 14.5 24 21 36 19 35 7 35 17 24 28 40 27 50 20 40 36 28 30 57 40 50 59 147 80 45 85 104 60 70 continued.... 252 Table C . l - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Beecher Creek U (continued) Mini-reach 9 Mini-reach 8 Mini-reach 7 Upstream bed Riffle Upstream bed Riffle Upstream bed Riffle (N=26) (7V=26) (7V=26) (N=26) (N= 52) (N=52) 1 3 2 2.5 1 7 1 14 1.5 5 2.5 3.5 1.5 7.5 3 14 . 2 6 2.5 4.5 1.5 8 3.5 14 4 6.5 3 5 2 8 3.5 15 4.5 7.5 4.5 6.5 3 8 4 15 4.5 8.5 4.5 8 3 9 4 16 5 10 4.5 8 3 9 4 17 5.5 12 4.5 10 3 9.5 4 18 5.5 12 4.5 11 4 10 4.5 19 6 13 5 12 4 11 5.5 20 6 13.5 5 12 4 11.5 5.5 20 6 14 5.5 14 4 12 6 20 6 15 5.5 15 4 12 6 22 7 15.5 6 15 4.5 13 6 23 7 16 6.5 15.5 5 13 7 25 7.5 16 7 16.5 5 14 7 32 8 16 7 18 5 14 8 32 10 19 7.5 20.5 6 15 8 32 12 19 7.5 24 6 15.5 9 32 19 19 8 29 6 16 9 33 20 20 8 31 6 18 9 37 22 25 8.5 31 7 27 9.5 40 27 28 9 31 7 27 10 45 30 29 10 32 7 59 10.5 50 37 37 11 43 7 65 12 65 47 43 35 112 7 75 12.5 100 253 Table C.2 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Beecher Creek L Mini-reach 3 Mini-reach 2 Mini-reach 1 Upstream bed Riffle Upstream bed Riffle Upstream bed Riffle (N=26) (7V=26) {N=26) (N=26) (7V=39) (N=26) 0.8 1 0.8 5 2.5 3.5 0.8 1.5 0.8 6 3 4 1 2 0.8 7 3 5 1.5 4 0.8 9.5 3.5 6 1.5 5 0.8 9.5 4 6 1.5 5 1 10 4.5 6.5 2 5.5 1 10 4.5 7 2.5 5.5 1.5 12 5 8 2.5 7 1.5 12 5 9 3 7 2 17 5 9 3 7 2.5 17 5.5 12 3.5 8.5 2.5 19 6.5 12 3.5 10 3 19.5 7 12 4 10 3.5 23 8 13 4 11 3.5 24 8 16 5 13 4 25 8 16 8 16 5 27 8.5 16 9 16 5 27 9 17 10 20 5.5 30 9 20 12 24 6 32 9.5 23 12 27 6.5 32 10 23 16 32 7 36 10 26 17 32 7 37 10 26 26 32 10.5 45 10.5 45 47 35 45 65 11 49 63 36 58 74 11.5 88 12 12 12 12.5 14 14 16 18.5 19 25 26 35 63 254 Table C.3 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Ouillet Creek Mini-reach 8 Mini-reach 7 Mini-reach 6 Upstream bed Riffle Upstream bed Riffle Upstream bed Riffle (#=48) (#=48) (#=50) (#=47) (#=38) (#=48) 2.4 7.8 0.8 8.5 1 4.6 1 8.4 1 4.5 0.8 10.3 2.6 8 1 9 1 5 1 9 1 4.5 1.5 12 2.8 8 1 9.2 1 5 1.5 10.5 1.2 4.8 1.5 13.5 3 8 1.5 11.7 1.5 5 1.5 11 1.4 4.9 1.9 15.5 3 9 1.5 15 1.5 5.3 1.6 11.8 1.5 5 2 15.5 3 9 2.3 15 2 6.1 1.6 12 2 5.9 2 16 3 9.2 2.5 17.8 2.3 6.5 1.9 17.3 2 6.5 2 18 3.6 9.5 2.8 18 2.4 7 2 17.5 2 6.8 2.2 20 3.8 10 2.9 20 2.4 7.5 2 18 2.1 7.3 2.5 22 4 10.5 3.5 20 2.5 7.5 2.1 19 2.2 9 2.8 22.5 4 11 4 22 2.5 7.8 2.3 19.5 2.2 10 4 23 4.2 12 4 30 2.7 7.9 2.5 20.6 2.3 10.5 5.5 29 4.4 12 4.2 32 2.8 8 3 22 2.5 14 5.5 36 4.5 13 4.4 34 3 8 3.7 28 2.6 18 5.8 39 4.6 13 5 38 3.1 9 3.9 30 2.6 34 6.1 48 4.7 13.5 5 38.5 3.3 9 4 30 3 41 6.4 49 4.9 13.5 5.4 43 3.5 9.5 4.6 32.5 3.2 46 6.5 54 5 14.5 5.8 50 3.5 10 5 36 3.4 54 6.6 65 5 16 6.1 53 4 11.5 5 40 3.5 64 7 72 5.5 16.5 6.9 54 4 14 6.1 42 8.9 88 5.6 18.5 7.7 65 4 14 7.2 45.5 9 88 5.8 19 8 65.5 4.4 31 7.8 61 10 106 6 30 8.4 106 4.4 33.5 8 172 10 126 6 118 8.5 160 4.4 4.6 34 41.5 8 10 131 continued.... 255 Table C.3 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Ouillet Creek (continued) Mini-reach 5A Mini-reach 5 Mini-reach 4 Upstream Riffle Upstream bed Riffle Upstream bed Riffle bed* (N= 50) (A/=49) (7V=49) (7V=47) 45) 2.5 9 1 4 1 7 1 4.5 1 11 3 9.5 1 4 1 7.1 1 4.6 1 13 3.5 10 1.5 4 1 9 1 5 1 16 3.5 10 1.5 4.5 1.5 9.2 1.3 5 1.3 17 4 10 1.6 4.5 1.5 9.5 1.5 5 2 19 4 10 2 4.5 1.8 11 1.5 5 2.5 20 4.5 10 2.4 5 2.1 12 1.5 5.4 2.5 20 5 11 2.5 5 2.2 15 1.8 5.6 2.5 21.5 5 11 2.5 5 2.9 16 2 5.7 2.5 22 5 11 2.5 5.3 3 16 2 5.9 2.5 22 5 12 2.5 6.3 3.5 19 2.1 6 2.7 26 6 13 2.5 6.5 3.5 20 2.4 6 3 40 6 13 2.6 7 3.7 26 2.4 6.6 3 44 6 13 2.7 8 4 37 2.7 8 3 52 6 14 3 8 4.4 40 3 9 3.5 58 6.3 15 3 9 4.4 43 3 11 3.5 61 6.5 15 3 11 4.7 44 3 11 3.5 66 7 17 3.5 11.5 4.7 52 3 11.5 4.2 69 7 18 3.5 12 5 61 3 11.6 4.5 80 7 18 3.5 12 5 63 3.2 14.4 4.5 82 8 18 3.5 15 5 67 3.5 15.5 6.5 116 8 18 3.5 16 5.5 87 3.8 26.5 8 133 9 20 3.5 23 5.6 99 4 52 9.5 9 24 3.5 42 5.6 114 4 9 37 3.6 6.5 * not measured continued.... 256 Table C.3 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Ouillet Creek (continued) Mini-reach 3A Mini-reach 3 Mini-reach 2 Upstream bed Riffle Upstream bed Riffle Upstream bed Riffle (N= 44) (N=49) (N=42) (A/=47) (N= 46) (N=48) 0.8 4 0.8 6 0.8 6.5 1.5 11 4 1 11 1 4.6 1.5 6 1.5 7 2 13 1 4 1 12 1 5 1.8 7 1.7 7 2 14 1 4.5 1.5 12.5 1.5 5 2 7.5 2 8.3 2 14 1 4.7 1.5 13 1.9 5 2.1 7.6 2 8.3 2.5 15 1 5 1.5 13 2 6 2.1 8 2.3 9 2.5 15 1.8 5 2 15 2 6.5 2.5 8.3 2.5 9 3 15 2 5.5 3 15 2 7.1 2.5 9.5 2.5 9.5 3.5 16.5 2 6 3 16 2.1 7.5 2.5 10 2.5 10 4 19 2 6 3.5 16 2.1 7.5 2.6 10 3 10.6 4 22 2 6 3.7 16.5 2.5 7.8 2.8 15 3.5 11 4 23 2.3 6 4 19 2.5 8 3.1 15 4.5 12 4.5 24 2.5 6 4 20 2.5 8.8 3.5 16.5 4.5 13 4.5 26 2.5 7 4 22 2.6 9.4 4 18 4.5 13 7 29 2.5 9 4.5 24.5 3 12.5 4 20 4.5 14 7 33 2.8 10 5 28 3 13.5 4 20 5 15 7 38 3 11 5.4 50 3 14 4.2 21.5 5 18 7 44 3 12.5 5.5 53 3 15.5 4.5 22 5.5 21 7.5 45 3 13 5.5 62 3.5 20 5 23 6 30 7.5 71 3 15.5 8 74 4 21 5 27 6 32 8 76 3 18 8 76 4 21.2 5.2 27 6 136 8 84 3.2 29.5 8.5 83 4 61 5.5 46 8.5 86 4 59 9 91 6 78 8.5 127 4 141 9 98 6 6 131 9.5 9 129 continued.... 257 Table C.3 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Ouillet Creek (continued) Mini-reach 1 Upstream bed Riffle Excavated from riffle 8 upstream bed (#=263) 1 4.5 0.8 4.5 0.8 1.5 2.4 3.4 4.6 7 9.8 16.5 1.4 5.5 1 5 0.8 1.5 2.5 3.4 5 7 9.8 16.5 1.5 5.5 1 5 0.8 1.5 2.5 3.5 5 7 10 17 1.5 6 1.4 6 0.8 1.5 2.5 3.5 5 7 10 17 1.5 6 1.5 6.5 1 1.5 2.5 3.5 5 7 10 17 1.5 6 1.5 7 1 1.5 2.5 3.5 5 7 10 18 2 6 1.8 8 1 1.5 2.5 3.5 5 7 10.1 18 2 6.5 2 9 1 1.5 2.5 3.5 5.3 7 10.5 18.5 2 6.5 2 10 1 1.5 2.5 3.5 5.4 7.2 10.5 18.5 2 7 2.5 13 1 1.5 2.5 3.7 5.5 7.5 10.5 19 2.5 7 2.5 13 1 1.5 2.5 4 5.5 7.5 11 19.5 2.6 7.5 2.5 18.5 1 1.5 2.5 4 5.5 7.5 11 20 3 8.3 2.5 25 1 1.5 2.5 4 5.5 8 11 20 3 9 2.5 28 1 1.5 3 4 5.5 8 11 20.5 3 9.8 2.5 42 1 1.5 3 4 6 8 11 20.5 3.5 11.5 2.5 43 1 1.7 3 4 6 8 11 21 3.6 11.5 2.5 62 1 2 3 4 6 8 11 21 4 12.5 2.6 71 1 2 3 4 6 8 11.5 21.5 4 12.5 3 74 1 2 3 4 6 8.5 12 22 4 14 3.4 75 1 2 3 4 6 8.5 12 22 4 14.5 3.7 76 1 2 3 4 6 8.5 12 22 4 19 4 80 1 2 3 4 6 9 12 23 4.5 20 4.2 80 1 2 3 4 6.5 9 12.5 23.5 4.5 43.5 4.5 115 1 2 3 4 6.5 9 13 26 4.5 1 2 3 4 6.5 9 13.5 26.5 1 2 3 4.3 6.5 9 13.5 28.5 1 2 3 4.4 7 9 13.5 30 1.2 2.2 3 4.5 7 9.1 14 30.5 1.2 2.2 3 4.5 7 9.3 14 31 1.3 2.2 3 4.5 7 9.5 14 34 1.4 2.2 3 4.5 7 9.5 15 34 1.5 2.3 3 4.5 7 9.5 15 40 1.5 2.3 3.2 4.5 7 9.5 16 continued.... 258 Table C.3 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Ouillet Creek (continued) Ouillet Creek thalweg without riffles (#=301) 0.8 2.2 3.4 4.5 6.1 7.8 10.2 16 0.9 2.2 3.5 4.6 6.1 7.8 10.3 16 1.1 2.2 3.5 4.6 6.2 7.8 10.4 16.4 1.2 2.3 3.5 4.6 6.2 7.8 10.5 17 1.2 2.3 3.6 4.6 6.3 7.9 11.2 17 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.6 6.4 8 11.4 17.2 1.3 2.4 3.6 4.7 6.4 8 11.4 17.4 1.3 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.5 8.2 11.5 17.5 1.4 2.4 3.7 4.8 6.5 8.2 11.5 17.5 1.4 2.4 3.8 4.8 6.5 8.2 11.8 17.8 1.4 2.5 3.8 4.9 6.6 8.3 11.8 19.3 1.5 2.6 3.8 4.9 6.6 8.4 11.9 20.5 1.6 2.6 3.8 5 6.6 8.4 12.2 21 1.7 2.7 3.9 5 6.6 8.5 12.3 21.2 1.7 2.7 3.9 5 6.7 8.5 12.4 21.5 1.7 2.7 3.9 5.2 6.7 8.5 12.9 21.8 1.7 2.8 3.9 5.2 6.7 8.5 12.9 22.5 1.7 2.8 3.9 5.2 6.7 8.6 13 22.5 1.7 2.8 4 5.2 6.8 8.9 13.1 22.7 1.8 2.8 4 5.3 6.8 9 13.2 22.9 1.8 2.8 4 5.3 6.9 9.1 13.3 23 1.8 2.8 4.1 5.3 6.9 9.1 13.4 23 1.8 2.8 4.1 5.4 7 9.2 13.8 23.5 1.9 2.9 4.1 5.4 7.3 9.4 13.8 24 1.9 3 4.1 5.5 7.5 9.5 13.9 24.2 2 3 4.1 5.5 7.5 9.6 14 24.5 2 3 4.2 5.6 7.5 9.6 14 24.8 2 3.1 4.2 5.6 7.5 9.6 14.1 27 2 3.1 4.3 5.6 7.5 9.7 14.2 27.5 2 3.1 4.3 5.7 7.5 9.8 14.3 28.5 2 3.1 4.3 5.7 7.5 9.8 14.3 28.6 2 3.2 4.3 5.8 7.5 9.8 14.5 29 2 3.2 4.4 5.8 7.6 9.8 14.5 31 2 3.2 4.4 5.8 7.6 9.8 14.6 32.5 2 3.2 4.4 5.9 7.7 9.8 14.9 34.8 2.2 3.3 4.4 6 7.7 10 15.4 2.2 3.4 4.5 6 7.7 10 15.4 2.2 3.4 4.5 6 7.8 10.2 15.9 259 Table C.4 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Brunette River Mini-reach 3 Mini-reach 2 Upstream bed Riffle Upstream bed Riffle (#=104) (#=109) (#=104) (#=104) 1 3 8 1 9 20 1 3 5 1 3.5 8.5 1 3 8 1 9 21 1 3 6 1 3.5 8.5 1 3 8 1 9 22 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 9 1 3 9 1 9 23 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 9 1 3.5 9 1 9 24 1.5 3.5 6 1 4 9 1.5 3.5 9 1 10 25 1.5 3.5 6 1 4 10 1.5 4 10 1.5 10 30 1.5 3.5 6 1.5 4 10.5 1.5 4 10 1.5 11 30 1.5 3.5 6 1.5 4 11 1.5 4 10 1.5 12 30 1.5 3.5 6 1.5 4 11 2 4 10 2 12 30 1.5 3.5 7 1.5 4 11 2 4 10 2 12 33 1.5 3.5 7 1.5 4 13 2 4 11 2.5 12 35 1.5 3.5 7 1.5 4 15 2 4.5 12 3 12 35 2 4 7.5 1.5 4 22 2 5 12 3 12 36 2 4 8 1.5 4.5 24 2 5 13 3 13 40 2 4 8 1.5 4.5 30 2 5 13 3 13 42 2 4 8 2 4.5 30 2 5 14 3 14 45 2 4 8 2 5 30 2 5 14 3 14 54 2 4 9 2 5 30 2 5 15 3 14 55 2 4 9 2 5 31 2 5 15 3 14 59 2 4 10 2 5 32 2 5 15 3.5 14.5 60 2 4.5 10 2.5 5.5 33 2 5 15 3.5 15 65 2 4.5 10 2.5 5.5 33 2 5 15 3.5 15 68 2 5 11 3 6 38 2 5 15 3.5 16 70 2.5 5 12 3 6 40 2 5 17 4 16 70 2.5 5 15 3 6 49 2 6 18 4 16 71 2.5 5 15 3 6 52 2 6 19 4 18 75 2.5 5 16 3 6 60 2 6 20 5 18 75 2.5 5 16 3 6 62 2.5 6 21 5 18 75 2.5 5 17 3 6.5 65 2.5 6.5 21 6 19 79 2.5 5 18 3 7 65 2.5 7 30 6.5 20 80 2.5 5 26 3 7 70 3 7 30 7 20 85 2.5 5 28 3 8 75 3 8 35 7 20 87 3 5 28 3 8 85 3 8 37 7 20 90 3 5 30 3.5 8 100 3 8 8 8 8 20 20 90 95 3 5 3.5 8 continued.... 260 Table C.4 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Brunette River (continued) Upstream bed Riffle (#=104) (#=104) i 2.5 5.5 1 2.5 11 i 3 5.5 1 2.5 14 i 3 5.5 1 2.5 15 i 3 6 1 2.5 15 i 3 6 1 3 15 i 3 6 1 3 15 1.5 3.5 6 1 3 15.5 1.5 3.5 6 1.5 3 17 1.5 3.5 6 1.5 3.5 18 1.5 3.5 6 1.5 3.5 18 1.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 3.5 20 1.5 3.5 6.5 1.5 3.5 20 1.5 4 8 1.5 3.5 23 1.5 4 8 1.5 4 25 1.5 4 8 2 4 28 1.5 4 8 2 4 30 1.5 4 8 2 4 37 2 4 8.5 2 4.5 38 2 4 9 2 4.5 45 2 4 10 2 5 45 2 4.5 10 2 5 45 2 4.5 10 2 5 48 2 4.5 10.5 2 5 55 2 5 11 2 5 58 2 5 12 2 6 62 2 5 12 2 7 63 2 5 12 2 7 64 2 5 12 2 7 65 2 5 13 2.5 7 68 2.5 5 13.5 2.5 8 75 2.5 5 14 2.5 8 75 2.5 5 15 2.5 9 79 2.5 5 16 2.5 10 90 2.5 5 18 2.5 10 90 2.5 5.5 2.5 11 261 Table C.5 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Chapman Creek N Mini-reach N3 Mini-reach N2 Upstream bed Riffle Upstream bed Riffle (#=107) (#=101) (#=108) (#=104) 1 9 27 1 10 30 1 8 23 1.5 14 35 1.5 10 28 1 10.5 30 1 8 24 2 14 40 1.5 10 29 1.5 12 34 1.5 9 25.5 2.5 15 40 1.5 10 30 1.5 12.5 34 1.5 9 26 2.5 15 40 1.5 10.5 30 2 13 37 1.5 9 26 2.5 15 41 2 11 30 2 13 37 2 9 28 3 15 43 2 11 31 2.5 13 38 2 9 29 4 15 44 2 11 32 2.5 14 40 2.5 9.5 33 4 16 46 2.5 11 32 2.5 14 40 3 9.5 34 4 16 46 2.5 11 35 2.5 15 40 3 9.5 35 4.5 16 47 3 11.5 35 3 15 40 3 11 35 5 17 49 3 11.5 36 3 15 40 3.5 11 35 5 18 52 3 12.5 36 3 15 40 3.5 12 38 5 18 55 4 13 36 3.5 17 42 3.5 12 38 6 19 60 4 13 38 3.5 17 47 3.5 12 39 6.5 20 61 4 14 39 4 17 49 3.5 12 40 6.5 20 69 4.5 14 40 4 17 52 4 12 42 7 20 70 5 15 41 4 18 52 4 14 45 7 21 71 5 15 41 4.5 19 57 4.5 14.5 47 7.5 24 71 5 15 42 5 19 59 4.5 14.5 48 7.5 24 74 5 16 43 5 19 60 4.5 14.5 49 8 25 76 5 16 45 5 19 61 5 15 52 8 26 83 5 16 45 5.5 20 67 5 15 55 10 26 85 5.5 17 45 7 21 74 5 15 55 10 27 86 6 18 52 7 21.5 79 5 15 57 10 28 95 6 19 56 7 23 90 5 16 58 10 28 97 7 20 65 7.5 24 90 5 16 70 10.5 29 100 7 23 73 8 24 102 5 17 70 11 29 125 7 23 74 9 24 104 6 18 75 11 30 140 7 25 76 9 25 125 7 18 76 11 31 140 7 25 94 9 25 150 7 19 81 12 32 141 7.5 26 111 9 25 172 7.5 20 108 13 34 151 7.5 26 126 10 27 300 8 20 121 14 34 157 7.5 26 169 10 28 8 20 121 14 34 285 8 26.5 179 8 21.5 145 14 35 9 27 8 22 169 continued.... 262 Table C.5 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Chapman Creek N (continued) Mini-reach NI Upstream bed Riffle Entire* (#=93) (#=104) (#=49) 1 5.5 20 0.8 11 34.5 8 20 1 5.5 20 1 11 35 8 21 1.5 5.5 22 1.5 11 35 9 21 1.5 6 22 2 11 35 10 22 1.5 6 25 2.5 11.5 39 10 23 2 6 26 2.5 11.5 39 11 23 2 6.5 27 2.5 12 39 11 25 2 6.5 27.5 2.5 12 42 12 26 2.5 7 29 3 12.5 42 13 26 2.5 7 29 3.5 12.5 43 13 26 2.5 7.5 30 3.5 13 43 13 26 2.5 8 30 4 13 44 14 26 2.5 8 30 4 14 44 14 27 3 8.5 37 4 14 45 15 28 3 8.5 38 4 15 45 15 29 3 9 40 4,5 15 45 16 30 3 9 40 4.5 16 50 16 30 3 9 43 5 17 57.5 17 31 3 9 45 5 17 59 17 35 3.5 9 47 6 18 60 18 36 3.5 10 48 6 18 65 18 38 4 10 50 6.5 20.5 65 19 42 4 10 65 6.5 21 70 19 60 4 11 69 7 23 70 20 90 4 11 72 7 25 70 20 4.5 12 96 7.5 25 75 4.5 12 100 8 25 77 5 14 100 8 27 80 5 14 111 8 27 95 5 15 111 8 29 101 5 15 117 8.5 29 118 9 33 125 9 33 130 9 34 165 10 34 data supplied by R. Newbury 263 Table C.6 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Chapman Creek C Mini-reach 6 Mini-reach 5 Upstream bed Riffle Upstream bed Riffle (#=108) (#=106) (#=112) (#=107) 0.8 4 9.5 0.8 7 44 0.8 8 20 0.8 9.5 42 1.5 4.5 10 0.8 7.5 45 1 8 20 1 10 43 1.5 4.5 10 0.8 9 48 1.5 8 20 1 10 45 1.5 4.5 10 0.8 10 49 2 8 22 1.5 10.5 45 1.5 4.5 10.5 0.8 11 50 2 8 22 1.5 11 47 1.5 5 11 1 12 50 2.5 9.5 24 1.5 11 49 1.5 5 11.5 1 12 52 2.5 10 26 1.5 11 50 1.5 5 12 1 12 52 2.5 10 27 2 11.5 53.5 1.5 5 12.5 1 13 53 2.5 10 28 2 12 55 1.5 5 13 1 14 55 2.5 10 29 2 12 55 1.5 5.5 13 1 14 56 3 11 30 2.5 12 57 2 5.5 15 1 14 57 3 11 30 2.5 13 58 2 5.5 15 1 14 59 3 11.5 32 2.5 13 60 2 5.5 16 1.5 15.5 61 3 12 34 3 16 60 2 6 16 1.5 17 66 3 12 35 3 19 63 2 6 16.5 1.5 17 67 3.5 12 35 3.5 20 70 2 6 18 1.5 20 68 3.5 13 38 3.5 20 70 2 6 20 2 20 68 4 13 41 3.5 23 73 2.5 6 20 2 22 70 4 14 45 3.5 26 82 2.5 6 21 2 25 71 4 14 48 4 28 83 2.5 6.5 22 2.5 26 72 4.5 14 50 4 30 85 2.5 6.5 23 2.5 28 74 4.5 14.5 50 4 30 85 3 6.5 24 2.5 30 84 5 15 59 4 31 85 3 7 25 3 30 85 5 15 60 4 32 88 3 7 26 3 32 88 5 15.5 60 4.5 32 95 3 7 28 3 32 90 5 16 69 5 34 100 3 8 28 3 34 90 5 17 70 5 35 109 3 8 30 3.5 35 93 5 17 71 5.5 35 114 3 8 33 3.5 38 93 5 17 75 5.5 35 131 3.5 8 35 3.5 38 100 6 17 80 6 37 142 3.5 8 36 4 40 100 6 19 99 6 37 150 3.5 8 55 4 40 102 6.5 19 105 6 37 150 3.5 8 75 5 42 105 6.5 19 113 7 37 154 3.5 8.5 75 6 43 140 7 19 120 7 40 170 4 8.5 80 6 44 214 7 19.5 132 7.5 41 198 4 9 180 7 7 7.5 8 20 20 175 263 9 41.5 continued.... 264 Table C.6 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Chapman Creek C (continued) Mini-reach 4 Mini-reach 2 Upstream bed Riffle Upstream bed Riffle (#=103) (#=105) (#=106) (#=102) 0.8 6.5 * 25 0.8 9 35 1 8 17 1.5 13 34 1 8 '25 1.5 9.5 37.5 1 8 17 1.5 14 36 1 8.5 26 2 10 39 1 8 17 1.5 15 37 1.5 9 29.5 2 10.5 40 1 8 17 2.5 15 37 1.5 10 32 2 11 43 1 8 18 3 15 38 2 10 32 2.5 11 45 1.5 8 20 3 15.5 38 2 10.5 34 2.5 11 45 1.5 8 20 3 15.5 39 2 10.5 35 2.5 11 45 2 8 21 3 16 39 2.5 11 35 3 11.5 49 2 8 21 3 16 39 2.5 11 35 3 13 50 2 8 24 3.5 16 40 2.5 11.5 35 3 15 50 2 9 24 4 17 42 3 11.5 35 3 15 52 2 10 26 5 17.5 42 3.5 12 35 3.5 15 52.5 2.5 10 26.5 6 18 42 3.5 12.5 35 3.5 16 55 2.5 10.5 28 6 19 42 3.5 12.5 37 3.5 18 58 2.5 11 28 6.5 19 43 4 13 38 4 19 60 2.5 11 28 7 19 44 4 13 39 4 21 64 3 11.5 29 7 19 45 4 14 40 4 22 64 3 12 30 8 19 46 4.5 14 45 4 22 65 3 12 31 8 20 47 4.5 15 45 4.5 24 84 3.5 12 32 9 21.5 48 4.5 15.5 47 4.5 24.5 85 3.5 12 33 9.5 22 49 5 16 47 4.5 25 95 4 13 33 9.5 23 49 5 16 47 5 25 95 4 13 42 10 23 50 5 16 50 5 26 100 4 13 44 10 23 52 5 16 58 5 27 108 4 13 53 10 24 55 5 17 64 5 30 115 4.5 13 57 10.5 26 58 5 17 65 5.5 30 118 4.5 14 75 11 27 60 5 18 71 5.5 30 125 5 14 79 11 29 65 5 18 95 5.5 32 130 5 14 82 11 30 67 5.5 20 120 6 32 130 6 15 84 11 31 72 5.5 21 142 6.5 34 139 6 15 90 11.5 33 75 5.5 21 165 7 34 145 6 15 102 12 33 82 6 22 193 7.5 34 148 6 15 103 12 33 94 6.5 23 255 8 35 182 6.5 16 117 12 33 121 6.5 9 35 188 6.5 7 17 124 continued.... 265 Table C.6 - Truncated Sediment B-axis Lengths (cm) Sampled in Chapman Creek C (continued) Channel bar upstream of riffle 6* (7V==292) Channel bar upstream of riffle 0.8 2 3 4.5 7 9.5 11.5 19 1 3.5 7.5 17 1 2 3 4.5 7 9.5 11.5 19 1 3.5 8 18 1 2.5 3 4.5 7 9.5 12 19 1 3.5 8 18 1 2.5 3.5 4.5 7 9.5 12 19 1 3.5 8 18.5 1 2.5 3.5 5 7 9.5 12 19 1 3.5 8 19 1 2.5 3.5 5 7 9.5 12.5 19.5 1 3.5 8 19 1 2.5 3.5 5 7 10 13 20 1 3.5 8 20 1 2.5 3.5 5 7 10 13 20 1 3.5 8 20 1 2.5 3.5 5 7 10 13 21 1 3.5 8.5 21 1 2.5 3.5 5 7 10 13 21 1.5 4 8.5 21 1 2.5 3.5 5 7.5 10 13.5 21 1.5 4 8.5 22 1 2.5 3.5 5 8 10 13.5 21 1.5 4 8.5 23 1 2.5 3.5 5 8 10 14 21 1.5 4 8.5 23 1 2.5 3.5 5 8 10 14 21.5 1.5 4 9.5 23.5 1 2.5 3.5 5 8 10 14 22 1.5 4 9.5 24 1 2.5 3.5 5 8 10 14 22 2 4 10 24 1.5 2.5 3.5 5 8 ' .10 14.5 22.5 2 4.5 10 24 1.5 2.5 3.5 5.5 8 10.5 14.5 23 2 4.5 11 25 1.5 2.5 4 5.5 8 10.5 15 23 2 5 11 25 1.5 2.5 4 5.5 8.5 10.5 15 23 2 5 11 25.5 1.5 2.5 4 5.5 8.5 10.5 15 23.5 2 5 11 26 1.5 3 4 6 8.5 10.5 15.5 24 2 5.5 11 26 1.5 3 4 6 8.5 11 16 25.5 2.5 5.5 11.5 26 1.5 3 4 6 8.5 11 16 27 2.5 6 11.5 28 2 3 4 6 9 11 16 27 2.5 6 11.5 28 2 3 4 6 9 11 16 28 2.5 6 12 30 2 3 4 6 9 11 16 29 2.5 6 13 30 2 3 4 6 9 11 16.5 29 2.5 6 13 30 2 3 4 6 9 11 17 29 2.5 6 13.5 32 2 3 4.5 6 9 11 17 30.5 2.5 6 14 32.5 2 3 4.5 6.5 9 11 17 34 2.5 6.5 14.5 33 2 3 4.5 6.5 9 11 17.5 37 2.5 6.5 14.5 34 2 3 4.5 6.5 9 11 17.5 38 2.5 6.5 15 34 2 3 4.5 6.5 9 11 18 38 2.5 6.5 15.5 38 2 3 4.5 6.5 9 11 18 43 2.5 6.5 16 44 2 3 4.5 6.5 9 11 19 45 3 7 16 44 2 3 4.5 7 3 3 3 7 7 7 16 16.5 17 51.5 78 * outside of mini-reach boundary 266 Table C.l - Summary of Select (a) Upstream Bed, (b) Riffle, and (c) Mini-reach Characteristic Grain Sizes for Beecher Creek Rock-riffle N £>35 (cm) D50 (cm) D65 (cm) £>84 (cm) D90 (cm) (a) upstream bed 13 26 3.5 4.0 5.3 6.3 10.9 12 26 5.5 6.3 8.5 14.3 22.7 11 26 4.7 5.8 8.0 21.0 28.6 10 26 5.2 8.0 9.0 18.4 30.9 9 26 5.7 6.5 9.1 25.4 32.1 8 26 4.7 5.8 7.3 8.8 10.3 7 52 6.0 7.0 9.7 15.3 24.3 3 26 2.7 3.8 8.6 16.7 32.3 2 26 1.7 3.3 5.0 7.0 20.9 1 39 8.0 9.5 11.5 17.5 25.0 (b) riffle reach 13 26 6.5 14.8 18.3 34.0 36.5 12 26 9.5 16.0 20.0 24.0 25.2 11 26 10.2 11.5 15.6 34.4 45.1 10 26 6.2 13.8 22.0 35.0 50.0 9 26 12.5 15.3 17.7 27.0 31.4 8 26 11.5 15.0 19.4 31.0 35.3 7 52 8.6 13.3 18.5 32.0 39.1 3 26 7.0 10.0 16.0 32.0 32.9 2 26 14.3 21.3 27.0 36.7 51.0 1 26 9.0 12.5 16.6 26.0 46.2 (c) mini-reach 13 52 4.0 5.5 6.7 27.3 34.0 12 52 6.3 9.0 14.2 21.0 24.0 11 52 6.0 8.8 11.5 28.5 34.5 10 52 5.8 8.0 15.0 28.6 38.5 9 52 7.0 12.0 16.0 26.0 29.7 8 52 6.3 8.0 11.5 26.6 31.0 7 104 7.0 9.0 14.0 25.4 32.5 3 52 4.0 7.0 11.5 26.5 32.0 2 52 5.0 8.3 17.0 32.0 42.6 1 65 8.0 10.0 12.5 23.0 26.0 267 Table C.8 - Summary of Select (a) Upstream Bed, (b) Riffle, and (c) Mini-reach Characteristic Grain Sizes for Ouillet Creek Rock-riffle N Ass (cm) D50 (cm) A>5 (cm) DS4 (cm) A>o (cm) (a) upstream bed 8* 311 3.5 5.0 8.0 13.5 17.8 7 50 3.5 4.6 7.1 9.9 14.0 6 38 2.6 4.0 6.1 17.0 41.5 5a** 5 49 3.3 3.6 5.0 11.0 12.0 4 47 3.0 4.0 5.4 11.0 12.2 3a 44 3.0 4.0 6.7 13.3 17.8 3 42 4.5 6.3 9.0 14.1 20.1 2 46 3.0 4.0 5.8 11.7 16.3 1 49 3.8 4.5 6.3 11.5 14.0 (b) riffle reach 8 48 5.5 8.5 18.0 44.1 55.1 7 47 4.5 8.0 17.3 30.8 40.4 6 48 6.5 10.2 19.7 55.8 88.0 5a 50 6.9 9.0 11.0 16.7 18.0 5 49 4.7 6.5 13.5 44.0 63.0 4 45 3.5 9.5 20.0 59.9 73.4 3a 49 4.4 6.0 8.9 21.5 27.0 3 47 7.0 9.5 15.3 39.9 72.0 2 48 5.5 10.0 15.9 54.4 76.7 1 48 2.5 4.5 8.9 63.4 75.1 (c) mini-reach 8* 359 3.6 5.5 8.4 15.4 20.0 7 97 4.0 5.3 8.3 21.0 32.7 6 86 4.2 6.6 11.3 41.4 57.0 5a** 99 4.0 6.0 9.0 13.0 17.0 5 98 3.5 4.9 7.0 19.2 42.1 4 92 3.0 4.8 8.5 22.5 52.0 3a 93 4.0 5.0 7.5 17.9 21.4 3 89 5.8 8.0 12.5 25.2 38.0 2 94 4.0 5.5 9.8 21.6 56.0 1 97 3.1 4.5 6.9 18.7 43.1 includes data from excavated material * upstream bed not sampled; upstream bed data from riffle 5 is assumed 268 Table C.9 - Summary of Select (a) Upstream Bed, (b) Riffle, and (c) Mini-reach Characteristic Grain Sizes for Brunette River Rock-riffle N A35 (cm) D50 (cm) D65 (cm) DM (cm) D90 (cm) (a) upstream bed 3 104 3.0 5.0 8.0 14.2 16.0 2 104 3.0 4.0 5.0 9.0 13.5 1 104 2.9 4.0 5.0 8.6 11.5 (b) riffle reach 3 109 9.0 14.0 20.0 56.6 71.0 2 104 3.5 5.0 8.0 30.2 44.5 1 104 2.5 4.3 10.0 39.4 60.0 (c) mini-reach 3 213 4.5 8.0 13.1 28.8 41.2 2 208 3.5 4.5 6.0 14.1 30.0 1 208 2.5 4.0 6.0 15.0 25.3 269 Table CIO - Summary of Select (a) Upstream Bed, (b) Riffle, and (c) Mini-reach Characteristic Grain Sizes for Chapman Creek Rock-riffle N £>35 (cm) D50 (cm) £>65 (cm) DM (cm) D90 (cm) (a) upstream bed N3 107 9.8 15.0 26.1 41.0 52.8 N2 108 8.2 14.3 21.3 47.6 59.2 NI 93 5.5 9.0 15.0 40.0 59.0 6 108 4.5 6.0 8.5 20.6 28.0 5 112 8.0 13.5 19.7 47.8 69.7 4 103 7.1 13.0 21.6 41.8 54.8 2 106 8.0 11.8 15.6 30.9 54.2 (b) riffle reach N3 101 10.4 17.0 25.6 52.0 72.6 N2 104 14.0 20.5 34.0 71.0 90.5 NI 104 11.0 16.5 33.3 57.8 70.0 6 106 7.2 20.0 42.6 69.8 88.6 5 107 9.9 23.0 40.2 79.5 96.0 4 105 9.6 22.0 34.9 65.8 110.8 2 102 14.1 19.0 33.0 46.5 54.1 (c) mini-reach N3 208 10.0 16.0 26.0 44.1 61.4 N2 212 11.0 16.0 28.0 55.0 75.7 NI 197 9.0 15.0 25.0 43.0 61.5 6 214 5.0 8.3 17.0 51.2 69.0 5 219 8.0 15.0 30.0 60.0 85.0 4 208 9.0 15.8 30.0 52.3 86.0 2 208 10.0 15.0 22.9 42.0 53.2 270 Table C l 1 - Summary of Select (a) Upstream Bed, (b) Riffle, and (c) Reach Characteristic Grain Sizes for Each Study Reach Reach N D35 (cm) D 5 0 (cm) D65 (cm) DS4 (cm) D90 (cm) (a) all upstream beds Beecher Creek U 208 5.0 6.0 8.0 14.8 21.1 Beecher Creek L 91 3.6 5.5 9.0 14.6 23.8 Ouillet Creek 677A 3.2 4.6 7.0 12.0 16.5 Brunette River 312 3.0 4.0 5.5 10.0 14.0 Chapman Creek N 308 7.6 12.0 22.0 42.0 56.1 Chapman Creek C 584B 6.0 9.3 15.0 30.0 40.5 (b) all riffle reaches Beecher Creek U 208 9.0 14.3 19.0 31.0 35.1 Beecher Creek L 78 9.8 14.5 21.1 32.0 36.1 Ouillet Creek 479 5.0 8.3 15.0 38.0 61.0 Brunette River 317 3.7 7.0 14.0 38.0 62.0 Chapman Creek N 309 12.0 18.0 31.5 59.4 76.0 Chapman Creek C 420 11.0 20.0 37.0 63.6 85.0 (c) entire reach Beecher Creek U 416 6.0 8.0 14.0 25.0 32.0 Beecher Creek L 169 6.0 9.0 12.0 26.0 32.0 Ouillet Creek 1456c 4.0 5.9 8.5 17.5 23.7 Brunette River 629 3.5 5.0 8.0 19.0 30.0 Chapman Creek N 666u 10.0 15.0 26.0 46.0 69.3 Chapman Creek C 1004B 7.0 12.0 21.0 45.0 64.0 A includes Ouillet Creek excavated material data B includes bar upstream of Chapman Creek rock-riffle 2 c includes Ouillet Creek excavated material data and centerline without riffles data D includes additional data supplied by R. Newbury 271 Figure C . l - Grain size distribution for: (a) upstream beds; (b) riffles; and (c) entire reach in Beecher Creek U 272 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Grain Diameter (cm) 0.1 1 10 100 Grain Diameter (cm) 0.1 1 10 100 Grain Diameter (cm) Figure C.2 - Grain size distribution for: (a) upstream beds; (b) riffles; and (c) entire reach in Beecher Creek L 273 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Grain Diameter (cm) 0.1 1 10 100 Grain Diameter (cm) 0.1 1 10 100 Grain Diameter (cm) Figure C.3 - Grain size distribution for: (a) upstream beds; (b) riffles; and (c) entire reach in Ouillet Creek 274 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Grain Diameter (cm) 0.1 1 10 100 Grain Diameter (cm) 0.1 1 10 100 Grain Diameter (cm) Figure C.4 - Grain size distribution for: (a) upstream beds; (b) riffles; and (c) entire reach in Brunette River 275 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 10 Grain Diameter (cm) 100 1000 1 10 Grain Diameter (cm) 100 1000 1 10 Grain Diameter (cm) 100 1000 Figure C.5 - Grain size distribution for: (a) upstream beds; (b) riffles; and (c) entire reach in Chapman Creek N 276 0.1 1 10 100 Grain Diameter (cm) 0.1 1 10 100 Grain Diameter (cm) 0.1 1 10 100 Grain Diameter (cm) Figure C.6 - Grain size distribution for: (a) upstream beds; (b) riffles; and (c) entire reach in Chapman Creek C 277 A P P E N D I X D . M A T L A B ® A N A L Y S I S R O U T I N E S S U M M A R Y This Appendix contains two MATLAB® (Version 5.0, Student Edition; The Math Works, Inc. 1996) routines that were written to ease the computational time and effort involved with analyzing the sampled water surface profiles (see Chapter 2). For ease of reference, the lines of code within each routine have been numbered, and additional explanatory comments (denoted by the symbol'%' and written in italics) have been included. The first routine ("Cross-section Analysis Routine" - Appendix D.l) was written to calculate average cross-sectional flow characteristics for the sampled water surface profile and discharge using the cross-sectional channel geometries interpolated in Surfer® (Version 7.0; Golden Software, Inc. 1999) and subsequently saved as a comma separated values (*.csv) file (see Chapter 2). The second routine ("Effective Flow Area (EFA) Analysis Routine" - Appendix D.2) was written to aid in the analysis of effective flow areas ("EFA") where the computed flow energies from routine 1 were found not to decrease in the downstream direction. The E F A routine computes a new flow energy value for a specified cross-section based a user-defined depth y below which it is assumed that water is not being actively conveyed, and the downstream velocity component is negligible (see Fig. 2.15; Tables E.1-E.35). Both routines require the specification of an input text (*.txt) file, or "parameter file", which defines the initial parameters for analysis. An example of such a file is shown in Appendix D.3 (see also Fig. 2.15; Table E.13). Each parameter file lists the related cross-sectional geometry 278 files (e.g. 'o8u.csv'), riffle numbers (e.g. '8'), cross-section locations (e.g. '1' for upstream), and the sampled discharges (e.g. '17.33') and water surface elevations (e.g. '100.74'), with the details for a given cross-section listed in a single row (starting at row 2) and separated by spaces. Also included (row 1) is the total number of cross-sections to be evaluated (e.g. '27'). In this manner, the necessary input parameters of an individual, or group of cross-sections, were defined within a single file for analysis. 279 D.l C R O S S - S E C T I O N A N A L Y S I S P R O G R A M o / o = = = = = = = = = = = = = = % MATLAB® routine to calculate cross-sectional area, surface width, average depth, average % bed elevation, average velocity and energy given a discharge, an observed water level, and % survey data. Program also plots the surveyed cross-sectional geometry and sampled water % level elevation for each riffle % Task 1 - ask for user inputs and define an output array to save the results % Task 2 - open the parameter file, read in the number of cross-sections to be evaluated. Check % parameter file for possible errors. Read the cross-sectional geometry, riffle number, location, % discharge and observed water level to be analyzed % Task 3 - manipulating survey data array to get water depths at each location across the cross-% section, and temporarily removing bed elevation data % Task 4 - interpolating locations of zero water depth, removing negative depths at the tails of % the array, recreating bed elevation data and assigning zero values to negative depths located % within the array % Task 5 - translating the cross-sectional array from row by column to column by row and then % defining separate arrays for location, water depth and bed elevation % Task 6 - plotting water and bed elevation versus cross-sectional location from right bank % looking downstream % Task 7 - calculating cross-sectional characteristics % Task 8 - adding the results to an output array, and restarting the analysis for the next cross-% section in the parameter file (i.e. return to Task 2) % Task 9 - saving the output array to a results file upon completion of analysis **************************************** <yo ****** % Task 1 o/o ****** % Lines 1 to 3 - User defined text arrays: river name ("river"); sampling date ("sdate"); and % parameter file ("parfile ") 1. river=input('Enter the river being evaluated: ','s'); 2. sdate=input('Enter the sampling date (MM/DD/YY): ','s'); 3. parfile=input('Enter the parameter fde (*.txt): ','s'); 280 % Lines 4 to 5 - Defining an output array ("output") for saving analysis results (Line 4), and % setting "row" initially to zero (Line 5). "row" used later to save results in "output" array % (Line 102 to 113) 4. output(:,:)=[ ]; 5. row=size(output, 1); o/o ****** % Task 2 <yo ****** % Lines 6 to 8 - Opening the parameter file (Line 6); reading and displaying the number of % cross-sections ("nxs ") to be evaluated (Lines 7-8) 6. para=fopen(parfile,'rt'); 7. nxs=str2num(fgetl(para)); 8. disp(['Number of cross-sections to be evaluated: 'num2str(nxs)]); % Analysis of each cross-section contained within the parameter file starts here % Line 9 - Starting analysis for cross-section number "xs ". If "xs " is greater than "nxs ", % routine steps to Line 114 and analysis ends. 9. for xs=l:nxs % Lines 10 to 14 - Reading data line from parameter file (Line 10) and checking for blanks % separating the file name, riffle number riffle location, discharge and water level. If the % parameter file does not have the expected number of spaces (i.e. 4) then an error message % is returned (Lines 11-14) 10. iline=fgetl(para); 11. if sum(iline=- ')~=4 12. disp(iline); 13. error('ERROR: analyzed parameter file line does not have 4 spaces!'); 14. end % Lines 15 to 20- Assigning the cross-section geometry file (Line 16), riffle number (Line 17), % location (Line 18), discharge (Line 19) and water surface elevation (Line 20) to arrays %xsecno", "riffle", "location", "dis", and "we", respectively 15. iblank=find(iline==''); 16. xsecno=iline(l:iblank(l)-l); 17. riffle=str2num(iline(iblank(l)+l:iblank(2)-l)); 18. location=::str2num(iline(iblank(2)-i-l:iblank(3)-l)); 19. dis=str2num(iline(iblank(3)+1:iblank(4)-1)); 20. we=str2num(iline(iblank(4)+l :end)); 281 % Lines 21 to 25 - Displaying the cross-section number currently being evaluated (Line 21). % Opening the cross-section geometry file "xsecno " and saving it as an array "xsec " (Line % 22). An error message is returned if the file cannot be opened (Lines 23-25). 21. disp(['Currently evaluating cross-section ' num2str(xs)]); 22. xsec=csvread(xsecno); 23. if(xsec==-l) 24. disp(['ERROR: cannot open filefxsecno '|']); 25. end <y0 ****** % Task 3 oy0 ****** % Line 26 - Saving "xsec " as "bedplot"; an array later used in plotting (Lines 62-88). 26. bedplot=xsec; % Manipulating the array "xsec ": Line 27 - removing x andy coordinates (columns 1 and 2), % and leaving bed elevation (now column 1) and distance across the cross-section (now % column 2); Line 28 - calculating water depth from "we " (Line 20) and adding it in a third % column; Line 29 - temporarily removing bed elevation data (column 1) leaving an array % "xsec " listing the variation in water depth across the cross-section being analyzed 27. xsec(:,[l 2])=[ ]; % removing first 2 columns leaving bed elevation and location 28. xsec(:,3)=we-xsec(:,l); % adding a 3rd column for water depth . 29. xsec(:,l)=[ ]; % temporarily removing bed elevation data to ease analysis procedure <yo ****** % Task 4 o/0 ****** % Line 30 - Calculating the number of observations "obs " contained in the array "xsec " 30. obs=size(xsec,l); % Lines 31 to 42 - Defining locations of zero water depth through interpolation of the location % (column 1) and water depth (column 2) data in "xsec" 31. for r=2:obs-l 32. s=r+l; 33. if(xsec(r,2)<=0)&(xsec(s,2)>0); 34. t==r; 35. xsec(t, 1 )=xsec(s, 1 )-(xsec(s,2)/(xsec(s,2)-xsec(r,2)))*(xsec(s, 1 )-xsec(r, 1)); 36. xsec(t,2)=0; 37. elseif (xsec(r,2)>0)&(xsec(s,2)<=0); 38. v=s; 39. xsec(v, 1 )=xsec(r, 1 )+(xsec(r,2)/(xsec(r,2)-xsec(s,2)))*(xsec(s, 1 )-xsec(r, 1)); 40. xsec(v,2)=0; 41. end 42.end 282 % Lines 43 to 50 - Removing negative depths at the tails of the array "xsec " (i.e. defining left % and right water's edge) 43. while xsec(l,2)<0 44. xsec(l,:)=[ ]; 45. end 46. nonzero=size(xsec,l); 47. while xsec(nonzero,2)<0 48. xsec(nonzero,:)=[ ]; 49. nonzero=size(xsec,l); 50. end % Line 51 - Recreate and save bed elevation data to "xsec " column 3 using water surface % elevation "we " (Line 20) and remaining water depth data ("xsec " column 2) 51. xsec(:,3)=we-xsec(:,2); % Lines 52 to 58 - Assigning zero to negative depths located within the array "xsec" 52. nonzero=size(xsec,l); 53. h=l; 54. for h=l:nonzero 55. if xsec(h,2)<0 56. xsec(h,2)=0; 57. end 58. end o/0 ****** % Task 5 <y0 ****** % Lines 59 to 61 - translating (row by column to column by row) the array "xsec " (Line 59) % for plotting and calculation purposes. Defining three separate arrays: cross-sectional % location ("x"); water depth ("dep"); and bed elevation ("ele") (Lines 60 to 61) 59. xsec=xsec'; 60. x=xsec;dep=xsec;ele=xsec; 61. x(2:3,:)=[ ];dep([l 3],:)=[ ];ele(l:2,:)=[ ]; 283 o/0 ****** % Task 6 <yo ****** % Lines 62 to 88 - Plotting water and bed elevation versus cross-sectional location "x "for % each cross-section analyzed. Creating a figure for each riffle containing 3 cross-sectional % plots: upstream (Lines 62 to 71); crest (Lines 72 to 79); and downstream (Lines 80 to 88). % Riffle number, creek name, sampling date, and sampling discharge are included in the title % (Line 69). "we" (Line 20) and "bedplot" (Line 26)previously defined 62. if location==l 63. figure 64. orient landscape 65. subplot(3,l,l) 66. plot(bedplot(:,4),bedplot(:,3),'k-,,x,we,'k.'); 67. ymin=min(bedplot(:,3)); 68. axis equal 69. title(['X-Sectional Geometries and Observed Water Elevations - Riffle riffle ', 'river1 Creek, 'sdate '. Discharge = 'num2str(dis)' mA3/s.']) 70. text(0.2,ymin+0.2,'US*) 71. end 72. if location==2 73. subplot(3,l,2) 74. plot(bedplot(:,4),bedplot(:,3),'k-',x,we,'k.'); 75. ymin=min(bedplot(:,3)); 76. axis equal 77. ylabel('Elevation Above Datum (m)') 78. text(0.2,ymin+0.2,'CR') 79. end 80. if location==3 81. subplot(3,l,3) 82. plot(bedplot(:,4),bedplot(:,3),'k-',x,we,'k.'); 83. ymin=min(bedplot(:,3)); 84. axis equal 85. xlabel('Accumulated Distance from Right Bank (m)') 86. text(0.2,ymin+0.2,'DS*) 87. figure 88. end 284 o/0 ****** % Task 7 o/0 ****** % Lines 90 to 101 - Calculating cross-sectional characteristics: far bank location ("fb "); near % bank location ("nb "); surface width ("width "); mean depth ("depth "); cross-sectional area % ("xarea"); wetted perimeter ("perimeter"); hydraulic radius ("hradius"); mean bed % elevation ("elev"); average cross-sectional velocity ("vel"); and energy ("energy"). Water % surface profde ("profile ") (Line 99) is calculated to check equal to "we " (Line 20). "dis " % (Line 19), "dep" (line 61), "ele" (Line 61) and "x" (Line 61)previously defined, "wid" % locates last data point in "x" (Lines 90, 91) 90. wid=size(x,2); 91. fb=x(l,wid); 92. nb=x(l,l); 93. width=fb-nb; 94. depth=mean(dep); 95. xarea=width*depth; 96. perimeter=2*depth+width; 97. hradius=xarea/perimeter; 98. elev=mean(ele); 99. profde=elev+depth; 100. vel=dis/xarea; 101. energy=we+(velA2)/(2*9.81); <y0 ****** % Task 8 0/Q ****** % Line 121 - Defining the location ("row") for saving the cross-sectional results in the %"output" array (Lines 4, 5) 102. row=row+l; % Lines 103 to 113 - Adding results (Lines 19, 20, and 93 to 101) to "output" array 103. output(row,l)=dis; 104. output(row,2)=we; 105. output(row,3)=xarea; 106. output(row,4)=width; 107. output(row,5)=depth; 108. output(row,6)=perimeter; 109. output(row,7)=hradius; 110. output(row,8)=elev; 111. output(row,9)=profile; 112. outpu^rowJO^vel; 113. output(row, 1 l)=energy; 285 % End of analysis of cross-section % Line 114-If"xs " less than "nxs " (Lines 7, 9) return to Line 9 for next cross-section; else % Line 114 114. end <y0 ****** % Task 9 o/0 ****** % Line 115 - Saving "output" array to ASCILfile "results " 115. save results output -ascii 2 8 6 D.2 EFFECTIVE F L O W A R E A ( E F A ) ANALYSIS ROUTINE % = = = = = = = = = = = = = ™ = ™ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ^ % MATLAB® routine to calculate cross-sectional area, surface width, average depth, average % bed elevation, average velocity and energy of a given channel cross-section and defined % effective flow area. Program also plots the surveyed cross-sectional geometry and sampled % water surface elevation for each cross-section including the potential effective flow area % Task 1 - Asking for user inputs and defining an output array to save the results % Task 2 - open the parameter file, read in the number of cross-sections to be evaluated. Check % parameter file for possible errors. Read the cross-sectional geometry, riffle number, location, % discharge and observed water level to be analyzed % Task 3 - Manipulating survey data array to get water depths at each location across the % cross-section, and temporarily removing bed elevation data % Task 4 - Interpolating locations of zero water depth, removing negative depths at the tails of % the array, recreating bed elevation data and assigning zero values to negative depths located % within the original data array % Task 5 - Defining an effective flow area by removing those portions of the channel that have a % value less than some specified depth % Task 6 - Translating the cross-sectional and effective flow area arrays from row by column to % column by row arrays and then defining separate arrays of location, water depth and bed % elevation for each % Task 7 - Plotting water and bed elevation versus cross-sectional location from right bank as % defined looking downstream. Highlighting the effective flow area % Task 8 - Calculating cross-sectional characteristics for both the channel and the specified % effective flow area % Task 9 - adding the results to an output array, and restarting the analysis for the next cross-% section in the parameter file (return to Task 2) % Task 10 - Saving the output array to a effective file upon completion of analysis <y^ ***************************************** 287 o/0 ****** % Task 1 o/0 ****** % Lines 1 to 4 - Lfrer defined text arrays: river name ("river "); sampling date ("sdate "); and parameter file ("parfile "). User defined numerical array: EFA defining depth ("dead") 1. river=input('Enter the river being evaluated: ','s'); 2. sdate=input('Enter the sampling date (MM/DD/YY): ','s'); 3. parfile=input('Enter the parameter file (*.txt): ','s'); 4. dead=input('Enter the EFA defining depth y (m):'); % Lines 5 to 6 - Defining an output array ("output") for saving analysis results (Line 5), and % setting "row" initially to zero (Line 6). "row" used later to save results in "output" array % (Line 117 to 125) 5. output(:,:)=[ ]; 6. row=size(output,l); <y0 ****** % Task 2 <yo ****** % Lines 7 to 9 - Opening the parameter file (Line 7); reading and displaying the number of % cross-sections ("nxs ") to be evaluated (Lines 8-9) 7. para=fopen(parfile,'rt'); 8. nxs=str2num(fgetl(para)); 9. disp(['Number of cross-sections to be evaluated: 'num2str(nxs)]); 0 ^ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * % Analysis of each cross-section contained within the parameter file starts here % Line 10 - Commencing analysis for cross-section "xs ". If "xs " is greater than "nxs ", routine % steps to Line 126 and analysis ends. 10. for xs=l:nxs % Lines 11 to 15 - Reading data line from parameter file (Line 11) and checking for blanks % separating the file name, riffle number riffle location, discharge and water level. If the % parameter file does not have the expected number of spaces (i.e. 4) then an error message % is returned (Lines 12-15) 11. iline=fgetl(para); 12. ifsum(iline==' ')~=4 13. disp(iline); 14. error('ERROR: analyzed parameter file line does not have 4 spaces!'); 15. end 288 % Lines 16 to 21 - Assigning the cross-section geometry file (Line 17), riffle number (Line 18), % location (Line 19), discharge (Line 20) and water surface elevation (Line 21) to arrays % xsecno ", "riffle ", "location ", "dis ", and "we ", respectively 16. iblank=find(iline==*'); 17. xsecno=iline(l:iblank(l)-l); 18. riffle=iline(iblank(l)+l:iblank(2)-l); 19. location=str2num(iline(iblank(2)+l:iblank(3)-1)); 20. dis=str2num(iline(iblank(3)+l :iblank(4)-l)); 21. we=str2num(iline(iblank(4)+1: end)); % Lines 22 to 28 - Defining the cross-section location as either upstream, crest or downstream % Used later for plotting (Line 93) 22. if location==l 23. location-upstream'; 24. end 25. if location==2 26. location-crest'; 27. else location-downstream'; 28. end % Lines 29 to 33 - Displaying the cross-section number currently being evaluated (Line 29). % Opening the cross-section geometry file "xsecno " and saving it as an array "xsec " (Line % 30). An error message is returned if the file cannot be opened (Lines 31-33). 29. disp(['Currently evaluating cross-section ' num2str(xs)]); 30. xsec=csvread(xsecno); 31. if(xsec==-l) 32. disp(['ERROR: cannot open file|'xsecno '|']); 33. end <yo ****** % Task 3 <yo ****** % Line 34 - Saving "xsec" as "bedplot"; an array later used in plotting (Lines 89-96). 34. bedplot=xsec; % Manipulating the array "xsec": Line 35 - removingx andy coordinates (columns 1 and 2), % and leaving bed elevation (now column 1) and distance across the cross-section (now % column 2); Line 36 - calculating water depth using "we" (Line 21) and adding it in a third % column; Line 37 - temporarily removing bed elevation data (column 1) leaving an array % "xsec " listing the variation in water depth across the cross-section being analyzed 35. xsec(:,[l 2])=[ ]; %removing first 2 columns leaving bed elevation and location 36. xsec(:,3)=we-xsec(:,l); %adding a 3rd column for water depth 37. xsec(:,l)=[ ]; %temporarily removing bed elevation data to ease analysis procedure 289 o/o ****** % Task 4 <yo ****** % Line 38 - Calculating the number of observations "obs " contained in the array "xsec " 38. obs=size(xsec,l); % Lines 39 to 50 - Defining locations of zero water depth through interpolation of the location % (column 1) and water depth (column 2) data in "xsec" 39. for r=2:obs-l 40. s=r+l; 41. if (xsec(r,2)<=0)&(xsec(s,2)>0); 42. t=r; 43. xsec(t, 1 )=xsec(s, 1 )-(xsec(s,2)/(xsec(s,2)-xsec(r,2)))*(xsec(s, 1 )-xsec(r, 1)); 44. xsec(t,2)=0; 45. elseif (xsec(r,2)>0)&(xsec(s,2)<=0); 46. v=s; 47. xsec(v, 1 )=xsec(r, 1 )+(xsec(r,2)/(xsec(r,2)-xsec(s,2)))*(xsec(s, 1 )-xsec(r, 1)); 48. xsec(v,2)=0; 49. end 50. end % Lines 51 to 58 - Removing negative depths at the tails of the array "xsec" (i.e. defining left % and right water's edge) 51. while xsec(l,2)<0 52. xsec(l,:)=[ ]; 53. end 54. nonzero=size(xsec,l); 55. while xsec(nonzero,2)<0 56. xsec(nonzero,:)=[ ]; 57. nonzero=size(xsec,l); 58. end % Line 59 - Recreate and save bed elevation data to "xsec " column 3 using water surface % elevation "we " (Line 21) and remaining water depth data ("xsec " column 2) 59. xsec(:,3)-we-xsec(:,2); % Lines 60 to 66 - Assigning zero to negative depths located within the array "xsec" 60. nonzero=size(xsec,l); 61. h=l; 62. for h=l: nonzero 63. if xsec(h,2)<0 64. xsec(h,2)=0; 65. end 66. end 290 o/o ****** % Task 5 o/0 ****** % Lines 67 to 74 - Copying "xsec" to "EFA " (Line 67). Sizing the "EFA " array (Line 68) and % assigning a value of zero to depths less than the user defined EFA depth "dead" (Lines 70 % to 74) 67. EFA=xsec; 68. lowflow=size(EFA,l); 69. j=l; 70. for j=l:lowflow 71.ifEFA0,2)<=dead 72. EFAO',2)=0; 73. end 74. end % Lines 75 to 82 - Removing zero values at the tails of the array "EFA " (i.e. at the left and % right bank margins) 75. while EFA(1,2)=0 76. EFA(1,:)=[]; 77. end 78. pzero=size(EFA,l); 79. while EFA(pzero,2)===0 80. EFA(pzero,:)=[ ]; 81. pzero=size(EFA,l); 82. end o/o ****** % Task 6 o/0 ****** % Lines 83 to 85 - translating (row by column to column by row) the array "xsec" (Line 83) % for plotting and calculation purposes. Defining three separate non-EFA arrays: cross-% sectional location ("x"); water depth ("dep"); and bed elevation ("ele") (Lines 84 to 85) 83. xsec=xsec'; 84. x=xsec;dep=xsec;ele=xsec; 85. x(2:3,:)=[ ];dep([l 3],:)=[ ];ele(l:2,:)=[ ]; % Lines 86 to 88 - translating (row by column to column by row) the array "EFA " (Line 86) % for plotting and calculation purposes. Defining three separate EFA arrays: cross-sectional % location ("xp"); water depth ("pdep"); and bed elevation ("pele") (Lines 87 to 88) 86. EFA=EFA'; 87. xp=EFA;pdep=:EFA;pele=EFA; 88. xp(2:3,:)=[ ];pdep([l 3],:)=[ ];pele(l:2,:)=[ ]; 291 o/0 ****** % Task 7 0/^ * * * * * * % Lines 89 to 96 - Plotting water surface, bed elevation, and effective flow area versus cross-% sectional location "x "for each cross-section analyzed. Riffle number, creek name, sampling % date, and sampling discharge are included in the title (Line 93). "we" (Line 21) and % "bedplot" (Line 34) previously defined 89. figure 90. orient landscape 91. plot(bedplot(:,4),bedplot(:,3),'k-',x,we;k.',xp,we,'k+'); 92. axis equal 93. title(['X-Sectional Geometries and Observed Water Elevations - Riffle 'riffle ''... location', 'river' Creek, 'sdate '. Discharge = 'num2str(dis) 1 mA3/s.']) 94. xlabel('Accumulated Distance from Right Bank (m)') 95. ylabel('Elevation Above a Common Datum (m)') 96. legend('Channel Bed','Observed Water Elevation','Effective Flow Area') o/0 ****** % Task 8 <yo ****** % Lines 97 to 104- Re-calculating cross-sectional characteristics: far bank location ("fb "); % near bank location ("nb "); surface width ("width "); mean depth ("depth "); cross-sectional % area ("xarea "); average cross-sectional velocity ("vel"); and energy ("energy "). "dis " % (Line 20), "we" (Line 21), "dep" (Line 85) and "x" (Line 85)previously defined, "energy" % printed to screen for comparison with computed EFA energy "penergy" (Line 116). "wid" % locates the last data point in "x" (Lines 97, 98) 97. wid=size(x,2); 98. fb=x(l,wid); % locating the farbank of the cross-section 99. nb=x(l,l); % locating the nearbank of the cross-section 100. width=fb-nb; % surface width of the cross-section 101. depth=mean(dep); % mean depth of the cross-section 102. xarea=width*depth; % cross-sectional area of the cross-section 103. vel=dis/xarea; % average velocity of the cross-section 104. energy=we+(velA2)/(2*9.81) % calculating energy based on channel values 292 % Lines 105 to 116 - Calculating EFA cross-sectional characteristics: far bank location % ("pfb "); near bank location ("pnb "); surface width ("pwidth "); mean depth ("pdepth "); % cross-sectional area ("pxarea"); wetted perimeter ("pper"); hydraulic radius ("phrad"); % mean bed elevation ("pelev"); average cross-sectional velocity ("pvel"); and energy % ("energy "). Water surface profile ("ppro ") (Line 115) is calculated to check equal to "we " % (Line 21). "dis" (Line 20), "pdep" (Line 88), "pele" (Line 88) and "xp" (Line 88) % previously defined, "penergy" printed to screen for comparison with "energy" (Line 104). %"pwid" locates the last data point in "xp" (Lines 105, 106) 105. pwid=size(xp,2); 106. pfb=xp(l,pwid); 107. pnb=xp(l,l); 108. pwidth=pfb-pnb; 109. pdepth=mean(pdep); 110. pxarea=pdepth*pwidth; 111. pper=2*pdepth+pwidth; 112. phrad=pxarea/pper; 113. pelev=mean(pele); 114. pvel=dis/pxarea; 115. ppro=pelev+pdepth; 116. penergy=we+(pvelA2)/(2*9.81) o/0 ****** % Task 9 oy0 ****** % Line 117 - Defining the location ("row") for saving the cross-sectional results in the ' % "output" array (Lines 5, 6) 117. row=row+l; % Lines 118 to 125 - Adding results (Lines 20, 21, 104, 110, 112, 114 and 116) to "output" % array 118. output(row,l)=dis; 119. output(row,2)=we; 120. outpu^row^^energy; 121. output(row,4)=dead; 122. output(row,5)=pxarea; 123. output(row,6)=phrad; 124. output(row,7)=pvel; 125. output(row,8)=penergy; % End of analysis of cross-section 293 % Line 126 -If'xs " less than "nxs " (Lines 8, 10) return to Line 10 for next cross-section; else % Line 126 126. end o/0 ******* % Task 10 0/Q ******* % Line 127 - Saving "output" array to ASCII fie "effective" 127. save effective output -ascii 294 D.3 S A M P L E P A R A M E T E R F I L E %File name: oull2_15_2.txt % Reach: Ouillet Creek % Date: Sample 2, December 15, 1999 % First Analysis (see Table E.l3) 27 o8u.csv8 1 17.33 100.74 o8c.csv8 2 17.33 100.17 o8d.csv8 3 17.33 99.40 o7u.csv7 1 17.33 99.34 o7c.csv7 2 17.33 99.19 o7d.csv7 3 17.33 98.46 o6u.csv6 1 17.33 98.46 o6c.csv6 2 17.33 98.51 o6d.csv6 3 17.33 97.84 o5u.csv5 1 17.33 97.62 o5c.csv 5 2 17.33 97.42 o5d.csv5 3 17.33 96.96 o4u.csv4 1 17.33 96.82 o4c.csv4 2 17.33 96.83 o4d.csv4 3 17.33 96.09 o3au.csv3.5 1 17.33 96.11 o3ac.csv3.5 2 17.33 96.04 o3ad.csv3.5 3 17.33 95.74 o3u.csv3 1 17.33 95.58 o3c.csv3 2 17.33 95.61 o3d.csv3 3 17.33 95.05 o2u.csv2 1 17.33 94.67 o2c.csv2 2 17.33 94.58 o2d.csv2 3 17.33 93.93 olu.csv 1 1 17.33 93.90 olc.csv 1 2 17.33 93.78 old.csv 1 3 17.33 93.30 A P P E N D I X E . S A M P L E D W A T E R S U R F A C E A N D E N E R G Y P R O F I L E S SUMMARY This Appendix contains the observed cross-sectional water surface elevations (co) for each sample analysis in this study (Beecher Creek: Tables E.1-E.7; Ouillet Creek: Tables E.8-E.17; Brunette River: Tables E.18-E.23; Chapman Creek: Tables E.24-E.35). Also supplied are the computed cross-section average water depths (Y) and velocities (v), and the corresponding flow energy (H) from the sample analyses. Additionally, where effective flow area ("EFA") adjustments were made, the EFA defining depth y, and the resultant average velocity and energy, are listed (see Chapter 2; Appendix D). 296 o o o CN I a M i -U CD o o <D PQ 60 CD a w •3 c 03 O ""CD > Q u 60 CS in CD > < T 3 CD •4—' 3 n* E o O in o i -cu CD O »-3 C/3 CD I 03 1 - 3 C o o I, °-> 00 r--o CN CN ON so as o CN O m CN as NO as o B, CN <n o O t— o 0 0 © < PH PJ ca 3 03 PH B_ r-d CN CN ml t— o as so I ON o i — o as so as o ON ON CN NO NO © en d en CN ON o NO o en CN CN ON o wo en NO CN O O en 0 0 o Si ON I od o © © CN O o WO t— o ON CN © CN W0 NO O CN CN CN CN O wo t— O CN I NO O ON © 0 0 NO ON o wo CN 0 0 NO CN <nl CN CN ON o 0 0 CN CN CN ON © © I "fr 0 0 o CN CN NO en wo CN © UO CN ON I c*! 0 0 o oo I— o en en en oo (— o CN CN d NO en oo t— o o en © 0 0 o ON I © (— o 1 T—I © •si-o l I8i Si ON d CN ^3" TT ON ON N O en WO d ON d ON en ON ON t— od ON 0 0 CN 0 0 ON o CN d en NO NO r--ON W0 en wo CN CN NO CN od ON ON d NO C N | 0 0 ON en NO r~" ON ON en d CN CN d oo CN U 3 8 .9 •3 en -3 CN l<§ •3 O •3 ON * 3 en # * 31 t— ON CN 60 60 CD >> cu oo c 4= -a C3 >-CU CU a -o b g ca ca 60 B O a a c T3 2 cu ca -° ca D C S „ a V g S i S o Z * * o o o CN 03 OO 4*5 CJ 1-4> 4 3 o (D PQ >> M l-l cj e W S3 c3 o o_ > 4 3 -4—> a, Q CJ 00 ccj I i CJ > < •a CJ 3 I o O T3 S3 PS cH p O <+H 3 00 CO I CN CJ H CO a OS I -o S3 o o CJ I oo o d NO ON o o CN d CN d •n, NO ON o c o CN I— CN CN d o d TT NO ON o & 1 ^ < PH c/3 c C3 © d NO CN d CN o d NO ON o NO ON o ON T t c— o 00 d CN CN NO T t ON ON lO CO NO NO T t NO ON O NO CO o CN ON O CO I CO od I o CN CO 00 CO od O CN CO od o CN cd © CN o ON T t t— o ON, | o | o ON o CO o CN d IP o u o CN ON CN © CN ON T t | S i ON | o (— o CN CO VO T t ON ON T t NO ON O T t CN NO NO d T t NO ON O o CN ON o 00 |CO od © CN o CN ON O 00 CO od O CN o CO od O o CO d o CO od o r-T f o CN CO ON CO r-| T t t— o lO T t ON ON 00 c o T t T t d T t © ON I © t— o CN vd o T t | S i T t CN CN d oo d r-T t © ON |p I— o o CO d o T t d CN CO cd ON CO CN NO T t d o r-; t— ON 00 CO oo CN VO T t T t ON ON T t T t ON ON O CO od ON CN CN d T t T t o CO od Os NO t— ON VO CN d vq t— ON J 3 CO CN VO CO co § C/3 .>3 O *i -o c o CN i d O T3 ON * 3| CO T 5 CO * * 3 oo ON C N CJ 60 u 60 O T3 CJ 60 S3 -3 " P. CJ CJ • S3 c/3 S T3 £ & £•3 CCS CO "O +h 60 S3 O S3 3 c r> * V S3 2 , o u I « o OH & U z * * o o o C N 00 s a oo M CJ SH CJ CJ 43 O CJ CJ CQ CJ C W CJ _o CJ > ex CJ Q CJ 00 ca UH CJ > -a <a H-» 3 Oh E o O -a c cd cf5 p CJ CJ Cf-H UH 3 00 UH CJ I ro W CJ 1 o NO c CJ ON ON A adjustrr v(m/s) 0.49 U h W ? 0.75 1 o ro ON CM CN oo CN OO So O Tt o CO O CO CN in NO Tt NO Tt 00 t--NO r-NO CN CO m CN in CN CN NO 99.91 99.90 99.60 99.59 99.60 98.87 98.44 97.79 d d ON o ON O ON o ONo ON o ON o 00 o 00 © 00 o t— o t— o o © t— o l— o NO O 99.91 99.90 99.60 99.59 99.60 98.87 98.44 97.79 (S/Ul) * in NO CN Tt CO 00 CN c— co CO in ON CN CN Tt CN in CN CO in Tt NO o Tt m CO in m 00 CN CN CO 00 Tt m CO Tt Tt o Tt r» CN 00 Tt CO vo Tt vo NO (S/Ul) * d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 o Tt NO Tt CO in 00 Tt CN Tt in in >n Tt CO CO ON m Tt CO CN m NO m CO Tt 00 in o in NO CO o NO 00 Tt in o NO ON CO t--CO ON Tt m CO d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d (UI) CO 110.29 110.29 109.81 109.82 109.80 109.38 109.29 109.29 108.50 108.46 108.45 107.85 107.67 107.67 107.30 107.25 107.24 106.61 99.91 99.89 99.60 99.59 99.59 98.85 98.43 NR 97.77 H-* « CJ C3 109.81 107.66 99.59 7 A adjustr v (m/s) 0.45 0.43 0.45 w 0.77 0.34 0.40 o CO ON CN CN 00 T—1 CO 00 ON CO CO co in in Tt <n Tt NO 00 NO NO VO vq o CO in CN Tt CN CN NO 99.91 99.88 99.58 99.59 99.58 98.85 98.41 c--? d d ON O ON o ON O ON o ON o ON o od o od o od o o o t— o t— o o C— O NO O 99.91 99.88 99.58 99.59 99.58 98.85 98.41 t— ON v (m/s) in ON CN CO CN CN CN Tt o in ON CN in Tt o in CO NO Tt oo in o Tt CN CO CO in 00 CN o CO 00 CO CO oo CO ON ro ON CN in NO m 00 CO O v (m/s) d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 Tt ON CO 00 CO co NO Tt Tt CN m uo Tt in ro NO T—1 Tt CO co ON Tt oo in co Tt NO m Tt in vo CO NO m in m r-. NO ON CO o Tt CN in CO CO d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d ? 3 110.29 110.29 109.82 109.80 109.80 109.38 109.31 109.30 108.50 108.45 108.44 107.84 107.65 107.65 107.29 107.24 107.23 106.61 99.90 99.88 99.58 99.58 99.57 98.84 98.41 NR 97.75 CO a ON ON ON t-- ON I — ON ON r— ON ON ON O ON ON ON ON C— ON r--ON ON ON t-- ON ON ON ON r-ON r-ON ON ON ON ON d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d < S3 co O co .>5 ui CJ J CJ CO 3 CO o CO II 13d II 12u o CN II 12d 3 o T3 II 10u o o II 10d 3 ON o ON P6 3 00 CJ 00 II 8d * 3 ro o ro II 3d II 2u o CN II 2d | * * 3 * * o # * X) ON ON CN c j 0 0 ao CJ UH o T3 CJ >i CJ t 3 CA 6 0 ,c -3 CO c CJ CJ <- o :! -I •a CJ N >N s cS cd - e cd cd 6o a o C 3 C o * ? f is IS Pi § ^ IZ * * o o u loo 03 PH "3 < PH 3 H i w . i s r/3 o o CO ID 6 0 6 0 •3 ID ID 6 0 C3 c ID ID S"8 £» 3 C3 c3 • O ~ 6 0 C O C 3 C IS-8.S 2 £ -' a s * * c CD e 109.05 | 107.07 1 99.65 1 c v (m/s) EFA adju v (m/s) 0.78 0.33 0.14 EFA adju IT 00 co ON CO wo [ysis d d d [ysis Second anal 1 O O as as o oo NO CN CN © O CO CO CN NO CN oo NO ON r^ 00 o r--o © wo wo NO wo 99.31 99.31 99.31 98.59 98.20 98.20 97.62 Second anal © as © ON o ON o ONO ON o ON o ON o 00 o 00 o 00 o o o o o o o NO o ON ON ON ON 99.31 99.31 99.31 98.59 98.20 98.20 97.62 Second anal v (m/s) wo wo o o CN 00 o CN NO o CO wo r-» o CN CO r-o CN CN NO o WO o ON o wo o wo NO © CN wo v (m/s) © d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d © © © © 1 CN NO r--CN CN co CN wo CN 00 ON 00 CO 00 o 00 CO NO CN CN 00 CN CO .—I wo CO ON CO ON NO CN CN 00 CO CN CO CO 00 wo is © d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d © © © © 1 3 110.00 109.99 109.71 109.70 109.68 109.12 109.02 109.04 108.33 108.27 108.26 107.68 107.49 107.47 107.08 107.07 107.07 106.45 99.65 99.65 99.31 99.31 99.31 98.59 98.20 98.20 97.62 o r-o c CD C ON o c-^  o 7 A adjustr v (m/s) 0.16 0.13 w ? o r--CO C/3 d d C/3 irst analy ? 109.99 109.99 109.70 109.69 109.67 109.10 109.04 109.04 108.32 108.27 108.26 107.68 107.50 107.49 107.08 107.07 107.07 106.45 99.65 99.65 99.32 99.31 99.31 98.58 98.21 98.19 97.62 PH v (m/s) v (m/s) o NO o o o co o CO .—1 wo o CN CN CO o »—i CO so © wo r~-o wo o CN 00 o wo o CN CO NO © CO r^ v (m/s) © d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d © © © © 1 ON CN wo wo CN o CO CN CN 00 CN o CN 00 CO ON wo CO CN CN CO CO ON t--CN ON CO 00 CN CN CN CN CO ON d d d d d d d d © d d d d d d d d d d d d d d © © © © S 109.99 109.98 109.70 109.69 109.67 109.10 109.04 109.04 108.32 108.27 108.26 107.68 107.50 107.49 107.08 107.07 107.07 106.45 99.65 99.65 99.32 99.31 99.30 98.58 98.20 98.19 97.62 /• N CO m a as © as © ON o ON o ON o ON o ON o ON o ON O ON o ON o ON o ON o ON o ON o ON o ON o ON o o o o o r--o © © © © d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d © © © © © Cross-section 1 13u CD CO II 13d II 12u o CN II 12d 3 o •3 i 10u CD o II 10d 9u o ON P6 II II 8u CD 00 II 8d # 3 CO o CO II 3d II 2u o CN II 2d | 3 CD •3 o CO CO c o c3 It U C 03 O o 00 ro oo m c ON ON ON ON 'A adjustrn v (m/s) 0.39 0.44 W 0.61 0.42 1 CN 00 CN 00 i n m o UO NO l> i n CO Tt ro r--ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON 00 ON 00 ON od ON ON U3 > CN CN NO ro ON CN O CN ON CO SO Tf o CN O Tt NO Tt d d d d d d d d d TT m ro ro o Tt 00 i n ON CN CN CO CO Tt ON CN r--CN d d d d d d d d d | CN 00 CN oq o i n o m uo i> lO CO Tt CO NO r-~ 3 ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON 00 ON 00 ON oo ON t— ON CN 00 c o ON ON ? A adjustrr v (m/s) 0.33 W >s 0.61 /-I N^ CN 00 CN 00 CN «n m O i n m r-; NO CO Tt ro o t>-*i ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON 00 ON 00 ON 00 ON t— ON v (m/s) v (m/s) CN CN t-~ ro t>-CN ON NO Tf ro Tt NO CN CO Tt 00 Tt v (m/s) d d d d d d d d d 1 Tt i n ro ro TT i n CO CN CO CO i n Tt 00 CN o CO d d d d d d d d d 1 CN 00 CN 00 UO kO ON Tf Tt l> i n CO ro CO NO 3 ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON 00 ON 00 ON 00 ON t— ON m a NR | NR | NR | NR | NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 Uross-section 1 13u o ro II 13d II 12u o CN II 12d 3 O T3 II 10u o o POI I II 9u o ON P6 II 3 00 o 00 II 8d * 3 ro o ro II 3d II 2u o CN II 2d 3 o 1—t CN O CO o C3 U C3 T3 00 C C 3 2 6 rs * 1 S * & Z * o o o CN iff CN >' O Z "E, 6 oo ^ ! CD CD u CD 4= CD CD CD CO s? CD c PJ (3 rt CO CD 'o _o > C3H CD Q CD 60 rt S CD > CD •+-» i t o U "O S3 U3 o s PH CD CD S 3 C/3 In rt I rs-w CD g 00 00 r-00 CN 00 99.49 1 .*-» S3 CD ON o as o as o 00 O ON ON 99.49 1 e cn v (m/s) dju v (m/s) CO CO CO CN >40 NO •<3-NO CO r^ EFA a( v (m/s) d d d d d d EFA a( EFA a( g •* CO o in m in o NO ON CO en 'en >> d d d d d d :ond anal 110.12 110.11 109.78 109.77 109.78 109.28 109.17 109.18 108.46 108.40 108.40 107.82 107.63 107.62 107.25 107.23 107.23 106.60 99.80 99.81 99.49 99.49 99.48 98.75 98.34 98.32 97.75 Sec m/s) en 00 co ON 00 CO as CN CN CO CO co o CN CN in 00 CO CN CN >n co o CN CN CN o CO o CO o CN r^ r~ CN CO 00 r^ d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 CN co CN CO CO o lO co t--co ON CO 00 CN 00 CN ON r^ o CN r-CN 00 CO CN CO rs-CO CO CN CN CO in . — i CO 00 CO NO m CN CN CO oo CN NO CN is O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d ; o 00 r-» rs 00 CN r- KO o ON CO I—1 00 CO NO NO CN CO CN CN CN o NO o 00 o 00 99.48 99.49 99.48 98.74 98.33 98.32 97.74 3 d d ON o as o as o ON o ON o ON o od o od o od O rs o r-^  o r~ o o o c-^  O NO o ON ON ON ON 99.48 99.49 99.48 98.74 98.33 98.32 97.74 c CD C g 109.77 108.40 99.80 S3 to v (m/s) 7 A adju v (m/s) 0.25 0.24 0.34 P J g o in ON in ON in cn d d d CO irst analy g 110.11 110.10 109.77 109.77 109.77 109.27 109.19 109.18 108.45 108.40 108.40 107.82 107.64 107.64 107.24 107.23 107.23 106.60 99.80 99.80 99.50 99.49 99.49 98.74 98.34 98.32 97.75 PH v (m/s) v (m/s) i — i CO ON o CN m CO CO CN CO ON co CO 00 ON CO CN CN 't CO co ON io CO CN CN CN 00 CO 00 CN o CN ON •<t CN in m v (m/s) d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 en 00 CN CO NO CO co CN o CO r--CN i<o CN CN ON CN NO 00 CN NO CO CO CN NO CO CO in CO o r^ m in CN CN CO t-» CN 00 CN d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 3 110.10 110.09 109.77 109.76 109.76 109.26 109.19 109.17 108.44 108.40 108.39 107.81 107.64 107.63 107.24 107.23 107.22 106.60 99.80 99.80 99.49 99.49 99.47 98.73 98.33 98.31 97.74 o o o o o o o o o o o "3-o o o o -=r o o o CN CN CN CN CN CN CN r^ CN 3^" CN d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d Cross-section II 13u CD CO II 13d II 12u o CN II 12d 3 I—1 CD •3 II 10u CD O II 10d II 9u CD ON P6 II II 8u o 00 II 8d # 3 CO CD CO II 3d II 2u CD CN II 2d | 3 1—H CD •3 CO O CO cd •3 C 3 O CD •D CO ft 3 NO 0 0 NO 9 ON ON ON C N CO a CO "a, E ed 0 0 M co =5 o 1-<2 >; £? CO c W T3 C CO o _o CO > o f 4= a , CO Q CO 6 0 cd t - i CO > < -a w 3 a E o O -o a ed cSpco o OO u o -4-* cd o o P-) _co cd E-1 Cfl . >i cd " "c o o 0 0 cd T3 cd < P-. E, T3 cd w E, 3 > c 8 .2 O N C N NO ON C N C N T f O ro cd T 3 S 3 O 3 60 C O c a, c .S o 03 O U C Pi s Z * CO -13 c ccS II-o o o u loo ro ON m' I O N C O i n ON i n CN ? s erf Z PS* Z r -Tf d in oo iri I O N O N in O N 0 0 Tf i n O N o N O o Tf d m I ro | in O N SI S i o o oo i n O N 0 0 | Tf O N N O Tf S i O N ro O N O N Tf d| 0 0 i n ro O N '13 < co >, 13 c S3 i n O N in O N O N Tf i n O N i n O N Tf" I O N Tf m | S i ro O N O N I in ro O N ro i n i n oo ro O N ro ro i n 0 0 ro 3 Crf Z 0 0 i n | o 0 0 i n O N O N 0 0 I Tf O N O N r--ro O N | Tf ro O N o -it rs CJ >•' CO T3 ON 0 0 i n * 3 C8 ro * # 3| ro # * ro •a CN m o co 43 o cd CJ CJ 6 0 3 c2 s 6 0 £ CJ C o 3 O 40 T 3 CJ >% CJ t 3 s cd cj h §\s 6 0 & CO C . 2 2 u 8 43 .3 ^ co N CJ ^ CJ *« 2 •T; 3 & CO 6 0 g O . S o d •o -s U in ' C CJ I 13 g S cs * Z * * co CN od ON en CN 00 as en oo wo NO O en oo NO 9 ON ON ON CN CD <u Q CO oo CD CD L -u o U l ,o >^  00 U l CD c w T3 C CO CO CD PH w cO c CO o CD , U 00 NO CN NO £ CN wo d o S i CN d wo d o NO ON r--ON ON ON I ON od ON ON 00 -cr d wo o ON ON wo en ON oo od ON 6 I* ON so O O ON 00 CN CN od ON o WO en oo en I CN od ON o en ON rs ON NO r^ d I"* ON en NO CO CN NO ON o NO NO ON o CN 00 WO ON 3' r--00 W0 ON CN ' C f wo ON O wo en CN oo| Si as en oo | NO WO ON I CN wo ON W0 en OS o en o NO cd ON q en ON ON CO CO 00 ON CN ON O "CD > OH CD Q CD 00 2 CD > < T 3 CD 3 I o O s CO cno U i PH CD CD C+H U 3 00 CO m CO H < PH PJ CO 3 CO PH co O u £ >s £ 3 c o NO wo d o CN CN CN d| d o •a ON o ho NO NO o NO I CN od Os oo I © ON ON CO CN ON od ON •3 00 •3 o CO NO WO ON CN NO NO 00 CO ON CO | CN ON r--so os CO CN NO CO NO ON r--wo ON ON CO WO I NO NO ON •3 WO CN WO NO ON ON W0 CO ON WO ON ON CO d| ON NO W0 ON CO wo ON NO NO WO co Si ON ON CN NO •"Cf d wo "*'l ON * # 3| CO M co| S i •3 CN CN CO ON NO NO ON CO ON cdl Os CN ON CD 60 3 60 •3 CD > i CD 60 c CD CD c •3 CD N >, a CO 60 O 3 B "3 •3 CO CD u o B 0 0 in SO os as as co s •4-* C/3 < Et, W o ro od Os S i in SO Os CN 0 0 Os o m ro CN 0 0 0 0 in Os Os T t oo o CO so cJ CD Q CO t co oo CO CO co c cd o o „ u oo SO m o o Os ro T t o © o o T t T t o CN CN od as CN ro O as so ro ro in so so 0 0 T t Os SO M ro Os in ro Os ro Os Os ro ro T t d SO m T t ro 3' CN T t 3 UH c2 >^  00 UH CO e Eti TD C CO c/3 co so T t d o ro | o as | os SO oo 0 0 Os o I CN 0 0 Os CN ro od as CN CN r~ Os I SO sd OS T f ro| m , as ro I ro | 1 0 , Os O T t | T t as i n o ro OS ro Os in as CO o CO > O H CO Q CO 00 CO UH CO •> < w "3 O H £ o CJ TD s= CO C/3 ' ' f < tt, w CO C CO Et, T t o so Os i n d o oo ro I o Os ON Os o CN CN ro od as CN I SO Os O © T t m SO 0 0 SO d ro oo in as m'| Os oo oo | S i CN ro as o CO o , C 0 ro T t CN m T t ro ro T t , T t d CN T t d| SO T t d oo ro 3 OO CO 3 Os T t d o SO OS 0 0 od Os o I CN od Os SO CN as o I t -s6\ Os OS in OS Os i n Os i n I ro| in OSI ro| in Os 0 0 T t OS so sq ro Os T t © ro Os W CO H • a % .2 2 3 •a OS T J r- T3 SO T3 m 3 ro CO ro CN cn m 9 O N Os as to to Q CO 00 CO 3 o 00 i -co c W •3 3 CO o co > cl CO Q CO 00 ca t-co > < •3 u 3 I O U •3 o lH CO o 00 co C N W jo ca H 1-3 O o CO loo I B CO s •3 CO < P H P J • o % .2 o C N C N as as m co I I C N 00 i n 00 Os C N m © 00 00 Os SO so °i Os Os 00 C N O N as -a 00 | q as os 00 Os CN 00 C N I cn 00 as cn cn Os as OS cn C N o N O 00 Os C N T—I C N O N N O •3 N O in 06 O N 00 © I N O 00 OS cn o O N o N O C N o C N © o o O N o i n O N d N O O N o O N C N r--co| I C N SO cn 00 O N I N O O N •3 N O N O O N C N C N 0O 0O I C N C N 00 N O O N S i N O O N 0O o C N in m C N N O O N i n O N cn i n C N o d N O d © cn O N SO C N 00 N O O N cn\ N O O N N O O N N O O N o C N C N 'cl-in C N C N N O O N O N en o 00 N O O N >n O N 3 CO to 100 >n O N O O o ICN S i I O N i n O N C N C N so I O N 00 C N |<N r ->n C N |3' oil 00 in C N | in O N O N IS O N O N O N en I O S i fN O N I en O N i n i n O N 3' O o O N O N O N °. C N I O N s i o, O N O N I esq I in O N © i n | C N •3 CO to q C N o i n d N O •3 en N O O N 00 o C N l S, O N | C N | 5?' 00 ©I S, 'O C N C N | N O C N © t-;| O N •3 C N 00 O C O in '3-en O N C N O N I © C N © en O N CO CN co O N 00 in cd O N N O N O C N © in C N C N en O N ro ro 2 ) ON ON ON o C J Q CN S 03 00 C J C J 3 o S? C J c W C CO C J > co" 4 = "cx C J Q C J cO i -C J > < C J 3 I O O -o c CO o DH C J C J Cn U-3 00 C J -*-» CO _JJ 4 3 CO H c o o H J CO NO ON ON NO CN ON O ro CN CN ON ON ON ro od ON NO ON iri ON T f ON ro ON O T f p ON 9 o o o CN CN co J O "ex c o CO Uh u 3 o UH c2 >, CO c W o o > co" 45 -*-• ex CO Q CO oo c d Uh CO > 3 I O U ~o c c d < PH w i I f o o 00 m | © o oo T f CN oo CN od ON ON o o [CN ON ON ro r-T f T f d o C N c CO £= c d C c d PH NO | d o o ON NO O ro CN ON ON CN CN O O p od ON ro od CN CN ON T f 00 I CN ON T f CN ON ON o CN |CN CN NO ro od ON ro O NO T f d o T f ON ro T f d oo I CN NO |VO NOl ON T f </~l NO ON ro IT) ON ro CN CN ON d NO ro od ON ro NO ON ro I w>\ ON I 00 ON 00 NO NO o | NO ON NO p CN CN T f 00 NO ON NO O ON ON o T f CN ON <«o ON 00 ON IT) ON CN ro oo Si |CN ON 1/1 |CN ON T f CN ON T f o CN o vq ON ON ro ON O T f ro </"> ON NO 1/1 T f ON CN oo NO ir> in ON o ICNI o 00 CN o I oil NO CN O ro| CN ro ON COl ON ON NO CO ON NO CN T f T f T f ro co ON NO 00 CO ON ON CO ro ON T f CN CO CO ON NO CNI ON CO ro ON i n p CO C+H Uh 3 00 3 CN T f 3 ! d | © o o ON ON o 00 od ON ON co 00 I T f CO T f ON NO CO d vo 00 ro CN O «/-> ON T ? ' co T f ON o T f d T f CO CO ON T f o l CN CO CO ON I T f PH J U •§ H 8 .2 8 t3 T 3 ON 00 T3 O NO T3 CO T3 03 ro T3 CN r--o o o tN 1) c tN JO "El E CO 00 .id u <L> U o 3 o 0-1 -a s CO CO D o _o > co" 4= n. CD Q CD c>0 co u CD > < "3 CD 3 C-E o •U •3 3 CO p CJ o M—I U 3 00 .CD I l O W <D CO H CO CO tN E, 3 NO tN E, 3 CO CO O u cj c O '-+-» o CD co 0 0 0 0 o o o C N o o i d g CO oo CJ CJ U . CJ c W T 3 C cO o j s " C J > a, CJ Q CJ 00 CO u» CJ > < CJ a, g o V T 3 C CO o U H P H CJ CJ M-H U H 3 00 CO I N O W JO x> CO c0 c CO •o (= o o CJ 00 Hi CO < P. £ £ s CO CO O U H u c o CJ CO ON CN ro t N 0 0 2 ) O o o t N © " t N o O ID 00 u, CD CD CJ 3 o p o 00 CD 3 W •3 3 ca CO 'CD O > OH CD Q CD 00 ca i -CD > < -3 CD -4—» 3 s o cj -3 3 ca cB o 1-0 H CD O 3 O0 ca i i> W CD t—1 s HI £ i s g .2 CJ S •3 a O N i n T f o o CN Os cd Cd oo UH <u > s C J CO e C / 3 P-I C / 3 c Cd o o C J loo IT) N O Os C N © N O i n N O ON m C N O N O 0 0 T f © m © o O N T f C O © o ON O 0 0 I i n C N N O NO C O © oo t--•n ' l C O C O © O N C O i n co © CQ UH & UH C J S3 w •o (3 CS C / 3 CO o J O > c/f 43 -4—» OH CJ Q C J 00 c d UH C J > < T3 C J O H o U X ) c c d o U H P H C J o cS M-H U H 00 U H <U H—» cd I 0 0 W CJ 3 cd H cd S3 cd T f © N O i n N O S3 C J B H—* C / 3 < fe 5 3 i S3 8 .2 u 8 © i n i n m I N O oo l O N O C O © NO OS l O N O O O C O T f 3 I C O © N O NO 0 O C N O N m N O N O C 3 i n T f i n i n N O O O C O T f C O © N O T f © C N © N O oo C O T t x> CO 3 1 C N T f m oo oo ON oo oo T f © Si r--r--© C O iu-5 C O ON <n'| T f C O oo C N O N T f T f ON oo in' ON i n oo oo T f T f T f O C N © O O i n N O C O ON r-0 0 oo © ON oo l«n'| T f T f T f X ) C N T f | T f 0 0 T f T f © T f N O i n T f | T f C N C O T f © i n C O < n T f T f o o CN CN ca CD 'E, 0 0 U . CD > s CD H—» -4—» CD c g m U l § u c w C ca C/3 CD ' O o > CD Q CD 00 ca u< CD > < CD OH a o U -a c ca o U l P H CD CD 3 0 0 U i CD ca I O N w CD ? O O 0 0 CN +H c CD N O N O A adjustn v(m/s) A adjustn v(m/s) C O N O W O oo A adjustn v(m/s) © © C/3 C/3 > ^ EF 1.24 1.19 anal 1 H oo oq oo oo 0 0 C O CN W O CN CN © T 3 £H tc N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O wo o o <D v (m/s) 0 0 v (m/s) CN W O CN oo r -O N W O 0 0 oo N O O N W O O N C O N O v (m/s) © © © o © © © © o (m) O N CN C O O N CN r- C O © CN © © © © © H N O oo W O oo W O C O W O CN CN CN O N © oo © 0 0 N O 3 N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O wo -4—» e CD ? A adjustn v (m/s) EF nalysis nalysis nalysis j H O N oo oo oo 0 0 C O r-CN CN 'ar ca -4—» C/3 N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O wo P H v (m/s) wo C O oo © © N O wo oo N O 0 0 W O N O N O v (m/s) © © ©' © © © o ©' © -( CN CN CN O N H © oo CN O O N © © O N © © © 1 1 © © 1 H r -0 0 wo 0 0 N O C O W O CN CN CN O N © O O © O N N O 3 N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O wo O N o O N O O N © C O 0 0 C O oo C O oo C O 0 0 C O 0 0 C O oo © © © © © © © o o a Cross-section =3 C O O C O 1 3d CN CN II 2d 3 wo C O o o CN CN CN CD O H a cd o o i — CJ > s C J tJ CJ C 2 m UH U H CJ C w T 3 C cd CO CJ o O > 43 P H CJ Q CJ bo cd U H CJ > < CJ H-» =8 O H S o U T3 £3 cd O CJ o C+H U H O O U H CJ H—» cd o CN W 3 cd H CO cd (3 cd -a a o o C J O O CO . cd C cd PH 3 3 c *H—» o <u CO i C/3 C/3 o U H u O N N O O N O N N O O N N O N O C O o o CN C N c c d CO CJ I a oo t -> s u H—» C J G S CQ u c2 U H CD G w -o G cd CO .£} o J D "53 > O H <D Q CD (50 cd U H CD > T3 CD H-» 3 O H e o U T3 G cd ta o U H O H CD C J Ci-H UH O O U H C J c d I C N W CD cd H (m) O S G CD in A. adjustn v (m/s) 0.84 CO EF. ? vo p ' c o *—H anal 1 H C O r-C O o C N o s o o 0 0 O S in O s vo o s in T 3 £ H vd vd vd vd vd in in in in o Seci v (m/s) C O T f r--c-- m vo O N T f o 0 0 in 0 0 T f C O 0 0 C N in v (m/s) d © © © d d d d d 1 O s vo l O O s O s T f V D o O s p C N V O T f O ^ H © © d d d d -1 J H C N r-o r-- o o o o o T f o vo O s T f O s C O O S O s T f 3 vd vd vd vd vd in in in in IT H—> G C J A. adjustn v (m/s) EF. ? sis mal 1 H T f t--C O r-f - H C N O s o r-o 0 0 O s in O s in O s C N <n c a . H—» CO vd vd vd vd vd in in in in P H CO vo T f o o T f V O o in vo o m t--T f o V O r-m > © © © © c d d d d d 1 H o o o in O s O s in V O O s p O s © © © d d d d H C O o r- o s o o o T f o vo O s T f O s C O O s o in 3 vd vd vd vd vd in in in in c f l T f in T f in T f IT) S O vo V O V O V D V O V O vq vo vq vo vo r--tion o Cross-se 3 C O o C O T 3 C O C N o C N 2d o Cross-se co o o CN CN J=i CD P M CD "EH B ca C/3 u< CD > CD CD c g PQ Ui c2 & U i CD e w e CCJ C/3 CD O O > c/T x i -u» O H CD Q CD 6 0 ca u CD > < CD H - J I o U C ca CD o CD CD C+H U l C/3 U l CD ca I CN CN W CD ? WO I> c CD wo c -*-» cn ca <: cn 0.43 ysis EF. wo 0 0 ysis © anal 1 H CN WO wo wo O N r-oq oq N O WO C-; CN £- N O N O wo WO wo WO WO wo wo <o Sect C/3 N O CN WO N O © CO N O WO CN co O N CN O N wo CO CO © © © © ' © © © © © o p wo CO wo CN 0 0 © WO o 0 0 wo CN oo © © © © © ' © © © i H wo o WO O N N O 0 0 CO oq wo l > CO CO CN 3 N O N O wo wo WO wo wo wo wo C CD A. adjustn v (m/s) EF. ? sis >» mal 1 H co wo ^ M wo N O O N N O oq oq N O l> "Cf 1> wo CN C/3 sc. N O N O WO wo wo wo wo WO wo P M CO CN N O WO CO wo CN CO oo CN O N CO 0 0 CO © © © © © © © © © 1 H r—1 O N CN wo wo CN 0 0 O N 0 0 © N O O N N O © © © © © © © © © 1 CN IT) o wo wo O N N O 0 0 CO oq wo CO i > r^ CN 3 N O N O wo WO wo wo wo wo WO cn m B N O N O N O N O N O N O CN CN CN CN CN CN l> s—- CO CO co CO CO CO CO CO CO a tion o Cross-se CO o CO T3 CO CN o CN T3 CN o Cross-se 0 0 C O o o f N C N CD t ccj oo UH CD > 2 CD 4—» -*-» CD a S CQ UH UH CD a w -o e ccj C/3 CD CD jo ~CD > c/T 43 -*-» O H CD Q CD M CCJ UH CD > -a CD o U T J S3 ca J D O l-< O H CD CD c * - t Un 00 UH CD H—» CCJ I r o C N w J D CCJ H 4-» S3 CD ? 5.73 5.73 A adjustn v (m/s) 0.62 0.69 sisA EF. ? 0.73 0.84 anal 1 H N O T f N O T f C N O N C O 0 0 oo C N r o *—i C N N O N O i n i n i n i n i n i n i n o Sect 1/3 r o C N o l O o T f r~-r o O N C O < n r o r o r-» o T f d d d d d d d d d H <HO O N T f o m oo N O T f o 0 0 C N T f O N © d d d d d d d d H N O T f i n T f O N C N oo O N r - - r-- o o C N 3 N O N O i n i n i n i n m ' i n i n H—» S3 CD ? A. adjustn 1/3 EF. sis >> inal j 0 0 T f N O T f C N O N C O oq 0 0 C N C N l > t > C N C N CCJ H—> C/3 UH N O N O i n u - i i n i n i n i n i n C/3 T f C N C O i n O N C O r-c o 0 0 N O O N C O T f C O r--T f N O T f d d d d d d d d d 0 0 r--r o C N m O N N O T f o r- 0 0 0 0 m N O N O ^ H d d d d d d d d d (UI) r-T f m T f C N O N C N oo O N r--o C N 3 N O N O i n i n i n > n i n i n i n C/3 B c5 i n © i n p i n p o c o o c o o C O o r o o C O o c o r o r o C O T f T f T f T f T f T f tion o Cross-se 3S r o o r o T 3 r o 3S C N o C N *o C N J3 CD T3 Cross-se O N r o c s cn 3 P H W O CN CO cn 'cn c O o , u 00 s N O O N wo O N cn 3 P H W r--© 13 3 03 CO © O ho o o O N O N r-O N od O N 0 0 od O N O N oo O N oo O N K O | © G O I O N WO O N O N wo I O N WO O N | WO O N C O O N N O O N C O C O ^1 O N C O O N O N w o CN O N WO CNl O N CN O N C O C O I 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo 0 0 N O © C O r-N O WO N O O N wo © N O N O O O WO © N O N O N O N O d oo WO O N wo N O wo t - -N O N O N O WO d O N N O O N O O O N O O O WO d wo wo CO r--C O N O CN N O WO t - - r--o O N C O c--wo N O WO oo 3 £ .2 N-» cn CN CO d | © 3 c o © d © O N O N wo I O N O O O N T3 c o 3 CN CN oq od O N oo O N T3 CN CN 0 0 O N 3 C O © od O N wo wo M O N O N oq wo O N ho O N | WO O N O N O N T 3 *o O N 3 wo CN CO O N CN C O O N wo oo WO CN O N 3 "3r c o CN O N C O CN O N "3" * CN CN od oo wo oo U oo CN 3 e ca OO CO ccj C CCJ T3 C O o u 00 3 CO CO O u c o u C/3 00 NO i n O N ON C N C O cd X ! c 3 o .o E cd <§ CO C L 3 o o o f N CN CO c 3 co t C3 GO co co Ut U c cd e r3 u U l CO e W -o c 03 CO CO CO O "o > c/T -3 a u Q CD CJ) 3 U l > CO -u» O H E O U e CO u" tB o CD O H - H U l 3 00 U l co -u> 3 NO cn w S CD O 3 «> « » O N H C N g > 3 C O A adjustrr v (m/s) w g nd analysis nd analysis g S? 100.87 100.72 99.69 99.47 99.32 98.75 98.71 98.60 98.10 96.50 96.40 95.42 95.00 94.83 94.01 93.17 93.01 91.91 88.99 oo oq 00 00 88.51 o Sec (m/s) C O r-p C O p N O O C O p O N wo p 00 C O C O N O C N oo O N oo wo p O N O N C O C N o o (m/s) 1 H N O O N oo O N W O p O N O N r - oo p O N p C O p oo C N O N O N O W O O N wo O N N O O 00 C N C N C N © © d d g 3 100.81 100.66 99.62 99.40 99.26 98.69 98.65 98.55 98.05 96.46 96.34 95.35 94.93 94.75 93.96 93.10 92.96 91.86 88.93 88.80 88.46 -4—» 3 tu g EFA adjustrr v (m/s) EFA adjustrr (m) CO lalys C N lalys 1 100.87 O N r-^r C O wo r-; C O N O o o wo o C N o p -cf 00 o r- wo p C N O N o o o O N C O wo rst ai 100.87 o o O N O N O N O N O N O N od O N 00 O N 00 O N od O N N O O N N O O N W O O N wo O N O N O N C O O N C O O N O N O N 00 00 00 od oo g N O © C N O C N O N ,Z! 00 p N O O C O p N O O N W O p t--00 C O C O W O C O C O p 00 oo O N O C N O C O C O p > C O © O N O N C N C N O N C O O N o 00 p 00 p C O p oo C N O N p O C N O O N wo C O C N O C N t--O N O N C N o CO CD H d d d —< — ' ~* —< —< *-< d d I ' S E H 100.81 100.67 r-oo O ^t-00 C N O N N O W O N O 00 wo wo p N O -cf C O wo C O C O O N r- N O O N O © p N O 00 O N oq 00 for 3 100.81 100.67 O N O N O N O N O N O N oo O N od O N od O N 00 O N N O O N N O O N wo O N O N T T ' O N C O O N C O O N C O O N O N O O 00 od 00 od 00 indary o Cross-sectior N3u N3c N3d N2u N2c N2d Nlu Nlc Nld * 3 N O o N O P9 5u o wo • o wo 4u o 4d * 3 C N o C N 2d upstream * C N C N C O 9 o o o C N C N U S3 3 »—> C N c j cd oo C J C J U H u S3 cd a u U H I C J c W TJ oo C J co O C J > o f 43 » CJ p C J cd U H > < TJ CO - U J CH s o u TJ S3 cd co" o U H CL, CO o H - H U H =3 O O U H co H—» cd C/3 C N ^ w g co i n 3 "1 <S C O H co (m) H—» c CO EFA adjustrr v(m/s) EFA adjustrr lysis lysis ana 1 H 100.84 100.63 Os m C N T t r-C N 0 0 sq in sq C O in in © © T t T J -C O 0 0 C O m Os C N O O in os C O Os T t O O C N Os C N oo T t T t -o c 100.84 100.63 os os os Os Os Os 0 0 Os od Os 0 0 Os od Os sd Os SO Os in Os Tt"' Os T t os C O Os C O Os C N OS »—i Os od 0 0 od oo od oo o Sec (m/s) oo C O oo C O in C O m C N C O SO C N in oo C N Os © Os C O so C O C N T f C N TT C N Os T t C O C O OS C N T t C O in C O C N (m/s) > 1 - J os oo C O os oo oo oo Os © © © O O Os C O T f © C O © Os © C N Os r--© C N 0 0 SO Os C N O O © T t © r -^ H © d d d d © ~* © © © 1 H 100.74 100.53 T t C N C O Os Os in >n SO T f Os Ti-ro m C N 0 0 C N T t 0 0 r-oo © © T t 0 0 r-. C N O O © SO C O 3 100.74 100.53 os Os Os Os Os Os 0 0 Os 0 0 OS 0 0 Os Os SO Os SO Os in Os T t Os Tf' Os C O OS C O OS C N Os Os 0 0 0 0 od 0 0 od oo H—> S3 CO ? A adjustrr v (m/s) w (m) CO CO >s Id rH 1 H 100.83 100.63 Os r-- C N T f © C O 0 0 sq in sq SO in in © © T f T f C O 0 0 C O m Os C N 0 0 in Os ~ in OS in 0 0 C O Os in 0 0 so T t rst ai 100.83 100.63 Os Os Os Os OS Os od OS od Os od Os od Os sd Os SO Os in Os T f Os T f OS C O OS C O Os C N Os Os od oo od 0 0 od oo E oo C N C N C O 0 0 r -co C N C O C O so C N 0 0 oo C N Os © OS ro SO C O C N T f C O C O SO C N Os T t C O C N T t C N © T t T t VO so C N 1 os oo oo so r -oo oo OS © © OS Os oo OS C O Tl-C O C O © SO © Os Os T f © C N O O in © in © © OS Os d d d d © d © © d -1 1 H 100.74 100.54 C N r-C N C O C N Os in in OS T f Os T f C O in C N 0 0 C N T t 0 0 C O r-r-0 0 © © 0 0 0 0 r- ro oo oo C O 3 100.74 100.54 Os Os OS OS Os Os od Os 0 0 Os 0 0 OS Os SO Os SO Os in Os T t Os T f Os C O Os C O Os C N Os OS 0 0 oo od 0 0 od 0 0 Cross-section N3u 1 N3c 1 N3d 1 N2u 1 N2c 1 N2d 1 Nlu 1 Nlc 1 Nld * 3 SO C J so P9 || II 5u o m TJ m | 4u C J T t I 4d * 3 C N o C N I" 2d | C O C N C O cd - O S3 P o 4 3 cd cj U CO l=H 3 CO >t e 1*2 3 o o CD loo co 3 C 3 co •a1 3 < PH W is ? 3 CO co 3 < PH W i SH 8 .2 o Lo oo © I © oo O N N O | © © N O W O © © oo C O N O ' S i " © © oo oo C N •<d-O N O N O N C O O N O N O N C N wo oo © C O O N O N co C N O N O N © C N C O N O od O N N O C N © 0 0 wo od I O N C N N O od O N C O O N O N O N I wo od O N © wo od O N O N co | od O N O N O N O N O N O N O N C O N O O N N O © O N © oo C N N O O N N O O N O C O C O C N N O I O N I oo O N C N C O oo O N © C N C N W O O N r-C O r--O N wo So' oo C O oo wo N O ^ ' l O N O N oq co O N ^ O C N O O "d-© C O O N oo N O r--co O N C N O N N O oq C N O N O N C N O N W O oq od I oo r--co N O od oo N O O N © ho oo C N | O N © O N C O © N O od oo r--© I © N O W O © © C O o O N I O N O N co O N O N wo C N O N O N co N O 0 0 O N 0 0 W O od I O N O N od O N O N O N O N co N O O N C O N O O N 0 0 O N N O O N O N 0 0 C O O N ©I C O O N O N 0 0 C N O N O N N O 0 0 od 0 0 C O C N C O O N C N N O C N N O C N C N W O C N N O © © C O C N C O © C O C N O O s t © C N © C N -d-co O N C N oo © C N O N O N O N © C O © 0 0 O N C N © C O O N N O O N O N W O © O N N O © © © t--N O O N O N © C O O N O N O N O N | W O 0 0 O N © wo od O N C N 0 0 O N O N M O N 0 0 C N N O O N co C N NO I ON C N C N | wo O N O N N O O N C N 0 0 C O O N C N O N C N 0 0 C N | O N © O N r--od 0 0 3 C O T3 C O 3 C N TJ C N 3 2 CD 2 NO N O 3 wo wo 3 # 31 C N C N C O ^1-co od oo C N O N © W O N O 0 0 I oo N O C N od oo O N od oo N O C O od oo C N t--O N o CO ca N O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 C N | 0 0 oo C N 3 e CO CJ h 9 o o o CN o CD a cd O O CD CD U H u c c d a O H cd -3 U U H c2 U H CD c w T 3 C cd C O CD O j2 "CD > O H CD Q CD 0 0 cd U H CD > < CD •*-» O H S o U X ) S3 c d O U H O H CD CD M-H U H 3 00 U H CD -*-> c d I ^ ON co W g CD ly-i * CO E-i — O N C J CD N O O N A adjustrr v (m/s) 0.59 ond analysis P H W ? 0.85 ond analysis 100.67 100.41 99.51 99.38 99.09 98.55 98.37 98.37 97.86 96.19 96.19 95.20 94.71 94.55 93.77 92.83 92.77 91.63 88.71 88.56 88.19 Sec v(m/s) N O V D vo O N m m i n i n i n © N O C N i n m i n C O m N O i n N O T t N O o C O i n C O N O oo i n T t i n T t N O r--O N i n v(m/s) © d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 T t oo m m O N T t O N O N oo p oo o O N T t O N oo O N N O O N T t O N O N O N i n t-- 0 0 O N r - - o O N O O p o p C N O N C N O © d d d d d d O d d d d d d d d O '-' 1 m N O O N C O O N T f co oo o T t i n i n C O i n C O T t oo oo r - 0 0 O N N O C O m N O 0 0 N O r~~ C N N O O N N O T t i n c-~ . 3 o o o o O N O N O N O N O N O N od O N od O N od O N O N N O O N N O O N i n O N T t O N T t O N C O O N C N O N C N O N O N 0 0 oo od 0 0 od 0 0 ? O N +-» S3 CD N O O N A adjustrr v (m/s) 0.59 P H w ? i n 0 0 CO d lalys 100.68 lalys 1 H 100.68 T T m 0 0 C O ~ T t i n r -C O t--co N O 0 0 O N O N O C N C N r - -o N O 0 0 N O 0 0 O N t - ; T t N O i n N O T t C N rst at 100.68 o o O N O N O N O N O N O N od O N od O N od O N l > O N vd O N N O O N i n O N T t O N T t O N C O -O N C N O N C N O N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O od 0 0 E v (m/s) v (m/s) m m C O V O O N m O N T t N O O N i n oo m i n i n O N O C O i n N O i n N O i n N O C N N O T t m T t V O T t i n N O i n N O N O O N i n v (m/s) d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d (m) O N r-. r -N O O N oo O N C - - C O p i n oo N O oo t--oo N O O N i n O N T t O N m O N T t 0 0 0 0 O N i n N O O N m p C N p o O N oo p d d d d d d d d d d d © d d d d d 100.66 100.39 O N T t r -co O N O C N i n m C O i n C O T t oo 0 0 r - 0 0 V O 0 0 i n O N T t O O 0 0 C O N O C O O O i n C N C N 3 100.66 100.39 O N O N O N O N O N O N od O N od O N od O N O N vd O N N O O N i n O N T t O N T t O N C O -O N C N O N C N O N O N od oo od 0 0 od oo Cross-section N3u 1 N3c N3d | N2u 1 N2c 1 N2d | Nlu 1 Nlc 1 Nld * 3 N O o N O P9 || | 5u o i n 1 5d | 4u O T t | 4d * 3 C N o C N 1 2d m CN c o cd • O a 3 o £ a u 3 « H-» c CD 95.99 || A adjustrr v (m/s) 0.46 P H W o analysis d analysis 1 100.48 100.21 O N CN T f o O N o co oo CO * - H N O oo O N O N O N O N O N O N T f CN CO i n i n CN N O i n m O N CN N O T f 00 CO i n O N ond; 100.48 100.21 as O N O N od O N 00 O N od O N od O N O N i n O N i n O N T f O N T f O N T f O N CO O N CN O N CN O N O N od 00 od 00 00 Sec C O > oo T f V O I T ) oo T f CN T f l > T f i n T f O N T f CO T f <n T f T f 00 T f m <N i n N O CO T f CO i n 00 T f O N T f CO i n T f i n oo T f d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 o oo i n i n CO T f N O O N oo r--N O o m CN O O 00 o oo oo m i n O N CN N O CO r -O N T f oo T f 00 r N © d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d i 100.47 100.19 00 CN co O N 00 O N CN N O CN o N O oo O N O N 00 O N T f o CO T f i n N O T f i n oo CN T f T f r-CO T f O N 3 100.47 100.19 O N as O N O N od O N od O N 00 O N 00 O N O N >n O N i n O N T f O N T f O N T f O N CO O N CN O N CN O N O N od oo od 00 00 ? O N O N -4—» C CD v i O N A adjustrr C O 0.46 H H w o C O r N d co 100.49 *c3 rH 100.49 100.21 as CN T f CN O N 00 CN r - CO N O 00 O N O N O N O N O N O N T f r -co 00 i n i n N O r -m O CO O N T f CO T f o © rst at 100.49 100.21 O N O N O N O N O O O N 00 O N od O N od O N O N >n O N i n O N T f O N T f O N T f O N CO O N CN O N CN O N O N 00 00 00 00 00 00 E co T f c o m SO T f O T f m 00 T f r-T f T f CN >n T f 00 T f m CO i n CO i n T f T f T f i n T f T f i n o i n o N O r-T f d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 = N O r-o 00 N O o N O N O 00 i n N O 00 V O CO 00 O N © O O i n t--T f N O 00 r-o N O r--00 00 N O © O N d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 100.48 100.19 oo CN CO o O N r - -CN N O CN o N O oo O N r - -O N 00 O N r - -T f i n CO r -i n T f N O N O i n O N CN 00 T f T f O N O N 3 100.48 100.19 O N O N O N O N 00 O N od O N od O N od O N O N i n O N i n O N T f O N T f O N T f O N CO O N CN O N CN O N O N od 00 od 00 00 Cross-section N3u 1 N3c I N3d 1 N2u 1 N2c 1 N2d .. I Nlu I Nlc 1 Nld 1 . 6u* CD N O P9 || m CD i n | 5d | 4u O T f | 4d # CN o CN | 2d N O CN CO <2 b CO X ) a 3 o S cd b w OH 3 o o o CN <© CN -*-> O o CD t 3 0 0 CD CD u !=! 3 B H3 u I -CD c w -o co CD CD "CD > co" M -»-» O H CD Q CD 6 0 ca CD > < CD -u> 3 O H a o U T3 c 3 O CD CD C+H SH 3 0 0 u , CD -4—* ca * - H C O W £ CD WO 3 ON H r -H -4—» c CD g A adjustn CO g M M w g ond analysis ond analysis g 100.77 100.59 99.77 99.54 99.25 98.59 98.53 98.51 97.98 96.35 96.31 95.36 94.94 94.71 93.89 92.92 92.89 91.75 88.83 88.70 88.36 Sec v (m/s) oo 0 0 0 0 N O N O o O N wo N O CN r--N O N O 0 0 CN 0 0 o wo oo o wo oo N O r-- r--wo 0 0 CN O N r--v (m/s) d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d j o Os O N oo CO N O © CN O N O N © O N p CN O oo p wo p wo p wo o O N r-p CN OO oo O N O N N O O O wo > H d d d d ^ d d d ^ rt CO N O wo wo r- CN WO CO CN N O WO o WO O N r^ WO O N CO CO CN CO CO O N oo N O c-~ oq oo oq N O oq CO r-; O N N O N O CO CO 3 o o o o O N O N O N O N O N O N 0 0 O N od O N od O N r-^  O N NO-O N NO-O N WO O N O N r^ O N CO-O N CN O N CN O N O N od oo 0 0 0 0 od 0 0 g e CD EFA adjustn v (m/s) EFA adjustn g CO CO 100.59 > v 13 rH 1 —t 100.77 100.59 wo r-CN 0 0 wo CO wo CN wo 0 0 O N WO CO CO N O CO O N N O CO O N O N o O N r-- N O oq WO rst at 100.77 100.59 O N O N O N O N O N O N od O N 0 0 O N od O N O N NO-O N NO-O N wo O N O N O N CO-O N CN" O N CN O N O N od oo od oo 0 0 oo g wo r-- wo r-N O CN N O 0 0 CO r--O N N O oo r--N O 0 0 CN 0 0 r- CN r-N O 0 0 CN •<r CN 0 0 O N O N d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 H o\ o O N oo o O N wo p O N O N O N wo O N p CO p wo p O N p oo O N r--p oo wo p CO o O N O N oo d d d d d d , — 1 d d '—1 d H 100.74 100.56 wo r- CN WO CN r^ wo o wo O N wo O N CO CO CN CO CO O N CO t--o O N O N 0 0 oq CO oq O 0 0 CO 3 100.74 100.56 O N O N O N O N O N O N 0 0 O N od O N 0 0 O N O N NO-O N N O O N WO O N rr" O N O N CO O N CN O N CN O N O N od 0 0 od oo od 0 0 Cross-section N3u 1 N3c 1 N3d 1 N2u 1 N2c II N2d 1 Nlu 1 Nlc 1 Nld * 3 N O CD N O P9 1 II 5u o wo | 5d I 4u o | 4d | 2u* o CN | 2d CN CO ca •3 C 3 o a. 3 o o o CM cT CN o O CN CD g rt 0 0 CD CD U i u c <3 g C H rt 43 u £? CD 3 w •o c rt c/3 CD CD o > cn" C H CD Q CD W ) rt U i CD > < CD 3 £ o U T J 3 rt o U i O H CD CD C+H U i 3 O O u . CD -t-> rt C N cn w g CD r--rt H s t +-» e CD A adjustm v (m/s) P H ysis r N ysis nd ana: 100.69 100.45 99.58 99.39 99.11 98.51 98.41 98.39 97.86 96.23 96.22 95.24 94.80 94.56 93.83 92.81 92.79 91.67 88.74 88.60 88.26 o Sec v (m/s) * t N O oo N O o N O i n i n N O C N N O C N N O i n m o N O m i n m N O N O m N O i n t - -m m o r-C N N O i n r--N O i n r - -O N m v (m/s) d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 •J i n oo O N © O N o oo c n p i n oo C N O N O N o p oo O N O N m p N O c n p N O o O N C N O m O N O O p rN d d d d d d d d d d d d d i H N O c n s t N O m c n O N o O N ^ t O N c n C O oo C N C N O N C N C N r-r -- d -m C N oq O N i n N O r--i n - d -C N 3 o o o o r - H O N O N O N O N O N O N od O N od O N od O N O N N O O N N O O N i n O N -d-' O N "d-* O N c n O N C N O N C N O N O N 0 0 oo 0 0 0 0 od 0 0 a CD ? A adjustrr v (m/s) P H w ? C/3 r \ cn N O s f r > i " r t r H H o l > 0 0 i n O N c n c n O i n r—1 O N c n N O 0 0 c n C N C N C N scr C N O 0 0 C N N O l > 0 0 s t 0 0 O oq oo N O r- m N O c n rst ar o o r—1 o o O N O N O N O N O N O N 0 0 O N od O N od O N O N NO-O N NO-O N i n O N s t O N s t O N c n " O N C N O N C N O N O N od 0 0 0 0 0 0 od 0 0 v (m/s) v (m/s) O N I T ) t N O O N m c n > n i n N O r-N O o N O oo i n m N O m m m N O r-N O m N O N O N O m O O i n O N m > n N O 0 0 o N O v (m/s) © d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 c n O N oo C N O oo O N r-- o p oo 0 0 0 0 c - -0 0 O N O N O N r - -O N C N O m oo C N O s t N O O N p s t O C N O N c n rN d d d d d d d d d d T-H d r—< d d '"H d 100.68 100.43 N O i n c n o i - H O N c n e ' -e n s t oq C N C N O N r—1 C N C N r-r- O N m m oq C N oq O N r-; N O N O m r- N O O N C N 3 100.68 100.43 O N O N O N O N O N O N 0 0 O N 0 0 O N od O N O N NO-O N NO-O N i n O N O N s t O N c n O N C N O N C N O N O N od oo od oo 0 0 0 0 Cross-section N3u 1 N3c 1 N3d N2u 1 N2c 1 N2d 1 Nlu f| Nlc 1 Nld * 3 N O CD N O X 3 N O 3 i n o m T J m 4u O s t 1 4d * 3 C N CD C N 1 2d oo C N c n •3 a 3 O x> 6 ca CD O. 3 ? H-» c <u A adjustrr v (m/s) P H W analysis analysis 1 100.78 100.56 o N O o i n oo r -i n T t r -T f N O O N C N CO m C N T f C O T f O O r--N O 0 0 oo T f O N r--0 0 T f O O 0 0 N O C N C O T 3 c 100.78 100.56 O N O N O N O N O N O N od O N od O N od O N O N N O O N N O O N i r i O N T f O N T f O N C O O N C N O N C N O N O N od oo od oo 0 0 0 0 o Sec v (m/s) o C N O N i n r -N O O O N O i n N O O N O m C O t--m O N C O N O C O oo N O T f N O N O C O oo N O v (m/s) d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 H C N O N oo C N © C N O N O oo O N p o O N o p p N O O p m p p N O O O N O O m oo O N 0 0 i n p p C N © d 1 — 1 d d d ^ d d i - H i 100.75 100.53 r--i n oo T f N O i n i n m T t m T f T f O N o C O C N C N C O oo T f N O N O O O T -H O N i n 0 0 C N oo i n N O o C O 3 100.75 100.53 O N O N O N O N O N O N od O N od O N od O N O N N O O N N O O N i n O N T f O N T f O N C O O N C N O N C N O N O N od oo 0 0 oo od 0 0 H-» c o EFA adjustn" CO EFA adjustn" CO CO 100.56 >> "3 H 100.78 100.56 CO N O C O l O O C N N O i n 0 0 T t T f O O N C O C O m C N T f C O C--0 0 C N r -, ~ H O N N O O N O N 0 0 m T f 0 0 C O r -o C O rst ai 100.78 100.56 O N O N O N O N O N O N od O N 0 0 O N 0 0 O N O N N O O N N O O N i n O N T f O N T f O N C O O N C N O N C N O N O N 0 0 0 0 od oo 0 0 0 0 E CO m N O O N N O r -N O N O i n C N r-- r--r -N D T f N O O l> N O m C O C O C N O T f N O C O T f N O N O N O C O O N oo 0 0 N O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d j M O N O N oo oo p o T f 0 0 T t O C O O N i n O N T f O N C O p O N O N i n p N O p T f O N N O O C O 0 0 T f O C O O N p oo O N i n d d d d d d d d rt d d 3 100.76 100.53 N O V ) r - CO i n N O T f m T f T f O N C O C N C N C O T f oo O N N O O N 0 0 T f O N t--oo C O C N oo O N N O i n C O 100.76 100.53 O N O N O N O N O N O N 0 0 O N od O N od O N O N N O O N N O O N i n O N T f O N T f O N C O O N C N O N C N O N O N od oo 0 0 O O od 0 0 Cross-section N3u 1 N3c 1 N3d | N2u 1 N2c | N2d | Nlu 1 Nlc 1 Nld * N O o N O P9 I i n o m 1 5d 3 T f o T f I 4d * 3 C N C J C N 1 2d | O N C N C O CCS -a a 3 O E cd cj b a. 3 OJ o o o C N oo C N O O C N CD 3 -B cd C/3 M CD C D U H o 3 cd e 43 U U H c2 >^  60 U H CD c w 73 C cd CO CD o _o "CD > co" 43 -4—» O H CD Q CD too cd U H CD > < 73 CD H-» 33 O H e O u 73 c cd o CD CD <<& H—I U H 3 C/3 U H CD H—» cd T t CO C O ^ w S CD O N 3 <~1 c d i o f-H — . 3 CD A adjustrr v (m/s) P H a ond analysis ond analysis ? 100.71 100.50 99.54 99.44 99.14 98.52 98.43 98.43 97.90 96.26 96.18 95.27 94.76 94.60 93.83 92.87 92.82 91.70 88.75 88.62 88.25 Sec (S/Ul) A V O r -V O vo V O i n i n CN N O m N O T t N O m i n N O N O IT) O N N O t - -N O oo m O N V O CO N O O N i n o r -t - -T t N O (S/Ul) A d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d i - V O oo CO 00 oo O N 00 O N CO oo T t O N O oo N O O N O N CN O i n O N o p CN O O N CN O o O O CO O N T t CO p V O O N r -p d d O d d d O d d rt d *"' d d d 1 100.68 100.48 CN i n CN T t CN o i n T t T t 00 00 T t CN N O i n CN CO r-~ r--i n O O m oo o oo 00 vq CN r - -O N i n CO CN 3 100.68 100.48 O N O N O N O N O N O N 00 O N 00 O N 00 O N O N vd O N N O O N i n O N T t O N T t O N CO O N CN O N CN O N O N 00 00 00 00 00 oo H—» e CD ? EFA adjustrr C O EFA adjustrr (m) C O co >~> " c d ? 100.71 i n 00 ir> r -T t N O i—H i n T t T t CO T t o O N N O CN oo r - H t -CN 00 r--m N O V O 00 O O N CO oo 00 r--r -vq o CO rst ai 100.71 o o O N O N O N O N O N O N 00 O N od O N 00 O N O N vd O N N O O N i n O N T t O N T t O N CO O N CN O N CN O N O N od 00 od 00 od 00 E C O V O T f V O CN V O CN i n V O N O O O CN N O O N m N O V O r~-m O N N O O N N O 00 V O O N i n O O N m N O oo vo CO 00 T t N O d d d d d d d d d d d d O d d d d d d d d 1 H T t O N T t 00 CN © m p O oo r - H O o O N O N o O N o p T t O N O O O oo 00 CN O 00 r--O N O N O N O T t O CO O N CN d d d d d d d d rt d d rt d —1 1 H 100.69 100.48 N O i n m T f CO 00 T t CN T t T t 00 oo m CN N O i n CN N O r-CN V O T t 00 oo oo CN O O O N vq V O r--CO N O O O CN 3 100.69 100.48 O N O N O N O N O N O N 00 O N od O N od O N O N vd O N N O O N <n O N T t O N T t O N CO O N CN O N CN O N O N od 00 od 00 od 00 Cross-section N3u 1 N3c N3d | N2u 1 N2c 1 N2d | Nlu 1 Nlc 1 Nld * 3 V O CD N O P9 || II 5u CD m 73 m | 4u CD T t I 4d * 3 CN CD CN 1 2d o C O C O -o e 3 O 43 S C3 <U ti CO OH 3 9 o o o C N 0 0 CN 4 - * o O co co "E, s C O GO co 0) u . O e c d U u . <2 >> 6 0 U i CO e W -o c c d CO o > c/f 43 H. CO Q CO 60 c d U i CO > < T3 CO + H 3 PH o U -a c c d c u o U i • P H CO o <+H U i - 3 0 0 U i CO -u» c d I wo 'w" w £ co wo s <*. 3 CO H -H g oo C O a co od O N EFA adjustn v (m/s) 0.61 EFA adjustn g o wo f sis d 100.66 ond ana g 100.66 100.44 99.49 99.37 99.08 98.46 98.37 98.37 97.84 96.19 96.13 95.23 94.70 94.53 93.75 92.80 92.76 91.63 88.69 88.56 88.20 Sec v (m/s) N O C O N O o N O wo oo wo o N O O N W O wo r--wo C O wo wo N O C N N O N O N O C N wo wo N O N O 0 0 W O W O W O N O 0 0 W O v (m/s) d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 H C O oo oo C O O N C O O N 0 0 r- o © C N oo O N C O O N oo O N o O N N O O N r-O N C O N O O N wo O N 0 0 0 0 p oo O N C N O N C O p d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d I-1 d d 1 H 100.64 100.42 s t wo C O o wo St N O C O N O C O C N 0 0 oo *~| C N r--N O wo st r-; oo wo t-- C N N O N O N O sf wo 0 0 : 3 100.64 100.42 O N O N O N O N O N O N od O N od O N od O N O N N O O N N O O N W O O N st O N st O N C O -O N C N O N C N O N O N 0 0 0 0 oo' oo od oo g c C O EFA adjustn v (m/s) EFA adjustn g C/3 ialys ialys 1 H 100.67 100.44 co wo O N C O o wo st O N C O 0 0 co st 0 0 o C N C O C O C N C N t--0 0 W O O N C O oq 0 0 st N O C N N O wo C N rst at tC 100.67 100.44 O N O N O N O N O N O N oo O N od O N od O N O N N O O N N O -O N W O O N st O N t ' O N C O -O N C N O N C N O N O N od oo od 0 0 od 0 0 E c/3 g N O wo o N O o-wo 0 0 st C N N O st N O t--wo st W O C N N O C N wo W O N O C N N O st N O st N O N O wo N O N O W O wo N O W O C N N O N O O N wo d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 o O N o 0 0 oo O N 0 0 O N N O c--O N N O 0 0 N O 0 0 W O oo N O O N o O N N O O N N O O N C O 0 0 N O O N C O wo O N wo p o p o O N O N O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d ~* d 1 100.65 100.42 wo oo C O 0 0 o C O st C O N O C O C N 0 0 O N C N o t-- N O W O r--r-; 0 0 C O N O o 0 0 wo C O C N s 100.65 100.42 O N O N O N O N O N O N 0 0 O N od O N od O N O N N O O N N O -O N W O O N ^ t O N st O N C O O N C N O N C N " O N »-H O N od 0 0 od 0 0 od oo Cross-section N3u 1 N3c 1 N3d N2u | N2c 1 N2d || Nlu 1 Nlc 1 Nld * 3 N O C D N O 13 N O 3 W O C O W O 13 wo 3 st C O ^ t I 4d * 3 C N to C N 1 2d | C O C O ca "3 c 3 o J 0 E C S CO * 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0063500/manifest

Comment

Related Items