Stream Assessment. Date. Data Collected by. Location. Name of Stream and River Basin. Stream Order. Streambank Materials. Streambank Vegetation

Similar documents
Geomorphic Stream Classification A Classification of Natural Rivers, Rosgen, D.L.

Habitat Conditions, Design Strategies,

Culvert Design for Low and High Gradient Streams in the Midwest. Dale Higgins, Hydrologist Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest

Water surface slope extending up to 20 channel widths up and downstream of crossing.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife Section of Fisheries. Stream Survey Report. Three Mile Creek 2011

LONGITUDINAL FIELD METHODOLOGY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF TMDL SEDIMENT AND HABITAT IMPAIRMENTS

Added Introduction: Comparing highway design and stream design

TREATING RIVERS RIGHT & EXAMPLES OF BEST USE OF WOOD IN RESTORATION

STUDY PERFORMANCE REPORT

Cross-Vane Plan View FIN-UP Habitat Consultants, Inc. 220 Illinois Avenue Manitou Springs, CO (719) P.

Aquatic Organism Passage at Road-Stream Crossings CHUCK KEEPORTS FOREST HYDROLOGIST ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST WARREN, PENNSYLVANIA

Hydraulic Modeling of Stream Enhancement Methods

Great Lakes Stream Crossing Inventory Instructions

Study Update Tailrace Slough Use by Anadromous Salmonids

Fish Habitat Design, Operation and Reclamation Worksheets for

Rehabilitation of Grimes Creek, a Stream Impacted in the Past by Bucket-lined Dredge Gold Mining, Boise River Drainage, July 2008 to August 2011.

Rock Ramp Design Guidelines. David Mooney MS Chris Holmquist-Johnson MS Drew Baird Ph.D. P.E. Kent Collins P.E.

Management of headwater streams in the White Mountain National Forest

Biological Survey of Allagash Stream

Fish Habitat Restoration and Monitoring in Southeast Washington. Andy Hill Eco Logical Research, Inc.

MEMORANDUM. TNC Fisher Slough Final Design and Permitting Subject: DRAFT Technical Memorandum: Levee Emergency Spillway Design

Level II Stream Survey for the Timberline Express Proposal

Hydrologic, Hydraulic and Geomorphic Technical Memorandum

Assessment of Baseline Geomorphic Features at. Proposed Stream Crossings On The Proposed County Road 595. Marquette County, Michigan

Quantifying Performance of Stream Simulation Culverts in the Chehalis Basin, WA

APPENDIX C VEGETATED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY. VERSION 1.0 March 1, 2011

Lewis River Bull Trout Habitat Restoration Project Identification Assessment

Report prepared for: Prepared by: January 2002 BEAK Ref

CHAPTER 4 SPALDING COUNTY, GEORGIA 4.0 CULVERT DESIGN

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife Section of Fisheries. Fairhaven Creek 2000

F I B I ST 519 OP 57. [ Excellent [ Fair. [ Poor. U p p e r D e l a w a r e W M A 1. C e n t r a l D e l a w a r e W M A 1 1.

STREAM SURVEY File form No..

APPENDIX J HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Joe Rathbun Michigan DEQ Water Resources Division Nonpoint Source Unit * Thanks to The Nature Conservancy

Tips for Using & Printing Spreadsheets

REC 6 FISHERIES HABITAT EVALUATION

Delaware Basin Stream Management Program

Habitat Assessment of the Lower Eklutna River. May 14, 2007

Preakness Brook - FIBI098

Big Spring Creek Habitat Enhancement and Fishery Management Plans

SUMMARY OF RESULTS FIBI098

SELBY CREEK SILVERADO TRAIL CULVERT FISH PASSAGE ASSESSMENT

Follow this and additional works at:

REVISED DRAFT HABITAT SUITABILITY CURVES and COHO SALMON and STEELHEAD TROUT. Sawmill Creek Alaska

Sussex County, DE Preliminary Study Overview

Chinook Salmon Spawning Study Russian River Fall 2005

Components of a Barrage

Simulating Streams Through Culverts in Mat-Su, Alaska

CE 535, Spring 2002 Preliminary Design Example 1 / 6

2012 SOUTH RIVER FISH COMMUNITIES AND PHYSICAL HABITAT ASSESSMENT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS

HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION

TABLE 1. Riverscape surveys completed in the upper Chehalis River, Newaukum, and Satsop rivers.

WRIA 59 Colville River and Tributaries Toe-Width Assessment Final Report

DRAFT. Stonybrook Creek Watershed

Bridge Design Preliminary Bridge Design Example 1 / 6 Spring 2012 updated 1/27/2012

River Study Fieldwork Sheets

SUMMARY OF RESULTS FIBI054

SUMMARY OF MOVEMENT AND HABITAT USED BY TAGGED BROOK TROUT IN THE MAIN BRANCH AND NORTH BRANCH AU SABLE RIVER DURING SUMMER Data Submitted to:

Indiana LTAP Road Scholar Core Course #10 Culvert Drainage. Presented by Thomas T. Burke, Jr., PhD, PE Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.

APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC DESIGN DATA FOR CULVERTS

Presented by Fred Halterman, URS Jennie Agerton, URS

Va n Saun Mill Brook. FIBI062a !(208!( 4 !( 20. !( FIBI062a !( 7 !( 67 !( 3 !( 5 !( 21 !(120 !(495 !(139 !(440. !( Good. !( Poor.

STREAM Girls field notebook

RIVER CONONISH INVERTEBRATE SURVEY Dr Kjersti Birkeland

Tittabawassee River Assessment. Miles. Gladwin Smallwood Impoundment. Harrison. Clare. Midland. Mt. Pleasant. St. Louis. Saginaw.

Packwood Hydroelectric Project Barrier Analysis December 12, 2006

Suitable Applications Check dams may be appropriate in the following situations: To promote sedimentation behind the dam.

Illinois Lake Management Association Conference March 23, 2018 By Trent Thomas Illinois Department of Natural Resources Division of Fisheries

CLAIBORNE LOCK AND DAM PERTINENT DATA

DOD Legacy Project No Contract No. HQ Dr. Paul Ayers, Emine Fidan, Mary Beth Iannuzzi University of Tennessee

CHAPTER 5 CULVERT DESIGN

Study No. 18. Mystic Lake, Montana. PPL Montana 45 Basin Creek Road Butte, Montana 59701

Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus)

ESA, Proposed Threatened ESA, Threatened New Mexico-WCA, Endangered

USDI Bureau of Land Management Roseburg, Oregon District. Larry Standley Hydrologist Cory Sipher Fisheries Biologist Rick Shockey District Engineer

Understanding the Impacts of Culvert Performance on Stream Health

Low Gradient Velocity Control Short Term Steep Gradient Channel Lining Medium-Long Term Outlet Control Soil Treatment Permanent [1]

STREAM CROSSING INVENTORY AND BARRIER RANKING GUIDELINES

(Revised February,2005) CULVERTS, BRIDGES, AND FORDS

January Submitted by: 2200 Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI Ph: Fax:

PROJECT TO INSTALL LARGE WOOD HABITAT STRUCTURES IN THE CARMEL RIVER USING CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME GRANT FUNDS

Incorporating Geomorphic Processes and Sediment Dynamics into Salmonid Habitat Restoration Design

Massachusetts Stream Crossing Case Studies

HYDRAULIC JUMP AND WEIR FLOW

Flint River Assessment Appendix

feeding - clear moderate-sized shallow streams with moderate vegetation spawning - nests in gravel, sand, or hard rock substrate

Black River Instream Fish Habitat Assessment

Tuolumne River Gravel Introduction

Fish population survey report

ESA, Proposed Threatened ESA, Threatened New Mexico-WCA, Endangered

AQUATIC HABITAT SURVEY OF IRRIGATION DRAINAGE NETWORKS LOWER YAKIMA RIVER BASIN

Consigned to the deep: requiem or recovery of VR2W receivers in a freshwater river gorge after a 1:2-3 3 year ARI flood

APPENDIX C ESTIMATING SCOUR IN BOTTOMLESS ARCH CULVERTS

Mountain Columbia Province

Phase 1 Habitat Assessments

Pequannock River - FIBI077

BINDEX BFM INSTALLATION GUIDELINES

As temporary grade control facilities along waterways until final stabilization is established.

[ # [ Excellent [ Fair. Upper Delaware WMA 1. North and South Branch Raritan WMA 8. Holland. Milford FIBI026. Frenchtown. Central Delaware WMA 11

Gaviota Creek Fish Passage and Geomorphic Assessment

Transcription:

Stream Assessment Date Data Collected by Location Name of Stream and River Basin Stream Order Streambank Materials Streambank Vegetation Floodplain Soils Floodplain Vegetation Valley Type Valley Constraints Watershed Land Cover & Use Channel Incision Altered Conditions Bankfull Stage Indicators Stream Type Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) Valley Length, VL (ft) Stream Length, SL (ft) Sinuosity, k = SL/VL Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft) Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft) Valley Slope, VS (ft/ft) Average Water Surface Slope, S (ft/ft) Mannings Roughness, n Bankfull Velocity, u bkf (ft/s) Bankfull Discharge, Q bkf (cfs)

Riffle Dimensions Bankfull cross-section area, A bkf (sq ft) Bankfull width, W bkf (ft) Bankfull mean depth, d bkf = A bkf /W bkf (ft) Width-to-depth ratio, W bkf /d bkf Max depth, d mbkf (ft) Low bank height, LBH (ft) Low bank height ratio, BHR = LBH/d mbkf Width flood-prone area, W fpa (ft) Entrenchment ratio, ER = W fpa /W bkf Pool Dimensions Pool cross-section area, A pool (sq ft) Pool area ratio, A pool /A bkf Pool width, W pool (ft) Pool width ratio, W pool /W bkf Pool mean depth, d pool = A pool W pool (ft) Pool depth ratio, d pool /d bkf Max pool depth, d mpool (ft) Max pool depth ratio, d mpool /d bkf Point bar slope, H:V (ft/ft)

Profile Data Riffle length, L rif (ft) Riffle length ratio, L rif /W bkf Riffle slope, S rif (ft/ft) Riffle slope ratio, S rif /S Pool length, L pool (ft) Pool length ratio, L pool /W bkf Pool-to-pool spacing, p-p (ft) Pool-to-pool spacing ratio, p-p/w bkf Pool slope, S pool (ft/ft) Pool slope ratio, S pool /S Run slope, S run (ft/ft) Run slope ratio, S run /S Glide slope, S glide (ft/ft) Glide slope ratio, S glide /S Pattern Meander length, L m (ft) Meander length ratio, L m /W bkf Radius of curvature, R c (ft) Radius of curvature ratio, R c /W bkf Meander belt width, W blt (ft) Meander width ratio, W blt /W bkf Substrate Size D16 (mm) D35 (mm) D50 (mm) D84 (mm) D100 (mm)

Cross-Section Survey (Tape-Down) Survey Crew Site Longitudinal STA A bkf (sq ft) W bkf (ft) d mbkf (ft) LBH (ft) W fpa (ft) Date Bed Feature d bkf = A bkf /W bkf W/d = W bkf /d bkf BHR = LBH/d mbkf ER = W fpa /W bkf Station (ft) Bkf Depth (ft) Width (ft) Bkf Area (sq ft) Note TOTAL

Cross-Section Survey (Sight or Laser Level) Site Longitudinal STA Survey Crew Date Bed Feature BKF ELV STA BS HI FS ELV Note Width Bkf Depth (ft) Avg Depth (ft) Bkf Area (ft 2 ) STA = Station TW = Thalweg WS = Water Surface BS = Backsight LBKF = Left Bankfull LEW = Left Edge Water HI = Height Instrument RBKF = Right Bankfull REW = Right Edge Water FS = Foresight LTOB = Left Top Bank LIB = Left Inner Berm BM = Benchmark RTOB = Right Top Bank RIB = Right Inner Berm TP = Turning Point ELV = Elevatation

Cross-Section Survey (Sight or Laser Level) Site Example Date Longitudinal STA Bed Feature Riffle Survey Crew BKF ELV 98.57 STA BS HI FS ELV Note Width Bkf Depth (ft) Avg Depth (ft) BM 4.72 104.72 100.00 BM 0+00 104.72 5.61 99.11 0+20 104.72 5.92 98.80 LTOB 0+26 104.72 6.15 98.57 LBKF 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0+29 104.72 8.22 96.50 LEW 3 2.1 1.0 3.1 0+33 104.72 8.65 96.07 4 2.5 2.3 9.1 0+35 104.72 9.05 95.67 2 2.9 2.7 5.4 0+42 104.72 9.25 95.47 7 3.1 3.0 21.0 0+48 104.72 9.44 95.28 TW 6 3.3 3.2 19.2 0+52 104.72 9.33 95.39 4 3.2 3.2 12.9 0+57 104.72 8.89 95.83 5 2.7 3.0 14.8 0+62 104.72 8.18 96.54 REW 5 2.0 2.4 11.9 0+67 104.72 6.15 98.57 RBKF 5 0.0 1.0 5.1 0+74 104.72 5.22 99.50 RTOB Bkf Area (ft 2 ) TOTAL 102.6 STA = Station TW = Thalweg WS = Water Surface BS = Backsight LBKF = Left Bankfull LEW = Left Edge Water HI = Height Instrument RBKF = Right Bankfull REW = Right Edge Water FS = Foresight LTOB = Left Top Bank LIB = Left Inner Berm BM = Benchmark RTOB = Right Top Bank RIB = Right Inner Berm TP = Turning Point ELV = Elevatation

Longitudinal Profile Site Longitudinal STA Survey Crew Date Feature Foresight Elevations STA BS HI TW WS LBKF RBKF Other Feature Notes / Description STA = Station TW = Thalweg WS = Water Surface BS = Backsight LBKF = Left Bankfull LEW = Left Edge Water HI = Height Instrument RBKF = Right Bankfull REW = Right Edge Water FS = Foresight LTOB = Left Top Bank LIB = Left Inner Berm BM = Benchmark RTOB = Right Top Bank RIB = Right Inner Berm TP = Turning Point

Pebble Count Site: Date: Survey Crew: Particle Description Size (mm) Silt/Clay Silt/Clay < 0.062 Very Fine 0.062 0.125 Fine 0.126 0.25 Particle Count Riffle Pool Total % Cum % Sand Medium 0.26 0.5 Coarse 0.51 1.0 Very Coarse 1.1 2.0 Very Fine 2.1 4.0 Fine 4.1 5.7 Fine 5.8 8.0 Medium 8.1 11.3 Gravel Medium 11.4 16.0 Coarse 16.1 22.6 Coarse 22.7 32 Very Coarse 33 45 Very Coarse 46 64 Small 65 90 Cobble Small 91 128 Large 129 180 Large 181 256 Small 257 362 Boulder Small 363 512 Medium 513 1024 Large 1025 2048 Bedrock Bedrock > 2048 Total

Pebble Count Site: Date: Survey Crew: 100 90 80 70 Cumulative % 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Particle Size (mm)

Bank Erosion Hazard Index Site Date Survey Crew Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Extreme Field Measure Category Bank Ht Ratio Root Depth Ratio Root Density Bank Angle Surface Protection Total (ft/ft) (%) (%) (degrees) (%) Index Value 1.0 1.1 100 80 100 80 0 20 100 90 Index 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 < 10 Value 1.1 1.2 80 55 80 55 20 60 90 50 Index 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 10 20 Value 1.2 1.5 55 30 55 30 60 80 50 30 Index 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 20 30 Value 1.5 2.0 30 15 30 15 80 90 30 15 Index 6 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 30 40 Value 2.0 2.8 15 5 15 5 90 120 15 5 Index 8 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 40 45 Value > 2.8 < 5 < 5 > 120 < 5 Index 10 10 10 10 10 > 45 Value Index Total Field Index Numerical Adjustments Bedrock: BEHI Very Low Boulders: BEHI Low Cobble: Decrease by one category if gravel/sand less than 50% Gravel: Adjust Index up 5 10 points depending on sand % Sand: Adjust Index up 10 points Silt/Clay: No Adjustment Stratification: Adjust Index up 5 10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage Adjusted BEHI

Pebble Count Particle Size(mm) Description Number Item % Cumulative % <.062 Silt/Clay 0 0.062-.125 Very Fine Sand 0 0.125-.25 Fine Sand 0 0.25-.5 Medium Sand 5 5 5.5-1.0 Coarse Sand 9 9 14 1.0-2 Very Course Sand 9 9 23 2-4 Very Fine Gravel 2 2 25 4-5.7 Fine Gravel 3 3 28 5.7-8 Fine Gravel 2 2 30 8-11.3 Medium Gravel 2 2 32 11.3-16 Medium Gravel 7 7 39 16-22.6 Coarse Gravel 9 9 48 22.6-32 Coarse Gravel 11 11 59 32-45 Very Course Gravel 15 15 74 45-64 Very Course Gravel 14 14 88 64-90 Small Cobble 6 6 94 90-128 Small Cobble 2 2 96 128-180 Medium Cobble 2 2 98 180-256 Large Cobble 0 98 256-362 Small Boulders 0 98 362-512 Small Boulders 0 98 512-1024 Medium Boulders 0 98 1024-2048 Large Boulders 0 98 > 2048 Bedrock 2 2 100 Total 100 100 Class Percent 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Item % Cumulative % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Cumulative Percent Finer Particle Size Class (mm)