1 / 13

John M. Buffington

PNAMP Protocol Comparison Meeting February 1, 2006, Portland, OR. John M. Buffington. Research Geomorphologist US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Boise, Idaho, USA. The truth …. Overview of study design & “truth” protocol. Treatments: 3 channel types

jelani-holloway
Download Presentation

John M. Buffington

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PNAMP Protocol Comparison Meeting February 1, 2006, Portland, OR John M. Buffington Research Geomorphologist US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Boise, Idaho, USA

  2. The truth…

  3. Overview of study design & “truth” protocol • Treatments: • 3 channel types • Plane-bed (Tinker, Bridge, Camas, Potamus) • Pool-riffle (WF Lick, Crane, Trail, Big) • Step-pool (Whiskey, Myrtle, Indian, Crawfish) plane-bed pool-riffle step-pool

  4. Protocol overview • Treatments: • 4 reaches of each channel type, representing a range of topographic complexity • e.g., simple, self-formed pool-riffle (WF Lick Ck) vs. complex, wood-forced pool-riffle (Big Ck) WF Lick, simple pool-riffle Big, complex pool-riffle

  5. Protocol overview • Treatments: • Reach length • 3 long reaches (80 bankfull channel widths): Bridge (plane-bed), Crane (pool-riffle), Myrtle (step-pool) • 9 short reaches (40 bankfull channel widths) • bankfull width initially estimated by making measurements every 20 m over first 200 m of reach

  6. Protocol overview • Measurements: • Cross sections (surveyed with total station): • 1 every 0.5 bankfull widths for first 40 channel widths, and every 1 bankfull width for second 40 channel widths (long reaches only) • 5 PNAMP cross sections (starting point, and every 10 channel widths) • cross sections extend out onto floodplain, or confining hillslopes; i.e., well beyond top of bank • Longitudinal profile of bed along center-line of bankfull width (total station) • Pebble counts: 10 grains per cross section, evenly spaced across bed • Pools: • residual depth • type of pool: self-formed vs. forced (wood, bedrock, etc.) • surface area

  7. Protocol overview • Measurements: • Wood: • count of all pieces > 1 m in length & > 10 cm in diameter • geomorphic function: • forming a pool • assisting in pool scour, but not dominant cause • not causing scour • location: within bankfull channel, suspended above, or both • inventory divided into 4 subsections between each PNAMP cross section • no length or volume measurements • Undercut banks: • depth of undercut if > 10 cm • left & right banks at each cross section • not done at all sites

  8. Crane Ck (reach length = 80 channel widths) contour interval = 10 cm riffle bar survey points pool

  9. Protocol overview • Derived data: • channel dimensions: width and depth for: • bankfull flow • any given stage (for protocols that measure wetted values) • reach slope • number and size of channel units: pools vs. shallows • shallows could be divided into different types (glide, riffle, rapid, etc.) based on slope and flow depth • grain size: reach-average, by cross section, or by channel unit • wood: number, geomorphic function, spatial distribution • undercut banks: spatial distribution and depth of undercut

  10. The “truth” • There are many shades of the “truth”, depending on • Flow stage (bankfull vs. wetted measurements on a given day) • Working on bankfull analysis. • Should we also examine solutions for other stages for protocols that use wetted parameters? • Method of analysis • Spatial scale of analysis • Results of each protocol are likely sensitive to sample domain (spatial extent) and sampling density within that domain, both of which vary between protocols. • Correct that we will compare protocols “as is” (i.e., mixed-scale analysis)? • Will reach length and sample size be factors of analysis? • Could attempt to match scales (i.e., clip protocols with long reaches to extent of “truth” data, and clip “truth” data to extent of protocols with short reaches).

  11. “truth” is sensitive to methodology Example: average bankfull width at Trail Ck, derived from “truth” data set Method 1: average of 5 PNAMP cross sections (8.48 m) Method 2: average of all 75 cross sections (8.79 m) Method 3: total bankfull volume of the channel divided by total bankfull surface area, both determined from topographic map constructed from all total station data (7.81 m)

  12. Longitudinal profile of bankfull elevation • Noise implies high potential error for small sample size (e.g., 5 PNAMP cross sections) Crane Ck

  13. Partial truth • Were not able to survey all sites • Plane-bed: • Bridge (long reach), Tinker, Camas, Potamus • Pool-riffle: • Crane (long reach), WF Lick, Trail, Big • Step-pool: • Myrtle (long reach), Whiskey, Crawfish, Indian Black = completed Blue = 14 cross sections + 5 PNAMP cross sections Red = only 5 PNAMP cross sections, with 10 grain-size measurements each

More Related