11/3/12
Fluvial Geomorphology
Due November 12, 2012
Lab 11/12
Application of Geomorphology to Stream Restoration Design and Post-Project
Monitoring
Field site: Provo River in Heber Valley
The purpose of this field trip is to review in the field a large stream restoration project
and to assess the degree to which this project has achieved its goals and to assess how the
project design has performed.
8a – 10:30 a: Drive to Heber Valley
10:30 am: Stop 1, Cottonwood fishing access site, Jordanelle Dam and White Bridge:
review project objectives, constraints, and project design. Discuss channel
form and organization.
11:30 am: Stop 2, Provo River, River Road monitoring site: examination of project
performance were there is limited sediment supply. Review cross section
data. Note areas of channel change and patterns of erosion and deposition.
12:30 pm: Stop 3, Memorial Overlook. View the restoration site from above. Eat Lunch.
1:30 pm: Stop 4, Provo River, Midway bridge area: discussion of channel response to
sediment influx, discussion of strategies to monitor post-project
performance – conduct topographic survey using Survey Grade GPS and
Total Stations.
~5:00 pm: Return to Logan (~125 miles)
Assignment:
1) based on the readings made available to you, describe in your own words the nature
of the problem at the Provo River that was improved by the PRRP, and describe the
objectives/goals for the project; 1 paragraph
2) based on the readings made available to you and our field discussions, describe the
methodology by which the channel was designed; 1 paragraph
3) Describe the geomorphic patterns you observed and discussed in the field. What
geomorphic differences do you observe between the White Bridge (Below
Jordanelle), River Road, and Midway field stops? Why might these differences occur.
Refer to the cross sections included in your field handout to explain some of the
differences. In your opinion, do the cross sections at the monitoring sites adequately
describe the geomorphic characteristics you observed in the field? 2-3 paragraphs
4) Between 2008 and 2011, Erwin et al., conducted a gravel budget study consisting of a
bedload measurement program and a survey program at the upstream and
downstream end of the Midway reach. A gravel budget was calculated from the
transport numbers, as well as calculating the difference between multiple years of
topographic surveys of the channel. Look at transport relations on page 13 of your
handout, and at the the computations of elevation change at the STP reach on page 44
(downstream from Midway) in your field handout. See figure 2.1 in your field
handout for locations. Are the general patterns that you observed in the field
consistent with these numbers?
5) Is there compelling geomorphic evidence to warrant gravel augmentation below the
dam? Why? 1-2 paragraphs.