title
A study of the Channelization of the Weber River, Summit County, Utah, final report, May 1973
author
Array ( [0] => Barton, James R. [1] => Winger, Parley V. )
abstract
date
1973-01-01
organization
Utah. Division of Wildlife Resources ; Utah State Department of Highways ; BYU Department of Civil Engineering ; BYU Department of Zoology
species
Array ( [0] => Not Specified )
file_path
https://grey-lit.s3.wasabisys.com/a-study-of-the-channelization-of-the-weber-river-summit-county-utah-final-report-may-1973.pdf
thumb
https://grey-lit.s3.wasabisys.com/a-study-of-the-channelization-of-the-weber-river-summit-county-utah-final-report-may-1973-pdf-1-774x1024.jpg
content
ti on a re a in t he W eb er R iv er , Su mm it C ou nt y, Ut ah . = Ab ov e Co ns tr uc ti on = Be lo w Co ns tr uc ti on Fi g. 17 . Te mp er at ur e of th e wa te r at t he sa mp li ng st at io ns ab ov e an d be lo w th e co ns tr uc ti on a re as in th e We be r Ri ve r, Su mm it C ou nt y, Ut ah . Ik Turbidity in JTU Ab ov e Co ns tr uc ti on Be lo w Co ns tr uc ti on Fi g. 18 . Tu rb id it y of t he w at er a bo ve a nd be lo w th e co ns tr uc ti on a re a in th e We be r Ri ve r, Su mm it C ou nt y, Ut ah . taken above, at and below the channel alteration (Table 5). The tur­ bidity values were low (0 JTU) above the new channel but were very high at it and below it (310 JTU). Below this area the turbidity dropped off rapidly and after 4.3 kilometers of river the turbidity values were very low again (0 JTU). Table 5. Turbidity measurements (JTU) of water collected at all stations shortly after channelization at Station 6 (November 12, 1968). Station Turbidity 1 0 2 0 3 1 4 1 5 3 (New Channel) 6 760 7 310 8 0 Discharge Discharge (Fig. 19) of the water below Echo Reservoir fluctuated drastically throughout one month. The maximum and minimum (1180 to 0 cfs) can occur within a short period of time. There was a seasonal pat­ tern of high flows during the summer months and low flows during the mid-winter months. During the study, the yearly discharge was 318 cfs. Fish and Macroinvertebrate Gut Analysis The majority of fish species in the Weber River utilize the aquatic insects as a major food source. The gut contents of most of the aquatic insects analyzed contained detritus, algae, and diatoms. Only Isoperla and Eropdella stagnalis were thought to be carnivorous, feeding on Chironomidae and Oligochaeta. The information gathered on food analysis is summarized in Table 6. 56 Discharge in cfs (hundreds) 1 Fi g. 19 . Di sc ha rg e of w at er f ro m Ec ho R es er vo ir s ho wi ng me an , ma xi mu m an d mi ni mu m pe r mo nt h. Table 6. Gut analyses of the macroinvertebrates and fish of the Weber River, Summit County, Utah. to3O4->Ca> idto E CD3 CO ra o4-3 E r— id*r— o — ■ 3CD •r— r— s-Q Q c t o Id id 4-3 s~ CD +-> id id s - 0) o . s - 0) id o CD 4-3 JC U- 4-> CL u <1) O - O o B O JC O ) CD U u •r- JZ CD •r— r— CL S- o UJ a_ I— cuId"O E r—O idc •r- tO o i- 4->id s- 4-3 O•»- CO CDCD CD lO4-3 O C SiQ_s— ■ i- HH to•i— CD •r—Q 1— Li- Ephemeroptera X X X Plecoptera X X X * * Trichoptera X X X Diptera X X X Oligochaeta X Hirudinea X X X Whitefish X X X X X X X Bluehead Sucker X X X Utah Sucker X X X X X X Carp X X X X X X X X X Cutthroat trout X X X X X X Rainbow trout X X X X X X X Brown trout X X X X X X Redsided Shiner X X X X X Utah Chub X X X X X Long Nose Dace X X X X X Speckled Dace X X X X X Cottus X X X X X *one species of Isoperl a Macroinvertebrates and Algae in the Weber River Listed in Appendix 1 are the types and distribution of algae and diatoms found in a cursary examination of the bottom samples collected in the Weber River below Echo Reservoir and above Echo Reservoir and 58 above Wanship Reservoir. An abundance of Cladophora sp. was found below Echo Reservoir especially from July through October, but relatively little was found above it. It was replaced by the gelatinous diatom Gomphonema sp. during the winter and spring months. A checklist of the invertebrates collected in the Weber River and their distribution within the river above and below Echo Reservoir and above Wanship Reservoir area are shown in Appendix II. This list is not complete because only riffle areas were sampled regularly. How­ ever, some pool and back water species are included. Only the adults of some species were collected. Organic and Inorganic Drift Evaluation of the amount of inorganic and organic matter occurring in the drift showed that there was an increase in the amount of organic and inorganic matter in the river in the winter and spring of 1969 and 1970 at the stations below Echo Reservoir (Figs. 20 and 21). There was no increase downstream in the organic or inorganic drift load. In most instances more material was collected in the drift at Station 1 (above the channelization) than at Station 7 (below the channelization). The average amount of organic matter in the drift was 0.92 g/m (0.02/ft ) 3 3at Station 1 and 0.19 g/m (0.005 g/ft ) at Station 7. The maximum 3 and minimum amount at Station 1 was 16.8 (0.475) to 0.004 g/m (0.0001 g/ft2) and 0.78 (0.02) to 0.005 g/m3 at Station 7. The in- 3 2 organic drift averaged 61.6 g/m (1.75 g/ft ) at Station 1 and 0.25 (0.007) at Station 7 with the maximum and minimum of 1381.8 (39.1) to 0.0006 g/m3 (0.000 g/ft2) for Station 1 and 1.15 (0.032) to 0.001 g/m3 0 (0.000 g/ft ) at Station 7. 59 Weight iri groms = Ab ov e Co ns tr uc ti on = Be lo w Co ns tr uc ti on 1 6 8 0 I Fi g. 20 . Or ga ni c dr if t co ll ec te d ab ov e an d be lo w co ns tr uc ti on ar ea s in th e We be r Ri ve r, Su mm it C ou nt y, Ut ah . s u j o jB ui 20 0- fO 15 0- 10 0- 12 37 = Ab ov e Co ns tr uc ti on = Be lo w Co ns tr uc ti on 13 81 8 C f < T i f ^ < 3> ^ V ^ < o - 19 68 --- --- --- 1---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 19 69 19 70 Fi g. 21 . In or ga ni c dr if t co ll ec te d ab ov e an d be lo w co ns tr uc ti on a re as in th e We be r Ri ve r, Su mm it C ou nt y, Ut ah . Vegetation 2 From the square foot (0.092 m ) plot it was calculated that there 2 2were 215.8 g/m (6.1 g/ft ) of organic matter in changed areas and 614.3 g/m (17.4 g/ft ) in the unchanged areas (Table 7). The quarter method used to analyze the remaining streamside vegeta­ tion showed (Table 7) that in those areas along the stream that were highly grazed there were 36.8 trees/hectare (14.9 trees/acre) with the narrow leaf poplar (Populus angustifolia) being the most dominant (90.4%) and then hawthorne (Crataegus douglasii) (7.6%). Narrow leaf 2 2poplar had an average basal area of 13.6 cm /tree (2.1 in /tree) and 2 2hawthorne had 6.5 cm /tree (1.0 in /tree). There were no shrubs or understory plants at all in the grazed areas. Unaltered areas that were not grazed had 41.3 (16.7) (Station 7) and 31.8 (12.8 trees/acre) (Station 8) trees per hectare. The narrow leaf poplar was the most dominant (97.2% and 97.6%) and the hawthorne next dominant (2.7% and 2 2 2.4%). The basal area was 28.9 (4.4) and 26.9 cm /tree (4.1 in /tree) for the narrow leaf poplar and 4.9 (0.7) and 3.3 cm /tree (0.5 in /tree) for the hawthorne. There was extensive shrubs and undergrowth in these areas with 74.5 (30.1) and 29.3 bushes/hectare (11.8 bushes/acre). Macroinvertebrate Populations Changed and Unchanged Areas Samples taken in the newly channeled areas in October and November 1968, contained no organisms. Within two months the macroinvertebrates were beginning to estabTish themselves in the new channels. The establishment of the organisms corresponded to a period of increased 62 Table 7. Analyses of streamside vegetation at changed (Station 5 and 6) and unchanged (Stations 7 and 8) areas on the Weber River, Summit County, Utah. Station 5 & 6 7 8 Average Quarter method o Area samples (m ) Number trees/Hectare Relative Dominance (%) Populus angustifolia Crataegus douglasii 2 Basal Area (cm ) Populus angustifolia Crataegus douglasii Shrubs 2 Area samples (m ) Number/Hectare Relative Dominance (%) Populus angustifolia Crataegus douglasii Lonicera involucrata Ame!anchi er alnifolia Salix ap. Rosa woodsii Ribes aureum Rhus trilobata 36.8 40.7 52.9 43.4 45.8 41.3 31.8 39.7 90.4 87.5 98.6 92.1 7.6 12.5 2.4 7.5 13.6 28.9 26.9 23.1 . 6.5 4.9 3.3 4.9 22.6 57.1 39.8 74.5 29.3 51.9 22.5 42.8 35.4 50 17.8 33.9 7.5 3.7 12.5 6.25 2.5 7.1 4.8 7.1 3.5 14.2 7.1 7.1 3.5 Square foot plot (0.092 m2) (g/m2) 215.8 614.3 63 discharge in January and February, 1969, (Fig. 19) and to a corresponding increase in the stability of the substrate. Within six months the macro­ invertebrates were established in numbers and weight similar to those of the unchanged areas (Figs. 22 and 23). From April, 1969, the populations in the changed and unchanged sections followed the same seasonal pattern. The weight of the organisms was higher however, in December of 1969 and April of 1970 in the unchanged areas. The log of the number gives a more concise picture of the establishment of organisms in the changed areas and the subsequent similarity in seasonal patterns shown between the changed and unchanged sections (Fig. 24). The establishment of organisms on artificial substrate in the changed areas occurred faster than it did on the unstable substrate of the new stream channel. The number of organisms collected in the bas­ kets was higher than the number of organisms on the regular substrate following channelization (Table 8). After three months, the numbers of organisms in the bottom samples increased to 384/m (35.6/ft ) and then declined for the next two months while the number of organisms collected in the basket samples remained relatively constant. Table 8. Number of organisms collected in basket samples and bottom samples at Station 5 before, during and after channelization. Bottom Samples p (no./m ) Basket Samples August 1968 7585 625 September 1968 6576 923 October 1968 (Channelization) 0 — November 1968 32 618 December 1968 384 842 January 1969 240 704 February 1969 128 680 64 Number /(thousands) cr> (T> Fi g. 23 . We ig ht o f or ga ni sm s pe r me te r sq ua re d in ch an ge d an d un ch an ge d ar ea s of t he W eb er R iv er , Su mm it C ou nt y, Ut ah . 0> « ■ ■ ■ ■ = U nc ha ng ed A re a = Ch an ge d Ar ea Fi g. 24 . Lo g of t he n um be rs of o rg an is ms p er m et er s qu ar ed in ch an ge d an d un ch an ge d ar ea s of t he W eb er R iv er , Su mm it C ou nt y, Ut ah . In the changed and unchanged section there was no significant difference in the number of organisms in each taxonomic group except during and immediately after construction of the new channel (Fig. 25). A comparison of the taxa present showed that Hydropsyche sp. and Chironomidae were the first to invade the new channels. Other organisms (snails and water mites) and miscellaneous Diptera (Rhagionidae, Tipulidae and Empidae) were in relatively lower numbers and took a longer period to establish themselves in the changed areas. The standing crop of macroinvertebrates at Station 8 (unchanged) was very similar to that in the changed and unchanged sections (Fig. 26). The same organisms occurred there and showed the same seasonal variations as those found in the changed and unchanged sections. After colonization of the changed area, the species composition was found to be similar to that in the unchanged areas. Figure 27 shows the percent of the samples which contained each of the dominant taxa in the changed and unchanged areas. With the exception of three taxa (Heptegania s p . . Paraleptophlebia sp., and Tricorythodes minutus) all organisms were collected with a higher frequency in the unchanged areas. The macroinvertebrate population of the changed section had a low species diversity (0.6) at construction (October, 1968) but increased rapidly in November and December of 1968 and was similar to the species diversity of the unchanged area throughout the rest of the study al­ though it did show a more erratic pattern during the first year after construction (Fig. 28). The average species diversity during the study for the changed areas was 1.92 and that for the unchanged areas was 2.06. 68 W\'\N Fi g. 26 . Nu mb er s of o rg an is ms pe r me te r sq ua re d fo r ea ch ta xo n co ll ec te d at A ta ti on 8 , We be r Ri ve r, Su mm it C ou nt y, Ut ah . EP H EM ER O PT ER A U nc ha ng ed = ■ ■■ ■ C ha ng ed : PE R C EN T O F SA M PL ES Fi g. 27 . Sp ec ie s co mp os it io n of t he in ve rt eb ra te s co ll ec te d in bo tt om s am pl es in ch an ge d an d un ch an ge d ar ea s of t he W eb er R iv er , Su mm it C ou nt y, Ut ah , } ro 0 > JS. V 0) a 1 S 5 5 5 ¿ ¿ ¿ 5 I o co t" o ifl ^ m « *• *!XV ”A . 29. Ordination analysis showing graphical representation of macroinvertebrate population relationships between all stations. 74 X r Fig. 30. Diagram of the gabion and rock deflectors showing sampling sites and numbers of organisms collected at each site. 75 Table 9. Evaluation of significance each variable contributes to the distribution of the macroinvertebrate populations around a gabion deflector and rock deflector placed in the Weber River, Summit County, Utah. (- = 1%; * = 5%; ** = 10%) Location Transect Substrate Deflector Significance (Percent) Baetis Front ★ Ephemerel1 a End Near Rubble _/**/★* Tricorythodes End Near Rock -/*/- Paraleptophlebia Rhithrogenia Front Rock */- Isoperl a Front ** Hydropsyche Bank/End -/* Hydroptilidae Front Rubble Gabion */**/*★ Chironomidae End/Middle Gabion */-/* Tipulidae Rubble Gabion */★ Rhagionidae Rock ** Simuliidae Bank Far Gabion */-/- 0 1igochaeta Rubble/gravel **/** Physa Front/ near Rubble/ gravel -/* Mayflies End Rubble _/*/★*/** Stoneflies Front ★★ Caddisflies Front Rubble Gabion ★/**/- Diptera Other Rubble/gravel TOTAL End/Middle Near Rubble/ gravel Gabion 76 Table 10. Summary table of mean, maximum,'and minimum values measured for chemistry, standing crop and drift in the Weber River Station Mean Maximum Minimum Temperature (°C) 1 9.1 °C 18°C 1*X 7 9.3°C 19.5*X r X Discharge (cfs) Echo 318.5 cfs 1180 cfs 0 cfs Turbidity (JTU) 1 46.47 JTU 355 JTU 0 JTU 7 61.94 JTU 600 JTU 0 JTU Hardness (ppm) 1 207.5 ppm 290 ppm 130 ppm 7 203.4 ppm 290 ppm 135 ppm Alkalinity (ppm) 1 217.5 ppm 340 ppm 160 ppm 7 214.7 ppm 280 ppm 170 ppm pH 1 8.4 8.75 6.7 7 8.3 8.7 6.8 Phosphate (ppm) 1 0.21 ppm 1.78ppm .05 ppm 7 0.21 ppm 1.6 ppm .04 ppm Sulfate (ppm) 1 31.15 ppm 105 ppm 16 ppm 7 31.11 ppm 135 ppm 14 ppm Organic Drift (g/m3) 1 0.925 g/m? 16.8 g /m3 .004 <3/m? 7 0.191 g/nr 0.784 g/nr .005 !3/m 2 Inorganic Drift (g/m ') 1 61.69 g/m? 1381.8 9/ml .0006 •3/0*3 7 0.252 g/nr 1.151 g/m .001
geography
Array ( [0] => Array ( [state] => Utah [province] => ) )
batch_date
Tue, 05 May 2020 19:04:31 +0000
original_file_path
https://digitallibrary.utah.gov/awweb/awarchive?type=download&item=86800
group__id
5eb1b9fb16cb32.97511713
document_format
1.1.7
disabled
-1
processing_date
1609350661
year
1973
hash
Array ( [document] => ce5a80ff65a2ebeb45ee25c7ffcdb23dbcc642e5 [content] => 01d2377a18ee018a180b99a2de482914854c67bd [dedupe] => cb91e585605f2c50b12c8e4ac0abdb588d32cf5d )
id
doc-5eb1b9fb82ecd357e6025f0e
__hash__
Content: 01d2377a18ee018a180b99a2de482914854c67bd | Abstract: da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Content in the same group ID:

title
A study of the Channelization of the Weber River, Summit County, Utah, final report, May 1973
author
Array ( [0] => Barton, James R. [1] => Winger, Parley V. )
abstract
date
1973-01-01
organization
Utah. Division of Wildlife Resources ; Utah State Department of Highways ; BYU Department of Civil Engineering ; BYU Department of Zoology
species
Array ( [0] => Not Specified )
file_path
https://grey-lit.s3.wasabisys.com/a-study-of-the-channelization-of-the-weber-river-summit-county-utah-final-report-may-1973.pdf
thumb
https://grey-lit.s3.wasabisys.com/a-study-of-the-channelization-of-the-weber-river-summit-county-utah-final-report-may-1973-pdf-1-774x1024.jpg
content
N 4650W42.7: Stu/973 A STUDY OF THE CHANNELIZATION OF THE WEBER RIVER, SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH ky James R. Barton, Department of Civil Engineering and Parley V. Winger, Department of Zoology Final Report presented to Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and Utah State Department of Highways UTAH ® STATS LIBRARY May 1973 Uiflh Library 2153 So. 3.00 West - Suit# IS Salt Lake City, Utah M i ll A STUDY OF THE CHANNELIZATION OF THE WEBER jjtIVER SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH by James R. Barton, Department of Civil Engineering and Parley V. Winger, Department of Zoology Final Report presented to Utah Division of Wildlife Resources ónd Utah State Department of Highways M ( P %té.r\z i mn ai Ufah Sfa+f* I Commission 2150 ' ' ■ ' ‘ - 5mU9 16 $, ■, - • c : i i 5 May 1973 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was supported by a research grant from the Utah. Division of Wildlife Resources and the Utah State Department of Highways. Equipment and research space was provided by the Department of Civil Engineering and Zoology of Brigham Young University. We acknowledge all who gave so freely of their time and energy to help with the field and laboratory work involved in this research. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF T A B L E S ................................................. v LIST OF FIGURES................................................... vii ABSTRACT...................................................... xi INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 Review of Literature .................................. 3 Detrimental Effects of Channelization............ 3 Rehabilitation of Altered Areas.................. 5 HYDROLOGIC ASPECTS OF THE WEBER RIVER............................ 7 Description of Study Area.............................. 7 Hydrology of the Weber River .......................... 8 Discharge Records................................ 8 Water Quality Records............................ 13 Hydraulics of the Weber River.............. 14 Channel Characteristics.......................... 14 Hydraulic Structures . ........................... 17 Description of Study Sections.......................... 21 Section A ........................................ 21 Section B ........................................ 21 Section C ........................................ 21 Section D ........................................ 21 Section E ........................................ 22 Section F ........................................ 22 Section G ........................................ 22 Section H ........................................ 23 Section I ........................................ 23 Section J ........................................ 23 Analysis of Structure Effectiveness.................... 23 Section B ........................................ 24 Section D ........................................ 26 Section F ........................................ 26 Section H ........................................ 27 Page i Channel Profile .......................................... 27 Summary of Structure Effectiveness .................... 31 AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE STUDIES ................................... 33 Weber River Literature ................................ 34 Description of Study Area .............................. 34 Changed Areas .................................. 34 Unchanged Areas .................................. 35 Sampling............................................... 36 Artificial Substrate Sampler ................... 36 Bottom S a m p l e s ......... ....................... 37 Gabion - Rock Deflector Analysis ............... 37 Drift Samples.................................. 39 Water Chemistry................................ 41 Vegetation Analysis ............................ 43 Gut Analysis of Macroinvertebrates and Fish . . . 43 Analysis of D a t a .............................. 43 Water Chemistry........................................ 47 Hardness...................................... 47 Alkalinity.................................... 47 Phosphate...................................... 47 Sulfate........................................ 47 p H ............................................. 50 Temperature.................................... 50 Turbidity...................................... 50 Discharge...................................... 56 Fish Gut Analysis.............................. 56 Macroinvertebrates and Algae in the Weber River . 58 Organic and Inorganic Drift ............................ 59 Vegetation . . . ....................................... 62 Macroinvertebrate Populations .......................... 62 Changed and Unchanged Areas .................... 62 Gabion - Rock Deflector................ 73 Discussion............................................. 79 Bottom Sampling ................................ 79 Changed and Unchanged Areas ..................... 80 Summary and Conclusions ................................ 90 FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS 93 Fish Sampling.......................................... 94 1968 ............................................ 95 1969 . . . ....................................... 96 1970-71 ....................................... 96 1972 ............................................ 99 Results and Discussion .................................. 100 1968 ............................................ 100 1969 ............................................ 102 1970 ............................................ 103 1971 ............................................ 121 1972 ............................................ 124 Fish Movement.......................................... 129 Concentration of Fish in Altered Areas................... 131 Summary and Conclusions ................................ 132 CONCLUSIONS.................................................... 137 LITERATURE CITED ................................................ 141 APPENDIX........................................................ 155 i i i J I -ii LIST OF TABLES 1. Mean, maximum and minimum average monthly discharges in cubic feet per second as measured at Echo, Utah, 1932-1967 ................................................. 10 2. Summary of periods of low flows, Weber River at Echo, U t a h ..................................................... 11 3. Changes in channel length, tortuosity and average slope of channel in the Weber River near Henefer, Utah; 1938-1969 .......................................... 12 4. Average slope, length and width of each section in the study area on the Weber River, Summit County, U t a h ..................................................... 15 5. Turbidity measurement (JTU) of water collected at all stations after channelization at Station 6 (November 12, 1969)...................................... 56 6. Gut analysis of the macroinvertebrates and fish of the Weber River, Summit County, Utah . . . . . . . . . . 58 7. Analysis of streamside vegetation at changed and unchanged areas on the Weber River, Summit County, U t a h ..................................................... 63 8. Number of organisms collected in basket samples and bottom samples at Station 5 before, during and after channelization ................................ 64 9. Evaluation of significance each variable contributes to the distribution of the macro­ invertebrate populations around a gabion and rock deflector placed in the changed portion of the Weber River, Summit County, Utah.................... 76 10. Summary table of mean, maximum and minimum values obtained on water chemistry standing crop and drift in the Weber River, Summit County, Utah ........ . . 77 11. Number of fish in each species collected in the study sections in the Weber River, Summit County, Utah (October 5 to December 14, 1968)...................... 101 Table Page v TABLES (cont.) 12. Summary of fish shocking data in Reaches 5 and 6 (November 1 , 1 9 6 9 ) ...................................... 103 13. A list of species of fish found in the Weber River between Echo Dam and Devil's Slide, Utah .......... 105 14. Number and weight of each fish species per acre in the Weber River, Utah, fall, 1970 108 15. Percent of total catch each species contributed from creel census data on the Weber River, Utah,1970 no 4J 16. Percent of numbers, estimates of populations, percent of weight and estimate of standing crop by species for changed and unchanged areas in the Weber River, Utah, in the fall of 1970 ................................. 113 17. Percent of recaptures in changed and unchanged areas of the Weber River, Utah, summer and fall of 1970 ................................................... 115 18. Fish population estimates in the Weber River, Utah during the summer of 1970 ................................. 115 19. Ordination coordinates (x and Y) and estimated standing crops in pounds per acre for each tag and release location on the Weber River, Utah in the fall of 1970 ........................ .. H 9 20. Fish population estimates (number/acre) in an altered portion (Section B) on the Weber River, Utah, June 5, 1972 124 21. Number of fish collected during each trial for DeLury fish population estimates on the Weber River, Utah, 1972 ........................................ 128 22. Comparisons of DeLury fish population estimates in 1972 with tag-recapture population estimates made prior to that time in the Weber River, Utah ........ 129 23. Movement of fish as recorded from recapture information in the Weber River, U t a h .................... 131 Table Page LIST OF FIGURES 1. Map of Utah showing location of Weber River, Summit County, Utah, and the location of the study area.................................. 9 2. Map of Weber River, Summit County, Utah showing study sections.......................................... 16 3. Example of several kinds of structures placed in the channeled sections of the Weber River, Summit County, U t a h .................................... 19 4. Summary of the various types of instream structures utilized in the channeled portion of the Weber River, Summit County, U t a h .................. 20 5. Profile of the channel in Sections A, B, and C ........ 28 6. Profile of the channel in Sections C and D .............. 29 7. Profile of the channel in Sections E, F, G, H, and I .................................................. 30 8. Diagram of circular quarter meter squared (1/16m ) bottom sampler .......................................... 38 2 9. Diagram of a circular bottom sampler (1/32m ) .......... 40 10. Diagram of drift n e t .................................... 42 11. Summary flow chart of materials and methods used in this s t u d y .......................................... 46 12. Total water hardness concentration of the water collected above and below the construction area in the Weber River, Summit County, U t a h ................... 48 13. Alkalinity concentrations of the water collected above and below the construction area in the Weber River, Summit County, Utah . . ..................... 49 14. Phosphate concentration of the water collected above and below the construction area in the Weber River, Summit County, Utah......................... 51 Figure . Page vn FIGURES (cont.) 15. Sulfate concentration of the water collected above and below the construction area in the Weber River, Summit County, U t a h ........................ 52 16. The pH of the water collected above and below the construction area in the Weber River, Summit County, Utah • . . . . . . . . . . . . v . . . . . . 53 17. Temperature of the water at the sampling stations above and below the construction areas in the Weber River, Summit County, U tah .......................... 54 18. Turbidity of the water above and below the construction area in the Weber River, Summit County, Utah ......................................... 55 19. Discharge of water from Echo Reservoir showing mean, maximum and minimum per month ...................... 57 20. Organic drift collected above and below construction areas in the Weber River, Summit County, Utah............................................ 60 21. Inorganic drift collected above and below construction areas in the Weber River, Summit County, Utah ......................................... 61 22. Numbers of organisms per meter squared in changed and unchanged areas of the Weber River, Summit County, U t a h ..................................... 65 23. Weight of organisms per meter squared in changed and unchanged areas of the Weber River, Summit County, U t a h .................. 66 24. Log of the numbers of organisms per meter squared in changed and unchanged areas of the Weber River, Summit County, Utah........................ 67 25. Numbers of organisms per meter squared for each taxon collected in changed and unchanged areas of the Weber River, Summit County, U t a h .......... 69 26. Numbers of organisms per meter squared for each taxon collected at Station 8, Weber River, Summit County, U t a h ..................................... 70 Figure Page FIGURES (cont.) 27. Species composition of the invertebrates collected in bottom samples in changed and unchanged areas of the Weber River, Summit County, U t a h ............................................ 71 28. Species diversity of the invertebrate populations collected in changed and unchanged sections of the Weber River, Summit County, Utah .................... 72 29. Ordination analysis showing graphical representation of macroinvertebrate population relationships between all stations ........................ 74 30. Diagram of the gabion and rock deflectors showing sampling sites and numbers of organisms collected at each s i t e ............................................. 75 31. Diagram of boat and equipment used in electro­ fishing in the Weber River, Summit County, Utah.......... 97 32. Percent composition of weight and numbers each species contributes to the fish population in the fall 1970 .................................................. 107 33. Actual numbers of fish per acre collected during the summer and fall shocking of the Weber River, Summit County, Utah, 1970 .................................. 116 34. Ordination of fish tagging locations on the Weber River, Summit County, Utah, fall of 1970 .......... 118 Figure Page 35. Actual numbers of fish per acre collected during the summer and fall shocking of the Weber River, Summit County, Utah in 1 9 7 1 ...................... 122 36. Percent composition of weight and number each species contributes to the fish population in the fall of 1 9 7 1 ........................................ 123 37. Numbers of fish per acre estimated by the DeLury method on Weber River, Summit County, Utah in the fall of 1972 ........................................ 126 ix J ABSTRACT Construction of Interstate 80 in Henefer Valley, Utah resulted in channelizaiton of 1.6 miles of Weber River. In an attempt to alleviate some fo the adverse effects of channelization, instream rehabilitation structures in the form of deflectors and check dams were installed in the altered sections. Because of these structures, hydrologic features in the changed portions of the river were similar to those of the unchanged areas. Holes were scoured around the structures and material was deposited below, forming riffle areas. There were as many holes and riffles in the changed sections as in the unchanged. Channelized portions of the Weber River were rapidly populated by macroinvertebrates. After six months with substantial stream flows and stabilization of the substrate, no difference in numbers, weight, or species diversity could be detected between the benthos of the changed and the unchanged sections. Fish population estimates were difficult to obtain due to the size of the river, high mobility of the fish, and low shocking efficiency especially at high discharges. Howeber, shocking data did indicate that fish populations were essentially the same in the changed and unchanged areas as a result of the rehabilitation measures taken. DeLury population estimates collected in 1972 indicate that the fish populations were similar in changed and unchanged areas and that shocking efficiency decreases as the number of holes and amount of cover increase. Fish populations were composed mainly of whitefish (80%) with cutthroat, rainbow, brown, suckers, and carp, making Up the rest of the population. Rehabilitation structures did provide holes and riffles in the changed sections, nevertheless, channelization should be avoided if at all possible since other deleterious effects still occur such as loss in stream length, loss of cover, loss in streamside vegetation and loss in aesthetic value. xi INTRODUCTION In 1968 construction was started on a new section of Highway 1-80 in the area near Henefer, Utah. Five different sections of the Weber River were channelized as a result of this construction. In an attempt to alleviate some of the disastrous effects of channelization, a number of instream structures were placed in the new channels to create holes and riffle areas. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the channel rehabilitation measures, a research grant was awarded to Brigham Young University by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Utah State Department of Highways. This report is the result of studies carried on from June 1968 to July 1972. No pre-study on the Weber River was possible, since the research and construction began at the same time. For this reason channelized or changed sections were compared with sections of the river that were not altered by the present highway construction. Originally eight study reaches were selected; 4 in changed sections and 4 in unchanged sections. However, due to access problems only five of the original sections were used throughout the study. The main objectives of this study were: 1. To study the effects of the channel changes on the fish and invertebtate populations of the river. 2. To evaluate the hydraulic effectiveness of the various structures in creating a good fish habitat. 3. To compare the various types of structures used and make recommendations on their relative effectiveness. 1 4. To develop concepts that can be used in designing future pro­ jects where river channel changes are needed. 2 Review of Literature Detrimental Effects of Channelization The disastrous effect of channelization on the aquatic habitat is becoming a very prominant issue throughout the United States, and only recently, congressional subcommittee hearings were held concerning this problem (Reuss, 1971). Copious literature substantiates that channel alteration and realignment are detrimental to rivers and streams in all geographical areas (Arthur, 1936; Alexander, 1960; Alvord and Peters, 1963; Bagby, 1969; Bayless and Smith, 1964; Beland, 1953; Berryman, et al., 1962; Blackwelder, 1971; Broach, 1969; Buntz, 1969; Calhoun, 1966, 1967; Carter and Jones, 1969; Clark, 1944; Davidson, 1971; Davis, 1941; Einsele, 1957; Engehard, 1951; Fulton, 1970; Gangmark and Bakkala, 1959; Gebhards, 1970; Greene, 1950; Hales, 1960; Hynes, 1960; Irizarry, 1969; Peters and Alvord, 1964; Phenicie, 1954; Scheidt, 1967; Smith, 1968, 1971; Stuart, 1959; Swedberg and Nevala, 1964; Trautman, 1939; Warner and Porter, 1960; Welker, 1967; Whitney and Bailey, 1959). Probably one of the most detrimental effects of channelization is the loss in stream length (Peters and Alvord, 1964). Many states have lost numerous miles of stream as a result of channel­ ization (Irazarry, 1969; Davidson, 1971; Gebhards, 1970; Larkin, et al., 1959). The loss of streamside vegetation, cover and shelter for fish is also an important aspect of channelization (Beland, 1953; Boussu, 1954). Channelization exposes a new substrate to the current, thus increasing sedimentation and siltation (Saunders and Smith, 1965; 3 Cordone and Kelley, 1961; Hansen and Muncy, 1971). This also produces an unstable substrate which hinders the establishment of algae and macro­ invertebrate organisms (Ballinger and Mckee, 1971; Cummins and Lauff, 1969; Patrick, 1959). Increased sedimentation and silt are detrimental to the fisheries due to the abrasive and smothering action (Warner and Porter, 1960; Allen, 1960, 1961; Agnew, 1962; Hamilton, 1961). Increased sedimentation and siltation may also cause an increase in the instability of the substrate (Chutter, 1968). The loss in streamside vegetation which usually accompanies channelization can cause an increase in sedi­ mentation (Scheidt, 1967; Fredericksen, 1970) as well as an increase in the stream temperature (Warner and Porter, 1960; Hansen and Muncey, 1971). The loss of streamside vegetation may effect the trophic structure of the acquatic environment due to a significant loss of basic food material entering the stream (Egglishaw, 1964; Warner and Porter, 1960). The overall aesthetic value of a channeled stream is effected, and the recreational utilization is reduced (Beland, 1953). Altered stream channels may show the effects for extended periods, and some may never recover (Bayless and Smith, 1964; Larimore, et al., 1959). The recovery and establishment of invertebrates in channeled areas are dependent upon the stability of the substrate (Ballinger and McKee, 1971; Cummins and Lauff, 1969; Elder, 1969; Morgans, 1956; Patrick, 1959). Stream flow, season of the year, and life cycles of the organisms also play an important role in the establishment of organisms in denuded areas (Patrick, 1959). Colonization of denuded or channeled areas is accomplished mainly by invertebrate drift from undisturbed areas upstream (Waters, 1964; Crisp and Gledhill, 1970; Kennedy, 1955). 4 Rehabilitation of Altered Areas Many attempts have been made to rehabilitate altered or unproduc­ tive stream channels. These attempts have often shown favorable results (Aitken, 1936; Burghduff, 1934; Curkhard, 1967; Clark, 1945; Croemiller, 1955; Cumming and Hill, 1971; Edminister, et al., 1949; Ehlers, 1956; Gard, 1961; Gee, 1952; Greely and Tarzwell, 1932; Hale, 1969; Harrison, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965; Hazzard, 1935; Howard, 1971; Hubbs, 1932; Hubbs, Greely and Tarzwell, 1932; Hunt, 1968, 1971; Jester and McKirdy, 1966; Johnson, 1967; Leonard, 1940; Little, 1965; Mueller, 1954; Mullan, 1962; Mullan and Barrett, 1962; O'Donnell and Threinen, 1960; Otis (no date); Richards, 1963; 1964; Robinson and Mendendez, 1964; Saunders and Smith, 1962; Schuyler, 1971; Shetter, et al., 1946; Swedberg and Nevala, 1964; Tarzwell, 1932, 1937, 1938; Taube, 1967; Trautman, 1939; Warner and Porter, I960; White and Brynidson, 1967; Wilkins, 1960). The most common rehabilitation method used is the placement of structures in the stream channel to alter the current (Warner and Porter, 1960; Saunders and Smith, 1962; Hubbs, Greely and Tarzwell, 1932). These structures divert the current and cause the water to dig holes and deposit the material in riffle areas, thus providing a riffle-pool complex which is important to the stream environment (Gee, 1952; Hazzard, 1935). Piles of gravel placed in the channel to form riffle areas have proved effective in some areas and were still functioning several years after their placement (Stuart, 1953). 5 1 j HYDROLOGIC ASPECTS OF THE WEBER RIVER The Weber Basin area covers approximately 2,500 square miles, 3 percent of the state of Utah. Great Salt Lake forms the western boundary of the area and the north, east, and south boundaries are the divides between the Bear, the Provo, and the Jordan River drainages, respectively. The Weber River originates near the west end of the Uinta Mountain range (elevation 11,900 feet) and flows approximately 50 miles northwesterly between the Uinta and Wasatch Mountains and then turns west and flows 90 miles to the Great Salt Lake (elevation 4,200 ft.). It is joined by its major tributary, the Ogden River just west of Ogden City about 15 miles upstream from the Lake. The total stream flow in the Weber Basin area averages 640,000 acre feet annually. (USBR, 1951 Weber Basin Project). A Description of the Study Area The original area involved in this report was a 10 mile stretch of river located below Echo Reservoir and continuing downstream to the Devil's Slide Area in Summit County, Utah. The drainage area is 732 square miles (USGS, Water Supply Paper 1244). Interstate 80 was built between the river and the railroad and this location required five sections of the Weber River to be straight­ ened near Henefer, Utah. The location of the Weber River and the study area are shown in Figure 1. During the past 30 years the river channel in this area has been altered in several places as a result of flood control or agricultural 7 practices. Consequently, this stretch of the Weber River is not a pristine environment. For the purpose of this study, all sections which underwent changes during the present construction of 1-80 are referred to as changed sections while those sections not touched by the construc­ tion are referred to as unchanged sections. Five sections of river were channelized. The total length of the altered channel was 8,800 feet or 1.6 miles. The channelization re­ sulted in a loss of about 0.4 of a mile in channel length in the seven or eight mile section of river where the changes occurred. Hydrology of the Weber River Discharge Records In 1931 the Echo Dam with a reservoir capacity of 73,940 acre feet was completed, and the flow of the river through the present study area has been regulated artifically since that time. In 1957, Wanship Dam, with a reservoir capacity of 60,860 acre feet, was completed a few miles upstream from Echo Dam. There are not adequate data available to compare the river flows with those before construction of Echo Dam, but the flow records of the river at Echo for the 35-year period from 1932 to 1967 are summarized in Table 1. The maximum average monthly dis­ charge was 2180 cfs in May of 1952. During this month the maximum mean daily flow was 3060 cfs and the minimum mean daily flow was 250 cfs. 8 9 TABLE 1. Mean, maximum and minimum average monthly discharges in cubic feet per second as measured at Echo, Utah, 1932-1967. Month 35 Year Mean Maximum Minimum October 118 270 (1966) 6 (1962) November 94 183 (1939) 0.5 (1962) December 83 179 (1958) 0.44 (1955) January 86 173 (1951) 0.44 (1955) February 86 215 (1952) 0.5 (1962) March 83 505 (1952) 0.5 (1962) April 141 580 (1938) 0.5 (1962) May 513 2180 (1952) 8 (1933) June 686 1682 (1950) 235 (1934) July 502 702 (1967) 321 (1937) August 408 623 (1962) 97 (1934) September 261 372 (1964) 23 (1934) During the 30-year period from 1931 to 1970 the flow of the river in this area has fallen below 30 cfs for 84 months or an average of 2.2 months per year. The flow has been below 10 cfs for 53 months or an average of 1.4 months per year. Table 2 indicates the severity of some of the low flow periods since 1953. In addition to these low flows, there have been many days when the flow at Echo was 0 and the flow in the river at Henefer was a result of seepage into the channel and the flow of Echo Creek. 10 TABLE 2. Summary of periods of low flows, Weber River at Echo, Utah. Year Months Less than 30 cfs Months Less than 10 cfs 1953 1 1 1954 - 2 1 1955 ' 5 5 1956 4 3 1957 2 • 2 1968 0 0 1959 4 3 1960 5 0 1961 3 0 1962 6 0 1963 2 0 1964 6 2 1965 3 0 1966 1 0 1967 5 0 1968 1 0 1969 2 2 1970 2 2 The minimum flows during the winter months were a result of shut­ ting off the outlet works of Echo Dam so that Tittle or no flow was coming out of the reservoir. The summer minimums were established in 1934 which was an exceptionally low water year for all of Utah. 11 The discharges during the study period varied from 0 to 1800 cfs (Fig. 19, page 57). There were drastic fluctuations in discharge from Echo Reservoir during short periods of time. The discharge varied 400­ 500 cfs within a few hours on several occasions. Tortuosity Studies Since 1938, the river has undergone a number of channel changes which have slowly shortened the length of the channel. These changes were determined from a study of the aerial photographs taken of this area in 1938, 1952, and 1967. The results of these changes are summa­ rized in Table 3. TABLE 3. Changes in channel length, tortuosity and average slope of channel in the Weber River near Henefer, Utah; 1938-1969. Year Channel Length (Miles) Tortuosity Average Slope of Channel 1938 8.64 1.38 0.00356 1967 8.28 1.33 0.00370 1969 7.85 1.25 0.00391 In 1938 the distance along the channel thalweg from below Echo Reservoir down to the Devil's Slide area was 8.64 miles and by 1969 this had decreased to 7.85 miles. The change in length in 1968 due to the channelization resulted in a loss of 0.43 miles. The tortuosity of the channel decreased from 1.38 to 1.25. Tortuosity is defined as the distance from study reach 1 (Section A) to study reach 8 (Section J) 12 (Fig. 1) measured along the thalweg or the main thread of the current of the stream divided by the straight line valley length from reach 1 to reach 8. A high tortuosity ratio indicates a meandering stream while a tortuosity of 1.0 would imply a straight stream channel. The shortening of the river by 0.8 mile during the 31-year period demon­ strates that a number of changes have been made in the channel over the last 30 years. Changes of this type in which no planned corrective measures are taken, are generally very detrimental to the habitat of a stream (Alvord and Peters, 1963). The decrease in channel length also resulted in an increase in the average slope of the river from 0.00356 to 0.00391 with slope being defined as difference in elevation between two points divided by the channel length between these same points. Water Quality Records A study of the U.S.G.S. water quality records for a number of years shows that the total dissolved solids in the study area were generally smaller than 300 mg/1. The water quality was within the limits of allowable impurities for domestic water set by the U.S. Public Health Service at 500 mg/1 for total dissolved solids. The water is slightly alkaline with a pH varying between 7 and 8. No tests were made for pollution in this area of the river. During the study period, the river was normally clear during the fall and winter but it became turbid during the spring and summer. When the water releases from Echo Reservoir were over 300 cfs, the water flowing from the reservoir was often quite turbid. Generally it was not possible to see the bottom of the river if the water depth 13 exceeded 1.5 ft. or more. The turbidity was caused by fine materials in suspension in the release water from Echo Reservoir. Some of the tur­ bidity was a result of sediment brought into the river by Echo Creek. During most of the summer, the turbidity of the water exceeded 40 JTU (Fig. 18, page 55). A sunmary of some of the water quality character­ istics during the study period is given in the section on Aquatic Invertebrate Studies. . Hydraulics of the Weber River in the Study Area Channel Characteristics The average slope of the unchanged channel in the study area was 0.0028 or 2.8 feet change in elevation per 1000 feet. The maximum and minimum slope for the unchanged channels was 0.0038 and 0.0018. In the changed reaches, the slope was 0.003/ (3.7 feet per 1000 feet). An increase in slope usually results in an increase in the average velocity for that unit of stream. The velocities and the average depth of flow are influenced greatly by the total discharge flowing in the river. However, during the months of May, June, July, August, and part of September, the discharge generally exceeds 400 cfs and occasionally reaches 800 cfs. In the study reach the average velocities normally varied from 3 feet per second to as high as 5 fps with the velocity averaging slightly higher in the changed sections. During periods of low flow, the velocities are greatly reduced. Velocity is an extremely variable flow character­ istic, but except for short periods of spring runoff, the average cross sectional velocity in this area of the river, seldom exceeds 5 fps. For the convenience of summarizing the data, the research area was divided into various sections labeled from A to J as shown in Figure 2. A summary of the slope, length and width for each section is included in Table 4. TABLE 4. Average slope, length and width of each section in the study area on the Weber River, Summit County, Utah. Width (feet) (feet) Section Slope Length Ave. Maximum Min. A - ' 9,600 77 ft. 97.5 ft. 55 ft. B Changed .0037 3,800 88 ft. 105 ft. 55 ft. C .0038 4,475 82 ft. 110 ft. 62 ft. D Changed .0047 2,400 80 ft. 90 ft. 67 ft. E .0033 2,750 72 ft. 92.5 ft. 60 ft. F Changed .0025 1,200 82 ft. 90 ft. 77 ft. G .0018 550 90 ft. 100 ft. 80 ft. H Changed .0040 775 85 ft. 92 ft. 75 ft. I .0024 425 67 ft. 85 ft. 45 ft. J - 9,920 75 ft. 110 ft. 40 ft. No quantitative measurements on the substrate were made in the changed and unchanged areas. However, subjective catagorization of the substrate indicate that the substrate in the unchanged area was of the rubble-gravel complex (Cummins, 1962) and is considered fairly stable. The substrate in the changed area after construction contained excessive amounts of exposed dirt and small grained material and was considered 15 N or th Fi g. 2. Ma p of W eb er R iv er , Su ni ni t Co un ty , Ut ah sh ow in g st ud y se ct io ns . unstable. After a period of stream flow, the fine materials were eroded away, and a stable substrate was formed of the rubble-gravel complex, indistinguishable from the substrate in the unaltered areas. No measurements were taken to evaluate the movement of sediments into or out of the area. From appearances of the channel, sediment was deposited mainly within the study area, especially behind certain structures. Observations downstream from the channeled sections showed no excessive silt accumulation in those areas. Hydraulic Structures Gabions or wire baskets filled with rocks were the major structures used to rehabilitate the channeled portions of the Weber River (Fig. 3A). The gabions were constructed of heavy wire fabric similar to the type used in chain link fences. The wire was formed into baskets which were then filled with rubble size rocks. Three types of gabion structures were utilized: 1. Check dams; gabion structures placed completely across the stream perpendicular to the stream banks. 2. Wing deflectors; gabion structures placed at a 45 degree V angle to the bank and extending out into the main flow of the channel to approximately the center of the channel. 3. Double deflector; two gabion structures at a 45 degree angle to the bank placed opposite each other with their ends ex­ tending towards the middle and separated by about 20 feet. % Large rocks were also used to form wing deflectors, V-deflectors and check dams (Fig. 3B) and large rocks (1-4 ton) were used as random rocks placed periodically through the channel of the altered sections Ik 17 (Fig. 3C). Figure 4 summarizes the types of structures and the patterns that were used for rehabilitation structures in the channel­ ized portions of the Weber River. The rechanneled sections of the Weber River were designed to ac­ comodate 5400 cfs of flood water. A trapezoidal shaped channel was constructed with a bottom width of 70 feet and side slopes of 1:1. However, Section B was not rip-rapped until some time after the water was released into it and therefore the width of the channel was scoured out to about 100 feet in several places. Rip-rap on the sides was extended from the top of the bank to 4 feet below the channel bed on straight stretches and 8 feet below on curves. Wing deflectors were approximately 100 feet apart in Sections D, F, and H. A total of 39 gabion deflectors and 6 gabion check dams were placed in the river. Five rock deflectors were placed in the channeled reach in Section A and 3 rock deflectors, 3 rock check dams and 2 deflectors were placed in Section B. Numerous random rocks were spread throughout the channelized portions of the Weber River. Random rocks were also placed in the narrow channel formed by the continuing construction of 1-80 in the Devil's Slide Area. This area contains rock check dams spaced at 600 foot intervals and the random rocks were placed no closer than 300 feet upstream from these structures in order to avoid the backwater effects of the dams. A concrete check dam used for water diversion was installed in the middle of Section B. 18 Í r <~ o A B . Ex am pl e of s ev er al ki nd s of s tr uc tu re s pl ac ed in th e ch an ne le d se ct io ns of t he W eb er R iv er , Su mm it C ou nt y, Ut ah . 00 Gabion Check Dam I Flow Gabion Wing Deflector Rock V Deflector Gabion Double Deflector Random Rocks 9 Rock Wing Deflector y Rock Check Dam Concrete Check Dam Fig. 4. Summary of the various types of instream structures utilized in the channeled portion of the Weber River, Summit County, Utah. 20 Descriptiori of the Study Sections This section is considered a natural area except for a short channeled stretch (640 feet) about one mile below the Echo Reservoir. The total section is 9600 feet long. There were 15 random rocks and 5 ^ rock deflectors placed in the altered portion of this section. No data other than invertebrate data were collected in this section due to access problems. This section ends immediately above the changed section entering the W-shaped bend. Section B Section B is a channelized section 3800 feet long. It contains the concrete check dam, two inverted rock V midstream deflectors, 3 rock -jf deflectors, 3 rock check dams and about 30 random rocks (most of them below the concrete check dam). There were 4 stock watering areas placed in this section. Section C This section is an unchanged portion of the Weber River. It con­ tains two meanders (forming a W-shaped bend) and abundant streamside vegetation. The portion immediately below Section B was rip-rapped before this project was initiated to prevent bank erosion, on the north bank. Section D Section D is a changed portion of the Weber River beginning immediately below the new concrete bridge east of Henefer, Utah and Section A 21 continuing upstream for 2,400 feet. The bend just above this changed section has been rip-rapped and several (10) random rocks were placed in the area. A riffle was formed at the upstream end by placing boulder sized rocks (about 60), 3 gabion check dams and 20 gabion deflectors, 4 of which (2 pair) were placed in the double deflector fashion. Three stock watering areas were constructed in this section. Section E Section E is an unaltered section starting below the Henefer Bridge (U.S. 30) downstream to the first changed section below Henefer. This portion of stream is 2700 feet long and fairly straight. A lot of trash has been thrown in the river and along its banks in this area. Section F This section is the first changed area north of Henefer. This section is 1200 feet long. During construction a large pile of gravel was left in the middle of the upstream end of this reach. When the water was released into this area, it eroded the pile of gravel and formed a large riffle area. Below this riffle, 9 random rocks, 10 gabion deflectors and 1 check dam were placed. Two stock watering holes were also constructed. Section G This unchanged section is a short (550.feet) stretch below the end of Section F and above the start of H. This portion is the bend part of an old meander. The sewage effluent from Henefer settling pond enters at its upstream end. This stretch is a wide shallow area. 22 Section H This section is the last changed area below Henefer. It is 775 feet long with gabion check dams at the upstream and downstream ends. Nine gabion deflectors (4 in the double deflector pattern) and 25 random rocks were placed in this section. Section I This is an unchanged area with two large holes with undercut banks and two riffle areas. The length of this section was 725 feet. A large tree was broken off and covered most of the upstream hole. Section J This section is the unchanged area below Section I which continues downstream for 9920 feet. A short stretch of river at the downstream end of this stretch, at a roadside park, was used for fish and inverte­ brate sampling. This area has been subsequently changed by the addi­ tional construction of 1-80. Analysis of Structure Effectiveness To give a visual representation of what has happened to the river in the changed areas as a result of the instream structures, contour maps at a one inch to twenty foot scale were made (see Appendix HI)* These maps were made with a plane table and alidade. Elevations were read to the nearest tenth of a foot. The contour lines on the map were drawn in foot intervals with dashed lines at the half foot intervals. The map is identified by map number, section, and condition of flow. 23 Structures will be referred to by map number and section number. Each structure has a number placed near its center to identify it. For example, 10A-H-F refers to map 10A, Section H, structure F. ^ Evaluation of the failure of a structure is based on either actual structural failure or failure to develop a hole or a riffle area. Section B In the changed channel at Section B, all of the structures installed were constructed of rip-rap except one structure which was a concrete diversion dam. In this area the rip-rap along the sides of the channel was placed after water had flowed in the new channel for several months. During this time, the sides had eroded and the channel width was over 100 feet in some places instead of the designed 70 feet. Above the concrete dam, a small island in the channel was protected by rip-rap placed in a V-shape on the front of the island (ÍB-B-Rock V, Appendix, pagei70)< This has produced a divided channel and some good gravel riffle areas in the stream. This is the only structure above the concrete dam and this section of the changed channel contains several holes, especially below the island. Below the concrete diversion dam, there are about 30 large random rocks, three rip-rap check dams and three rip-rap deflector structures.t4 The random rocks were positioned in the fall of 1970 and were not in­ cluded on the maps. The three check dams are about eighteen inches above the floor of the channel and are in a series of three with a distance of 200 feet between neighboring dams (3A-B check dam, Appendix, page 173). These structures have provided holes both above and below each structure as well as backing up the water forming pool type 24 1 situations. The three rip-rap deflector structures are also in a series on a 200 foot spacing (4A-B-A, B, C, Appendix, page 175). The structures % have created more of a meandering pattern in the stream than the gabion deflectors in the 70 foot wide channel. The riffle-pool series appears more pronounced here due to the three gravel bars formed below each structure. Holes have developed near the ends of the deflectors and downstream from them. Of the 45 gabion structures placed in the stream channels, ten have failed to form holes and or riffles. The ineffectiveness was generally due to sedimentation. The following four conditions resulted in sediment deposition or general ineffectiveness of the structures. 1. The deflectors were placed too close upstream to a check dam structure and thus, they were affected by the backwater of the check dam. The slow flowing water in this area resulted in deposition of sediment thereby partially burying the deflector structure. 2. The deflector was placed on the inside of a bend where there normally is deposition. The result was burial or partial burial of the structure. 3. Cattle watering areas were located between some deflectors and random rocks were placed in a line between the deflectors. The random rocks slowed down the flow, and the structures and watering areas were covered with sediment. 4. Two structures were placed too low and not enough of the structures were projecting above the channel floor to cause a scouring action and were thus ineffective. 25 Section D Most of the structures just above the new Henefer bridge are functioning reasonable well, except that structure 7B-D-D has failed (Appendix III, page 181)* The wire fabric ruptured at one point and much of the contents of the basket spilled into the channel. The cause of this failure is unknown. Deep holes and channels were formed below the checkdam, 7B-D-A, B and between 7B-D-E, F. A large hole was formed below the checkdam, 6B-D check dam No. 2 (Appendix, page 188). Water was also backed up to some extent above this check dam. Structure 5B-D-R has been buried by the sediment load of the river. The upstream check dam did not form a large hole below it (Appendix, page 180). Section F In Section F, three structures 8B-F-H, I, J, were buried (Appendix III, page 184 ). They were located at the upper end of Section F. The large pile of gravel partially covering the deflectors has formed the largest riffle area in this changed section. Riffles are important to fish life and production as they provide feeding areas and egg laying areas for fish (Needham and Johnson, 1949). More research is needed to discover better ways to create these riffles in a changed area. A large hole was formed above 8B-F-J as a result of several random rocks being placed in a semicircle around a stock watering area. A deep hole was also formed between structures 10B-F-E, F a double deflector combination. Holes were formed around the ends of the deflectors but the water was backed up as a result of the downstream check dam and reduced the size of the holes that were formed. 26 Section H In section H, gabion deflector 10A-H-F has failed (Appendix III, page 187). The end near the center of the channel has fallen. The channel bed in this area seems very unstable and has washed away from under the structure causing a foundation failure. The wire fabric has not ruptured yet but the wire has been twisted and bent. Structure 10A-H-G on the opposite shore fron 10A-H-F and approximately 75 feet upstream, is partially buried. Holes were formed near the downstream ends of the deflectors, especially on the upstream end of this section. The effectiveness of the downstream deflectors near the check dam was probably hindered by the water being backed up from the check dam at the lower end of the section. Holes were scoured around the random rock. Channel Profile In December 1971 profile measurements were taken down the thalweg or main channel of the Weber River about 3.1 miles or 16,400 feet were measured. There was a drop in elevation in this length of stream of 66 feet or a 0.4% slope. Measurements were started about 1000 feet above Section B and continued downstream to 400 feet below Section H. Sections of river not altered by this construction (Sections A, C, E, G, and I) are considered as comparative stations with those that were altered (Sections B, D, F, ard H). As can be seen by Figures 5, 6, and 7 there are as many holes in the changed areas as the unchanged. The contour of the bottoms are very similar. The areas most dissimilar in appearances are those areas thct were previously channeled and no 27 Elevation m O m o m o m oo * •/■>•/» Farms Uf. U K t » to id o - S^Sleiple Kirie Velocity and Depth ?t S im p le S i t e Dry /v Prying Oven for ?/irs. T¡tt*> U>ct$h •* metric* Balance. Burr* /V muff/e FitrMace. f»r 3 irs auJ •the» V>eJ$h SorfjCouAttj U>etgh 3*d meisure. Tie orga ntsm s (Tem per a tur£\ K------ 1̂7------ / C eA/t *§**¿<1c mfj%tr/nc*ncttir ( \ J 3 t e r N Chemistry J Hash Chemical K i t 0 * < CoA/uert t o A/umbcr
geography
Array ( [0] => Array ( [state] => Utah [province] => ) )
batch_date
Tue, 05 May 2020 19:04:31 +0000
original_file_path
https://digitallibrary.utah.gov/awweb/awarchive?type=download&item=86800
group__id
5eb1b9fb16cb32.97511713
document_format
1.1.7
disabled
-1
processing_date
1609350661
year
1973
hash
Array ( [document] => a171e7ef50aca38413eae1a6b0de332f6477e341 [content] => 6286de0eeb92d3a4c5136ff915f0f98d1fedc456 [dedupe] => cb91e585605f2c50b12c8e4ac0abdb588d32cf5d )
id
doc-5eb1b9fb82ecd357e6025f0d
__hash__
Content: 6286de0eeb92d3a4c5136ff915f0f98d1fedc456 | Abstract: da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709