This document is a guide to establishing permanent reference sites for gathering data about the physical characteristics of streams and rivers. The minimum procedure consists of the following: (1) select a site, (2) map the site and location, (3) measure the channel cross-section, (4) survey a longitudinal profile of the channel, (5) measure stream flow, (6) measure bed material, and (7) permanently file the information with the Vigil network. The document includes basic surveying techniques, provides guidelines for identifying bankfull indicators and measuring other important stream characteristics. The object is to establish the baseline of existing physical conditions for the stream channel. With this foundation, changes in the character of streams can be quantified for monitoring purposes or to support other management decisions.

Portable bedload traps ͑0.3 by 0.2 m opening͒ were developed for sampling coarse bedload transport in mountain gravel-bed rivers during wadable high flows. The 0.9 m long trailing net can capture about 20 kg of gravel and cobbles. Traps are positioned on ground plates anchored in the streambed to minimize disturbance of the streambed during sampling. This design permits sampling times of up to 1 h, overcoming short-term temporal variability issues. Bedload traps were tested in two streams and appear to collect representative samples of gravel bedload transport. Bedload rating and flow competence curves are well-defined and steeper than those obtained by a Helley-Smith sampler. Rating curves from both samplers differ most at low flow but approach each other near bankfull flow. Critical flow determined from bedload traps is similar using the largest grain and the small transport rate method, suggesting suitability of bedload trap data for incipient motion studies.

Gravel bedload transport rates were measured at eight study sites in coarse-bedded Rocky Mountain streams using 4-6 bedload traps deployed across the stream width and a 76 by 76 mm opening Helley Smith sampler. Transport rates obtained from bedload traps increased steeply with flow which resulted in steep and well-defined transport rating curves with exponents of 8 to 16. Gravel transport rates measured by the HelleySmith sampler started with much higher transport rates during low flows and increased less steeply, thus fitted bedload rating curves were less steep with exponents of 2 to 4. Transport rates measured with both samplers approached similar results near or above bankfull flow, but at 50 % of bankfull, transport rates from the bedload traps were 2-4 orders of magnitude lower than those obtained from the Helley-Smith sampler. The maximum bedload particle sizes also differed between the two samplers. They were smaller in the bedload traps than the Helley-Smith sampler at low flows, while at higher flows bedload traps collected larger particles than the Helley-Smith sampler. Differences in sampler opening size and sampling time contribute to the measured differences, but the biggest effect is likely attributable to the bedload traps being mounted on ground plates thus avoiding direct contact between the sampler and the bed and preventing involuntary particle pick up.

Although the term ``pebble count'' is in widespread use, there is no standardized methodology used for the field application of this procedure. Each pebble count analysis is the product of several methodological choices, any of which are capable of influencing the final result. Because there are virtually countless variations on pebble count protocols, the question of how their results differ when applied to the same study reach is becoming increasingly important. This study compared three pebble count protocols: the reach‐averaged Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) protocol named after the EMAP developed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the habitat‐unit specific U.S. Forest Service’s PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) Effectiveness Monitoring Program protocol, and a data‐intensive method developed by the authors named Sampling Frame and Template (SFT). When applied to the same study reaches, particle‐size distributions varied among the three pebble count protocols because of differences in sample locations within a stream reach and along a transect, in particle selection, and particle‐size determination. The EMAP protocol yielded considerably finer, and the PIBO protocol considerably coarser distributions than the SFT protocol in the pool‐riffle study streams, suggesting that the data cannot be used interchangeably. Approximately half of the difference was due to sampling at different areas within the study reach (i.e., wetted width, riffles, and bankfull width) and at different locations within a transect. The other half was attributed to using different methods for particle selection from the bed, particle‐size determination, and the use of wide, nonstandard size classes. Most of the differences in sampling outcomes could be eliminated by using simple field tools, by collecting a larger sample size, and by systematically sampling the entire bankfull channel and all geomorphic units within the reach.