Quantifying form resistance is essential for estimating summer low and bankfull flow from stream survey channel morphology

Reliable estimates of low flow and flood discharge at ungaged locations are required for evaluating stream flow alteration, designing culverts and stream crossings, and interpreting regional surveys of habitat and biotic condition. Very few stream gaging stations are located on small, remote streams, which typically have complex channel morphology. Adequate gaging is also lacking on larger streams that are remote, smaller than those typically gaged, or have channel morphology not conducive to installation of gages. Complex channels typically contain large scale hydraulic roughness elements that dominate flow patterns (i.e., form roughness), making it difficult to measure channel cross-section area and water velocity, or to measure channel volume even where discharge is known. In channels with large channel form roughness, it is equally difficult to estimate discharge using commonly applied equations based on slope and channel dimensions or basin area. We employed a novel approach that explicitly accounts for hydraulic resistance from large wood and riffle-pool morphology (form roughness) in calculating low flow and bankfull discharge from stream and river physical habitat data collected from 4229 stream and river sites in the conterminous US (CONUS) sampled in 2008–9 and 2013–14 as part of the US Environmental Protection Agency's National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA). Hydraulic resistance derived from form roughness clearly dominated resistance derived from bed particles (particle resistance) during summer low flows in wadeable streams across the spectrum of channel slopes and substrate sizes smaller than boulders. Under bankfull conditions, the influence of form resistance relative to particle resistance was diminished, but form resistance still dominated except in large low gradient rivers lacking complex channels, and in streams or rivers with boulder-size bed particles. We validated our hydraulic resistance estimates by comparing measured discharges with calculated discharges that used those hydraulic resistance estimates along with measured NRSA channel morphology data. Morphology-based summer discharge (low flow) estimates and direct field measurements of discharge in 2333 wadeable CONUS streams showed reasonable agreement (median difference