Asotin creek is located in south west Washington. the north fork of the Asotin creek is lathery confined in a narrow canyon. the margins of this catchment ae steep vegetated banks.

2.1 glide-run with a few pools and bars

2.2 2011 and 2012 , chosen to see variability between years

2.3 planer , convexity, concavity

2.4 2012 has less planer features

2.5 2011: pools, glides, run, rapid, margin attached bar 2012: pools, glide runs rapids, cascades, margin attached bars

2.6 yes

2.7 so far as i can tell it works well

2.7a pool

2.7a1 forcing by structural element

2.7a2 stream wise

2.7a3 mid channel

2.7a4 shallow

2.7a5 moderate

2.7a6 plunge pool

2.7a7 gu forced

2.7a8 GUT just calls it a pool

2.7b bar

2.7b1 platform forced

2.7b2 stream wise

2.7b3 bank attached

2.7b4 shallow

2.7b5 low - moderate

2.7b6 point or bolder bar

2.7b7 no change in flow width

2.7b8 similar but more in depth classification

2.7c planer feature

2.7c1 not forced

2.7c2 stream wise

2.7c3 mid channel

2.7c4 shallow

2.7c5 low

2.7c6 glide

2.7c7 slope and roughness

2.7c8 glide and run undistinguished

2.8 no GUT

2.8a planer, glide

2.8b similar

2.8c definition as a glide is more narrow by defining flow slope and roughness

3.1 higher sinuosity than F4 with glide runs and more lateral and point bars

3.2 2011 and 2012 shows 1 year of change as well as same years that were used before to make comparison easier

3.3 tier 2 units are similar

3.4 2012 has more convexities due to lower flow

3.5 pool, point, lateral, and mid channel bars, glides

3.6 some what, missed an mid channel bar in 2012

3.7

3.7a pool

3.7a1 platform forced

3.7a2 stream wise

3.7a3 mid channel

3.7a4 shallow

3.7a5 low

3.7a6 chute

3.7a7 stream wise, mid channel

3.7a8 better definition that just pool

3.7b bar

3.7b1 platform forced

3.7b2 stream wise

3.7b3 bank attached

3.7b4 shallow

3.7b5 low

3.7b6 point bar

3.7b7 platform forced bank attached

3.7b8 more accurate definition that GUT

3.7c planer feature

3.7c1 not forced

3.7c2 stream wise

3.7c3 mid channel

3.7c4 flat

3.7c5 low

3.7c6 Glide

3.7c7 slope and roughness

3.7c8 same as GUT

3.8 no GUT

3.8a convexity, mid channel bar

3.8b GUT missed this one

3.8c didn't shoe up in GUT, possibly due to low flow level?

3.1 F6 is more sinuous leading to bar development as compered to F4 that is a straight glide run

3.2 F6 is most likely has a lower slope or some type of obstruction leading to slower floe and higher sinuosity

3.4 the se sites are pretty similar even when looking between years they remain relatively consistent

4.1 Gut output is similar to wat we would define in the field with broader definitions likely dur to limitations in technology

4.2 Gut had a grater error in tier 3, looking at these location in the field would provide more accurate definitions

4.3 Grain size would be difficult, but you could get a rough sense of it by looking at slope and roughness, for vegetation you would need satellite images or in person surveys.

4.4 both GIS an in field surveys are useful. in field surveys provide more accurate data but are time consuming, GIS surveys are less accurate but can be done quickly and across larger areas.