DOCSLIB.ORG

Big Thompson River Restoration Master Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Big Thompson River Restoration Master Plan BIG THOMPSON RIVER RESTORATION MASTER PLAN May 2015 BIG THOMPSON RIVER RESTORATION MASTER PLAN Prepared for: Prepared by: 3665 JFK Parkway Building 2, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 970.223.5556 Ayres Project No. 32-1791.02 BIG-THOMPSON-M-PLAN-5-11-15.DOC May 2015 Cover Photos: Upper Left – Big Thompson Canyon Mouth, August 1, 1976, Bettmann/CORBIS Bottom Right – Big Thompson Canyon Mouth, September 13, 2013, Ayres Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 1.1 1.1 Purpose of the Master Plan................................................................................... 1.1 1.2 Big Thompson River Restoration Coalition ........................................................... 1.1 1.3 Project Team......................................................................................................... 1.1 1.4 Stakeholder Engagement...................................................................................... 1.2 1.5 Project Extents ...................................................................................................... 1.4 1.6 Corridor Settlement History................................................................................... 1.5 1.7 Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 1.5 1.8 Flood Recovery ..................................................................................................... 1.9 2. Master Plan Goals........................................................................................................ 2.1 2.1 Resiliency.............................................................................................................. 2.1 2.2 Restoration............................................................................................................ 2.3 3. Assessments ................................................................................................................ 3.1 3.1 Geomorphic Risk................................................................................................... 3.3 3.2 Flood Risk ............................................................................................................. 3.8 3.3 Aquatic Habitat Improvement Potential............................................................... 3.10 3.4 Riparian Ecological Improvement Potential......................................................... 3.16 4. Multi-Criterion Decision Analysis (MCDA).................................................................... 4.1 4.1 Reach Designations .............................................................................................. 4.1 4.2 Reach Scores........................................................................................................ 4.1 4.3 Ranking and Potential Uses.................................................................................. 4.2 5. Conceptual Plans ......................................................................................................... 5.1 5.1 Aquatic Restoration............................................................................................... 5.1 5.2 Riparian Restoration ............................................................................................. 5.6 5.3 Bank Stabilization.................................................................................................. 5.7 5.4 Walled or Elevated Road Section ....................................................................... 5.12 5.5 Proposed Channel .............................................................................................. 5.12 5.6 High Flow Channel.............................................................................................. 5.13 5.7 Increase Capacity ............................................................................................... 5.14 5.8 Lower/Regrade.................................................................................................... 5.15 5.9 Stabilized Overflow ............................................................................................. 5.15 5.10 Floodplain Bench............................................................................................. 5.16 5.11 Improve Conveyance....................................................................................... 5.16 5.12 Applied Treatments ......................................................................................... 5.17 6. Costs ............................................................................................................................ 6.1 vi Ayres Associates 7. Management Guidelines .............................................................................................. 7.1 7.1 Current Floodplain Management Context ............................................................. 7.1 7.2 Updating Technical Tools and Data for Future Floodplain.................................... 7.2 7.3 Floodplain Management Moving Forward............................................................. 7.4 7.4 Access Bridges to Private Properties.................................................................... 7.6 8. Data Gaps .................................................................................................................... 8.1 8.1 Geographic Information System (GIS) Data.......................................................... 8.1 8.2 Risk Assessments Improvements ......................................................................... 8.1 9. Moving Forward............................................................................................................ 9.1 10. References ............................................................................................................. 10.1 APPENDIX A – Stakeholder Engagement - presentations, meeting minutes, comments (digital only).................................................................................. -- APPENDIX B – Assessment maps, MCDA maps, MCDA spreadsheets, Cost spreadsheets-- APPENDIX C – Conceptual plan map books ......................................................................... -- APPENDIX D – Select references and summary of digital deliverables................................. -- vii Ayres Associates LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. sMAP screenshot with comment markers and one comment. ......................... 1.3 Figure 1.2. sMAP screenshot conceptual plan features, comment markers ...................... 1.4 Figure 1.3. Big Thompson Watershed................................................................................ 1.6 Figure 1.4. Big Thompson Watershed with NLCD 2011..................................................... 1.7 Figure 1.5. Big Thompson Watershed with topography. .................................................... 1.8 Figure 3.1. Assessment Map Segments............................................................................. 3.2 Figure 3.2. Example GR = 5 at Cedar Cove....................................................................... 3.4 Figure 3.3. Example channel and floodplain GR = 3 downstream of Wilson Avenue. ....... 3.5 Figure 3.4. Example channel GR = 1 and floodplain GR = 3 downstream......................... 3.6 Figure 3.5. FEMA floodplain designations........................................................................... 3.9 Figure 3.6. Example FR scores. ....................................................................................... 3.10 Figure 3.7. Big Thompson downstream of Olympus Dam, AHIP = 0. .............................. 3.12 Figure 3.8. Big Thompson downstream of Olympus Dam, split flow, AHIP = 3................ 3.12 Figure 3.9. Big Thompson upstream of the North Fork, widened channel, AHIP = 3....... 3.13 Figure 3.10. Example of post flood channel modification and bank stabilization ............. 3.13 Figure 3.11. Section of West Creek that experienced degradation and aggradation ....... 3.14 Figure 3.12. Example of sediment movement and channel change................................. 3.15 Figure 3.13. Areas east of the canyon mouth that experience degradation, .................... 3.16 Figure 3.14. Example of post-flood stream channel at downstream of Wilson Avenue,... 3.17 Figure 3.15. Example of post-flood stream channel at Weld County Rd 17, AHIP = 3. ... 3.18 Figure 3.16. Example of post-flood stream channel at Weld County Rd 17, AHIP = 3. ... 3.18 Figure 3.17. Upper Canyon, narrow rocky section with little to no floodplain, REIP = 1... 3.19 Figure 3.18. North Fork, narrow rocky section with little to no floodplain, REIP = 1......... 3.19 Figure 3.19. Upper Canyon, narrow floodplain area including road and structures. ........ 3.20 Figure 3.20. North Fork, narrow floodplain area, REIP = 2. ............................................. 3.20 Figure 3.21. Upper Canyon (Waltonia), some undeveloped floodplain, ........................... 3.21 Figure 3.22. Loveland area, some undeveloped floodplain with little vegetation ............. 3.21 Figure 3.23. Eastern Plains, upstream of CR 27.5, REIP = 3........................................... 3.22 Figure 3.24. Loveland area, wide undeveloped floodplain, REIP = 4............................... 3.22 Figure 3.25. North Fork, wide undeveloped floodplain, REIP = 4..................................... 3.23 Figure 3.26. Eastern Plains, near CR 52, REIP = 4. ........................................................ 3.23
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ROCKY MOUNTAIN National Park CO LO 1^^.00
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN National Park CO LO 1^^.00 UNITED STATES RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL PARK. SERIES Copyright by WiswaU The Village of Estes Park nestles in a quiet little valley, surrounded by mountains Page two An Appreciation of Rocky Mountain National Park By ENOS A. MILLS, Author of "Wild Life on the Rockies," "The Rocky Mountain Wonderland," etc. Written Especially fer the United States Railroad Administration j]HE Rocky Mountain National Park is a marvelous grouping of gentle­ ness and grandeur; an eloquent, wordless hymn, sung in silent, poetic pictures; a wilderness mountain world of groves and grass plots, crags and canyons, rounded lakes with shadow-matted shores that rest in peace within the purple forest. There are wild flowers of every color, and many a silken meadow edged with ferns. Brokenness and beauty, terrace upon terrace, a magnificent hanging wild garden. Over these terraces waters rush and pour. From ice-sculptured, snow-piled peaks, young and eager streams leap in white cascades between crowding cliffs and pines. Through this wildness winds the trail, with its secrets of the centuries, where adventures come and go and where the magic camp fire blossoms in the night. In these primeval scenes the grizzly bear gives to the wilderness its master spell; the mountain ram poses on the cliff; the laughing, varied voice of the coyote echoes when the afterglow falls; the home-loving beaver builds his willow-fringed hut; the birds sing; the cheerful chipmunk frolics and never grows up; and here the world stays young. The Rocky Mountain National Park holds adventure for every visitor.
    [Show full text]
  • A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Rocky Mountain National Park
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Rocky Mountain National Park Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/228 ON THE COVER Rocky Mountain National Park Photograph by: Billy Schweiger A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Rocky Mountain National Park Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/228 David M. Theobald1,2 Jill S. Baron2,3 Peter Newman1 Barry Noon4 John B. Norman III1,2 Ian Leinwand1 Sophia E. Linn1 Richard Sherer4 Katherine E. Williams2,5 Melannie Hartman2 1Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1480 2Natural Resource Ecology Lab, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1499 3U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO 80523 4Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1474 5Current address: Department of Biology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071 This report was prepared under Task Order J2380060103 (Cooperative Agreement #H1200040001) July 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain National Park Lawn Lake Flood Interpretive Area (Elevation 8,640 Ft)
    1 NCSS Conference 2001 Field Tour -- Colorado Rocky Mountains Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:00 AM Depart Ft. Collins Marriott 8:30 Arrive Rocky Mountain National Park Lawn Lake Flood Interpretive Area (elevation 8,640 ft) 8:45 "Soil Survey of Rocky Mountain National Park" - Lee Neve, Soil Survey Project Leader, Natural Resources Conservation Service 9:00 "Correlation and Classification of the Soils" - Thomas Hahn, Soil Data Quality Specialist, MLRA Office 6, Natural Resources Conservation Service 9:15-9:30 "Interpretive Story of the Lawn Lake Flood" - Rocky Mountain National Park Interpretive Staff, National Park Service 10:00 Depart 10:45 Arrive Alpine Visitors Center (elevation 11,796 ft) 11:00 "Research Needs in the National Parks" - Pete Biggam, Soil Scientist, National Park Service 11:05 "Pedology and Biogeochemistry Research in Rocky Mountain National Park" - Dr. Eugene Kelly, Colorado State University 11:25 - 11:40 "Soil Features and Geologic Processes in the Alpine Tundra"- Mike Petersen and Tim Wheeler, Soil Scientists, Natural Resources Conservation Service Box Lunch 12:30 PM Depart 1:00 Arrive Many Parks Curve Interpretive Area (elevation 9,620 ft.) View of Valleys and Glacial Moraines, Photo Opportunity 1:30 Depart 3:00 Arrive Bobcat Gulch Fire Area, Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest 3:10 "Fire History and Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Efforts" - Carl Chambers, U. S. Forest Service 3:40 "Involvement and Interaction With the Private Sector"- Todd Boldt; District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service 4:10 "Current Research on the Fire" - Colorado State University 4:45 Depart 6:00 Arrive Ft. Collins Marriott 2 3 Navigator’s Narrative Tim Wheeler Between the Fall River Visitors Center and the Lawn Lake Alluvial Debris Fan: This Park, or open grassy area, is called Horseshoe Park and is the tail end of the Park’s largest valley glacier.
    [Show full text]
  • Code of Colorado Regulations
    DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Water Quality Control Commission REGULATION NO. 94 COLORADO’S MONITORING AND EVALUATION LIST 5 CCR 1002-94 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] 94.1 Authority These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq C.R.S. as amended, and in particular, 25-8-202 (1) (a), (b), (i), (2) and (6); 25-8-203 and 25-8-204. 94.2 Purpose This regulation establishes Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List. This list identifies water bodies where there is reason to suspect water quality problems, but there is also uncertainty regarding one or more factors, such as the representative nature of the data. Water bodies that are impaired, but it is unclear whether the cause of impairment is attributable to pollutants as opposed to pollution, are also placed on the Monitoring and Evaluation List. 94.3 Water Bodies Identified for Monitoring and Evaluation WBID Segment Description Portion Parameter COAR Arkansas River Basin . COARFO03 Tributaries to Fountain Fourmile Creek, on USFS sediment Creek on USFS or AFA Land lands, Monument Creek to Arkansas River COARFO03 Tributaries to Fountain Bear Creek on USFS sediment Creek on USFS or AFA Land lands, Monument Creek to Arkansas River COARFO03 Tributaries to Fountain Cheyenne Creek, on sediment Creek on USFS or AFA USFS Land lands, Monument Creek to Arkansas River COARLA07 Purgatoire River, I-25 to all sediment Arkansas River COARLA09a Mainstem of Adobe Horse Creek Cu Creek and Gageby Creek… COARLA09c Rule Creek, Muddy Rule Creek Zn Creek, Caddoa Creek, Clay Creek, Cat Creek… COARLA11 John Martin Reservoir all Se COARMA04a Wildhorse Creek all NO 2 , NO 3 COARMA18 Boggs Creek all NO 2 , NO 3 , D.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Studies for Stream Restoration
    Flood Potential in the Southern Rocky Mountains Region Steven Yochum, PhD, PE Big Thompson River & US-34 Hydrologist U.S. Forest Service National Stream and Aquatic Ecology Center Fort Collins, Colorado Flood Potential in the Southern Rocky Mountains Region Collaborators: Drake, Colorado Julian A. Scott (Image source: NRCS exigent EWP) U.S. Forest Service National Stream and Aquatic Ecology Center Fort Collins, Colorado David H. Levinson, PhD U.S. Forest Service National Stream and Aquatic Ecology Center Fort Collins, Colorado Overview of Problem • Common flood analysis procedures do not facilitate a number of needs, such as: • Verification of at-a-station flood-frequency and regional regression analyses results • Quantifiable procedure for identifying and ranking extreme floods • Clear comparisons of how flood magnitudes and hazards vary across regions • Simple language for communicating expected flood hazards with the public and land managers Estes Park, Colorado Potential Solution • A space-for-time substitution can be utilized to address these needs. Procedure: • Regressions of record peak discharges at long-term streamgages used to predict the expected flood potential (across zones of similar flood response) • Upper 90% prediction limit provides the maximum likely flood potential (floods greater than this limit defined as extreme) • Paleoflood data and shorter streamgage records can be utilized • Flood hazards can easily be compared between zones (using developed indices) • Seasonality and trend analyses can be performed (currently
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Dedication and Acknowledgements............................................................................ 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Geologic Resource Evaluation Program ............................................................................................3 Geologic Setting .........................................................................................................................................................3 Geologic Issues............................................................................................................. 5 Alpine Environments...................................................................................................................................................5 Flooding......................................................................................................................................................................5 Hydrogeology .............................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resources Evaluation
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2004/004 THIS PAGE: Ypsilon Mountain, Rocky Mountain NP. ON THE COVER: Alpine Tundra looking west to the Never Summer Range, Rocky Mountain NP Photos by: NPS and Josh Heise Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2004/004 Geologic Resources Division Natural Resource Program Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 September 2004 U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series include vital signs monitoring plans; "how to" resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters.
    [Show full text]
  • Root Little Thompson River Hydrologic Analysis
    Final Report Little Thompson River Hydrologic Analysis Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation August 2014 9191 S. Jamaica Street Englewood, CO 80112 Contents Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. v Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 Purpose and Objective ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Area Description .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2.1 Little Thompson River ......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2.2 West Fork Little Thompson River ........................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Mapping ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.5 Flood History .................................................................................................................... 1-2 2.0 Hydrologic Analyses ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Grand Ditch Report Rocky Mountain National Park, CO ______Covey Potter and Dr
    Final Grand Ditch Report Rocky Mountain National Park, CO _________________________________ Covey Potter and Dr. David Cooper BACKGROUND In 2003 the Grand Ditch, located on the east-facing slope of the Never Summer Range within Rocky Mountain National Park, breached in a reach above Lulu Creek; inundating the creek, several km of the Colorado River and its floodplains, and the Lulu City wetland with more than 36,000 m3 of sediment and debris (RMNP Fact Sheet 2010) (Figure 1 in appendix 3). Sediment deposits from this event have altered stream channels, flood plains, streamside water table, and riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation is sensitive to alterations in groundwater, limiting the establishment of critical plant species, shifting species composition, affecting ecosystem functions, and causing die back and mortality (Rood and Mahoney 1990, Smith et al. 1991, Dixon and Johnson 1999). Riparian vegetation composition is determined in part by available shallow groundwater (Brinson et al. 1985, Van Coller et al. 2000) that may be linked to stream water (Rood et al. 2003, Cooper and Merritt in press). STUDY AREA The restoration study site is in western Rocky Mountain National Park along the headwaters of the Colorado River, its tributaries, and adjacent wetlands. The Kawuneeche valley ranges from 2,700 – 3,100 m above sea level and is flanked by two mountain ranges that rise 1,200 m above the valley floor. The Never Summer Mountains to the west were formed by a now-extinct volcanic chain. With most of the volcanic rock eroded away, igneous granitic and metamorphic formations dominate covered by an extensive lateral moraine from Pleistocene glaciations and areas of unstable hydrologically-altered welded tuff.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Application Document
    IDYLWILDE HYROELECTRIC PROJECT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT NO. P-2829 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT Submitted by LOVELAND WATER AND POWER CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO FEBRUARY 7, 2011 IDYLWILDE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT NO. P-2829 PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENT FEBRUARY 7, 2011 Submitted by LOVELAND WATER AND POWER CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO Ralph Mullinix, Director Steve Adams, Manager, Water Utilities Bruno Lopez, Superintendent, Technical Services Larry Howard, Senior Civil Engineer/Water Resources Technical and Environmental Contractors: Water Consult, Loveland, Colorado ERO Resources Corporation, Denver, Colorado Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado IDYLWILDE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC LICENSE P-2829 PRELIMINARY APPLICATION DOCUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1-1 2.0 Project Description, Related Permits, and Relicensing Plan 2-1 2.1 Project Description………………………………………………………...…. 2-1 2.1.1 Existing FERC License…………………………………………… 2-1 2.1.2 Idylwilde Dam, Penstock and Reservoir………………………...... 2-1 2.1.3 Current Operations……………………………………………....... 2-3 2.2 Related Permits…………………………………………………………....…. 2-3 2.2.1 U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit………………………...… 2-3 2.2.2 State of Colorado Water Quality Certification………………….... 2-4 2.3 Relicensing Plan and Process…………………………………………...……. 2-4 2.4 References……………………………………………………………………. 2-5 3.0 Existing Environment and Resource Impacts 3-1 3.1 Geology and Soils………………………………………………………….…. 3-1 3.1.1 Existing Environment……………………………………………... 3-1 3.1.2 Geology…………………………………………………………… 3-1 3.1.2.1 Regional Geology…………………………………………. 3-1 3.1.2.2 Geologic Resources……………………………………….. 3-2 3.1.3 Soils……………………………………………………………….. 3-2 3.1.4 Project Area Conditions…………………………………………... 3-3 3.1.5 Potential Impacts………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Assessing Vegetation
    THESIS ASSESSING VEGETATION REESTABLISHMENT ON DISTURBED HIGH MOUNTAIN LAKESHORES FOLLOWING HISTORIC DAM REMOVAL IN ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK, COLORADO, USA Submitted by Amy C. Goodrich Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Spring 2016 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Mark Paschke Co-advisor: Paul Meiman David A. Steingraeber Jayne Jonas-Bratten Copyright by Amy C. Goodrich 2016 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT ASSESSING VEGETATION REESTABLISHMENT ON DISTURBED HIGH MOUNTAIN LAKESHORES FOLLOWING HISTORIC DAM REMOVAL IN ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK, COLORADO, USA Dam removal has entered the public spotlight in recent years, due to growing safety, economic, and environmental concerns related to dams. Removal is increasingly seen as a way to address not only the risks associated with aging and/or obsolete dams, but also as a tool for ecological restoration. In 1982, then-79-year-old Lawn Lake Dam in Rocky Mountain National Park failed, resulting in three deaths, and extensive monetary damages and destruction of natural resources within the Park. This was followed by a policy decision to remove three dams in the Park between 1988 and 1990, returning the former reservoirs to their previous natural lake water levels, and re-exposing nearly 13 hectares of scoured shoreline, completely denuded of vegetation by approximately 80 years of inundation. The disturbed lakeshore areas were left to undergo passive restoration. In the years immediately following dam removal, one short-term (3 year) revegetation study was conducted at Lawn Lake, and informal observational data were gathered by NPS personnel at a handful of plots established at the disturbed lakeshores of Bluebird, Sandbeach, and Pear Lakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Resiliency Framework
    Colorado’s Departments of Transportation and Natural Resources New Partners in Stream Restoration and Floodplain Management Kevin Houck, Colorado Water Conservation Board Steven Humphrey, Muller Engineering / CDOT Flood Recovery Office September 2013 Flood • $480 million estimated damage to highway facilities • $153 million estimated local highway costs • 486 miles of State Highway closed • 200+ Bridges and culverts damaged • 140,000 cubic yards of debris removed US 34 - Big Thompson Canyon US 34 - Big Thompson Canyon US 34 - Big Thompson Canyon US 34 - Big Thompson Canyon US 34 - Big Thompson Canyon US 34 - Big Thompson Canyon SH 7 - St. Vrain Canyon SH 7 - St. Vrain Canyon SH 119 - Boulder Canyon US 36 - Canyon US 34 – East of Greeley SH 71 Flood Debris St. Malo – Woody Debris CDOT and CWCB Partnership • Partnership began in October/November of 2013 during the response phase • The two organizations rarely worked together, but a new bond was formed during the flood • Recognized the value of working together and establishing a team mentality • Began establishing new efforts, assigning roles and moving forward CDOT and CWCB Partnership Collaborative Efforts: • Hydrologic Evaluations • Stream Restoration • Re-construction efforts • Private Access Bridges • Floodplain Mapping • Colorado Resilience Framework Hydrology Studies • Recognized an unmet need for design hydrology for the permanent repair projects • Identified seven flood affected watersheds that are critical to CDOT’s reconstruction efforts • Big Thompson River • Boulder Creek • Little Thompson River • Coal Creek • St. Vrain Creek • South Platte River • Lefthand Creek Flood Affected Watersheds Phasing of the Studies • CDOT’s critical permanent repair projects are largely within the canyons of these watersheds • A phased approach was used to expedite the new hydrology for those CDOT roadways impacted most by the flood • Phase 1 – Generally from the headwaters of the watershed to the applicable canyon mouth.
    [Show full text]