DOCSLIB.ORG

Sand Coulee, Stockett, Tracy, No. 7, Centerville, and Surround Areas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sand Coulee, Stockett, Tracy, No. 7, Centerville, and Surround Areas Name INDEX compiled in 2008 The Gulch Area History: Sand Coulee, Virginia, 3, 7,8, 41, 50-51, 61, 95, 98, Stockett, Tracy, No. 7, Centerville, and 110, 418 Surround Areas. (1990). Raunig, Marvene ALINE Zurich, et al. Great Falls, Montana: Advanced Andrew W. & Marjorie, 111 Litho Printing. Betty, 111 Gertie, 111 ABERNATHY Henry & Florence, 111 Anna Hetherington, 68, 109, 202 Henry S. & Annie Nolevanko, 44-45, Doris, 109, 202 111 Ernie, 52-53, 65, 202 Janice, 105, 111 Gertrude, 41, 109, 202 Joseph & Helen, 111 Helen, 109, 202 Josephine, 111 Marian, 109, 202 Robert & Theresa, 111 Marion Ernestine, 109 Thomas & Virginia, 111 Mrs., 41 Walter & Norma, 111 ACREE ALLEN Tom & Margaret Erickson, 155 Elizabeth, 95 ADAMS Hugh, 95 Andrew J. aka Jim Butch & Rachel Si, 84 Williamson, 129 Thomas, 28 Andrew & Mrs., 129 ALLREAD, 84 Carol, 129 Alice, 112 Elsie, 129 Donny, 112 Ethel, 6 Grace, 112 Victor, 129 Jack & Margaret, 103, 192 ADOLPHSON James Oscar (Jack), 112 Amil, 387, 412 James Oscar, Jr., 112 Emil, 49 Lee & Louise, 112 Oscar, 61, 99, 396, 414 Marcia, 112, 193 AFFENDICH Max, 97, 112 Father, 87 Margaret Boland, 112 AFFINSON Norma, 112 Bruce, 4 Sonny, 112 AGARLA ALLUM Angelo, 414 Arlene, 111 AGMAN Billy, 111 Edgar & Leona Hakola, 194 Don, 97, 111 AGTI Doris, 111 F. W., Rev., 92 Freda, 111 ALBERS Gladys, 111 Bill, Jr., 109 Josephine, 111 Doris M. Franklin, 109 Lena (Babe), 111 John, 109 Ruth, 111 William, 109 Sam & Dolly, 111 ALBERTINI Virgil, 111 Albert & Maxine Bergstrom, 110 ALTENBACH Demetrio & Mrs., 110, 416, 418 Albert & Helen, 238 Emma, 110 Alene, 238 Erminia Rizzi, Mrs., 4, 43, 110 Pamela Conover, 238 Henrietta, 110 AMDAHL Ida, 110 C., Rev., 93 Joe & Mary Wlaznak, 89, 110 AMMONDSON Richard, 110 Amond, 339 Ursula & Bastista, 110 AMOS Victor & Margaret Paliga, 6, 110 Donna, 113 Dorothy, 113 Courtesy of Janet Thomson, GFGS Volunteer 1 Name INDEX compiled in 2008 William C. & Lena M. Dennis, 113 William, Jr. & Roberta, 113 APPLEYARD ANDERSON, 39 Maude, Mrs. 32 Annette Marie, 115 ARCHEY Carrie, 204 David & Debby Roberts, 100, 116, 118, Carl & Julia, 158 182 Clara, 158 Emerson & Bette Ball, 116, 417 Doris, Mrs., 64 George & Marie Lang, 116 Edward, 28 Joshua James, 116 George A. & Wilo, 115 Larry, 116 Heather Nicole, 407 Michael, 116 James E. Rev., & Louel Marie Johnson, ARMSTRON 64, 91, 115 R. A., Rev., 92 Kal Raymond, 407 ARVOTA Karl Raymond & Donna Young, 407 Mrs. (teacher), 95 Melinda L., 115 ASHMORE Minnie, 96 John & Joyce, 409 Ole, 214 ASICH, 84 ANGSTER Barbara, 117 Bertha, 113 Carol, 117 Carl, 113 Debbie, 117 John, 113 Evelyn, 117 Johnny & Mamie Tounley Whitehead, Jerry & Jackie Stroop, 117 6, 113 Marie, 117 ANTHONY Marthele, 117 Anderson (Buster) & Maud Van Mary, 89, 117 Cleave, 115 Mike & Edith Wadsworth, 117 Andy W., 114 Mildred, 89, 117 Carol, 114 Paul & Mary Super, 117 Connie, 114 Robert & Dorothy Smith, 117 Daniel, 114 Robert, Jr., 117 Diane (Fluff), 114, 319, 418 Rose, 117 Doris, 114 ATCHISON Dutch, 104 Mark & Jean Terry, 375 Ed, 6, 41 AUGUSTINE Edith, 114 W. C. “Bunny” & Lillian Baluka, 120 Edward & Frances Snyder, 114 AUGUSTON Erasmus Lovejoy & Ella Evans, 33, 41, Evert & Carma Christensen, 116, 414 114 John & Charlotte Backman, 80, 116, Erasmus, Stable 43 414 Frances, 6, 65, 114 Martha, 116 George & Ina Koski, 114-115, 267 Mrs., 32 Grace, 114 AYEREST Helen, 114 Sue Hudak, 208 Irene, 114-115 James A. & Jane Hill, 115 BACK James D. & Joan Smith, 114 Anita, 146 James G., 16, 28, 114 Barbara, 118, 146 Jerry & Ellen Temple, 114 Dale, 118, 146 Jo Ann, 114 Dave & Rose Dennis, 118, 146 Lewis C., 114 Davene, 146 Robert, 114 Eddie, 118, 146 Rose, 114, 267 Martha, 118, 146 Roxine (Rocky), 114 Nita, 118 Ruth, 114 Rose H. Dennis, 118 X.L., Dr., 38 Russell, 118, 146 Courtesy of Janet Thomson, GFGS Volunteer 2 Name INDEX compiled in 2008 BADLANDS, THE, 46,48-50, 109 Melissa, 120 General Merchandise Store, 52-53, 109 Mike, 120-121 Montana Saloon, 50 Ryan, 120 BAGLEY Thomas Lee, 120 Dalton, 119, 413 Tom, 120-121 Darlaine, 119, 413 William (Bill) & Jeanne Vice, 120 Helmer, 119 William V. & Floreta L. Fitzhugh, 120- Martha Pahl, 69, 95, 119 121 BAILEY BANDEL Hazel (teacher), 204 Margaret Amelia, 406-407 BAKER William & Martha, 406 John T. & Pearl A. (Thompson), 132 BANDRE Pearl “Maxine”, 132 Andrew & Mary, 272 BALDWIN Mary, 272 Aneta Lynn, 408-409 BAQUE Robert & Karen, 408-409 Emil, 119 Trudy Wilkerson, 408 Hector & Rachel Muir, 119, 204, 303 BALKO, 38 Helen, 119 Andy, 366 James, 204, 303 George, 367 Jean, 119, 303 BALKKO, 38 Louise, 119 BALL BARON Barbara, 116, 118 Andy, 115, 121 Bette, 116, 118 Ann, 121, 249 Bev, 101, 118, 182 George, 121 Grace, 118, 182 John & Mary Kazak, 121 Gussy, 118, 182 John, 121 Helen, 101, 118, 182 Julia, 249 Jack, 116, 118 Lizzie, 121 Jean, 116, 118 Mike, 121 Martin, 59 BARONI Robert & Martha Romsey, 101, 116, Mr., 26, 178 118 BARR Robert S., Jr., 116, 118, 182 Alex (Sandy), 122 Robert S. & Helen Giffin, 182 Christina Telfer (Granny), 122 BALLERI, 173 BARRETT BALLES, 84 Randy, 83 BALOG, 136 BARRY BALUKA, 122 Thomas, Rev., 90 Bill, 120-121, 420 BARSOTTI Daniel Patrick & Debby Amberg, 120- Guido, 349 121 BATEMAN Don Varney & Maxine Stams, 120 Bonnie, Dr., 124 Don & Faye Irene Wyatt, 120 Bronwyn, Dr. Elizabeth, 120-121 Harry, 124 Frank, 120-121 J. Gordon, Dr., & Dr. Olive Lundren, Helen, 120-121 124 Joe, 120-121 James, 124 Joseph & Eliz. Ann Check, 120-121 Karen, 124 Joyce, 120 BAZIK Julia, 120-121 John, 418 Kyland, 120 BAZZOLI Lillian, 120-121 Angelo (Bubba), 188 Margaret, 120-121 BECKER Marjorie, 120 Mike & Blanche Lewis Gerlach, 390 Marie, 120-121 BEDOSKY Courtesy of Janet Thomson, GFGS Volunteer 3 Name INDEX compiled in 2008 Anne, 102, 124 Harold William & Annie Wick Morgan, Elizabeth, 102, 124 123 Frank, 102, 124 Jerome Henry & Louisa Hirt., 123 Helen, 124, 300 John Paul, 123 Joey, 124 Ken & Ruth, 122 Mary, 102, 124 Lawrence, 122 Stephen & Mary Komar, 124, 239, 412 Lee Ann, 123 BEGAY/BIGAY Leonard Emil, 123 Henry, 84, 298 Leonard Leroy, 123 BEHRENT Luela, 123 Michael Thomas, 162 Ralph Norman & Betty J. Moad, 123 Tom & Marcia Kae Feller, 162 Ralph Norman & V. Bernice Carver, Tyler Everett, 162 123 BEISH Raymond Joseph & Gladys Rankin, 123 Tom, 44-45 William Henry & Emeretta Gates, 123 BELT, 18 BIRKLAND BENEDICT Robert & Josephine Aline, 111 B.L. & Emma Bull, 159 BISHOP Felicia, 158-159 Frank, 65 BENSTON BLACKBURN Robert (Supt), 103 Darlaine (Bagley) & Millard, 119 BERG Lisa, 119 Mr., (Supt), 10 Russell & Sharon, 119 Marjorie Maffit, 271 BLACK WIDOW MINE, 401 Ralph, Sr., 271 BLUMFIELD BERTI Dave & Henrietta Albertini, 110 Angie, 136 BOADLE Cindy Jean, 125, 137 Bill & Josephine Habel, 192 Ed & Marie Pepos, 136 George, 192 Ed, 136 Janice, 192 George Edward, 125 BOBETT Giustino (Gus) & Anna, 6, 29, 31, 82, Johanna, 296 125, 136-137 BOETCHER Justin Edward & Florentina Marie Harry & Emma Eisenbart, 154 Pepos, 125 BOFTO BERTOLI Robert, Rev., 90 Adolph & Dianne Young, 404 BOLAND Paul, 404 Doris, 112 Trevor, 404 BORGSTROM BETTS Don, 66 Bernice Irene, 123 Kelly Sue, 407 Bruce Edward, 123 Krista Lee, 407 Carmen Louise, 123 Warren E. & Norma Young, 407 Dale & Arlen Sebastian, 122 BORIS, 38 Dan, 122 Mike & Anna Baron, 249 Darrow Lafayette, 123 BOSH Dessa, 113, 145, 146 E., Rev., 93 Dorothy Marie & Ronald G. Boucher, BOURGAULT 123 Martha Forsman, 74 Dorothy Marie & Melvin D. Phillips, BOYD 123 Florence B., 171 Elnora Eunice, 123 Murdock & Agnes, 171 Doug & Okmi, 122 BOYLE Flora Belle, 123 Tony, 152 Glen Jerome & Marie Gereke, 123 BRADLY Guy Henry, 123 Glenn, 69 Courtesy of Janet Thomson, GFGS Volunteer 4 Name INDEX compiled in 2008 BRAGSTAD James Rolla (Rolly) & Georgina Allen, Anna, 124, 269-270 19, 128 August, 124 James & Phoebe Curlin, 128 Clarence, 124 James, 128 Lyle, 124 James Leroy, 128 Marcia, 124 Jessica Lucinda, 128 Ole & Inga, 124, 270 Jim, 66 BRASSINGTON Karla, 128 Margaret Klesh, 225 Kathleen Agnes, 128, 130 BRELINSKY Kelly, 130 John, 126 Laura Amelia, 128 Paul 126 Lillian Louise, 128 Peter & Eugenia, 126 Melvin Ray & Tamara Tillinger, 128 BRIDGEFORD Mildred Caroline, 128 Brenda, 125, 173 Mr., 37 Darcy, 125, 173 Patricia, 128, 130 Glen & Audrey Freeman, 30, 125, 173 Vernard Leroy & Helen Pepos, 66, 128 BROADWATER Virginia, 128 C.A., 16 William, 128 BRODSACK William & Margaret Walker, 128 Lois Sederholm, 121 William Earl & Karla Malchow, 128 BRONDEL Wm. T. & Lydia T., 74 John, Most Reverend, 88 Wm. Thomas & Mary Lydia Roberts, BROQUIST 130 Alice, 127 “BUBA or BOOBA”, 84, 188 Axel & Lily Michelotti, 127 BUBNAR Ellen Mary, 127 George, 181 Evelyn Romanchuk, 16, 17, 96 BUBNARAND Hjalmar & Sandra L. Luoma, 127 George, 210 Jeannette, 127 BUGLI John & Evelyn Romanchuk, 127 Erma Ranieri, 372 Mr., 72 BURDA Shirley, 97 George & Mary Dutchak, 153 Sandra, 127 BURRIL BROSS Beaumont, 38 Joseph & Anne Dutchak, 152-153 BURROWS Mary Ann, 153 Diana, 213 Tom, 153 Joe & Ann Janasov, 213 BROWN, 80, 416 Richard, 213 Agnes, 128 BUSBORSKY Alexander Irving, 128 Rosie, 61 Allen & Rose Sudonick, 338 BUSCHAR, 136 Amy (teacher), 101 BUTCH Bette, 128 Jessie, 129 Beverly, 128 Jim, 129 Bill, 66, 95 John & Alice, 129, 419 Bill 130 Ralph (Roy), 129 Colleen Lynn, 128 BUTLER George R. (Chick) & Marie or Edna Amber Lynn, 131 Jensen, 128 Diana Rae, 131 Henery Crea & Sarah McQuade, 128 Larry E. & Debbie Abbott, 30, 71, 131 Henry Burton, 128 Linda Jane, 131 Hugh, Jr., 126 Paulina Lena) Guerini, 131 Hugh & Mary, Sr., 126 Ray D. & Lena, 71, 74, 131, 184 Ina, 6 Ryan Ray, 131 Sharon Kay, 131 Courtesy of Janet Thomson, GFGS Volunteer 5 Name INDEX compiled in 2008 BYWATERS, 175 Shane, 132 John A., 28, 74 Thomas L.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 1135 Ecosystem Restoration Study
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District Section 1135 Ecosystem Restoration Study Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment Southern Platte Valley Denver, Colorado June 2018 South Platte River near Overland Pond Park TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1. STUDY AUTHORITY ............................................................................................ 1 1.2. STUDY SPONSOR AND CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION ................... 1 1.3. STUDY AREA AND SCOPE ................................................................................. 1 2. PURPOSE, NEED AND SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................... 3 2.1. NEED: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES ...................................................... 4 2.2. PURPOSE: OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS ................................................ 7 2.3. SIGNIFICANCE ...................................................................................................... 8 3. CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITIONS ................................................................ 16 3.1. PLANNING HORIZON ........................................................................................ 16 3.2. EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 16 3.3. PREVIOUS STUDIES .......................................................................................... 17 3.4. EXISTING PROJECTS
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson County, Colorado, and Incorporated Areas
    VOLUME 1 OF 8 JEFFERSON COUNTY, Jefferson County COLORADO AND INCORPORATED AREAS Community Community Name Number ARVADA , CITY OF 085072 BOW MAR, TOWN OF * 080232 EDGEWATER, CITY OF 080089 GOLDEN, CITY OF 080090 JEFFERSON COUNTY 080087 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) LAKESIDE , TOWN OF * 080311 LAKEWOOD, CITY OF 085075 MORRISON, TOWN OF 080092 MOUNTAIN VIEW, TOWN OF* 080254 WESTMINSTER, CITY OF 080008 WHEAT RIDGE , CITY OF 085079 *NO SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS IDENTIFIED REVISED DECEMBER 20, 2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 08059CV001D NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this Flood Insurance Study may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this Flood Insurance Study may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the Flood Insurance Study. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current Flood Insurance Study components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: June 17, 2003 Revised FIS Dates: February 5, 2014 January 20, 2016 December 20, 2019 i TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 – December
    [Show full text]
  • Rainfall Thresholds for Flow Generation in Desert Ephemeral
    Water Resources Research RESEARCH ARTICLE Rainfall Thresholds for Flow Generation 10.1029/2018WR023714 in Desert Ephemeral Streams 1 1 2 1 Key Points: Stephanie K. Kampf G!), Joshua Faulconer , Jeremy R. Shaw G!), Michael Lefsky , Rainfall thresholds predict 3 2 streamflow responses with high Joseph W. Wagenbrenner G!), and David J. Cooper G!) accuracy in small hyperarid and 1 2 semiarid watersheds Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, Department 3 Using insufficient rain data usually of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State University, FortCollins, Colorado, USA, USDA Forest Service, Pacific increases threshold values for larger Southwest Research Station, Arcata, California,USA watersheds, leading to apparent scale dependence in thresholds Declines in flow frequency and Rainfall thresholds for streamflow generation are commonly mentioned in the literature, but increases in thresholds with drainage Abstract area are steeper in hyperarid than in studies rarely include methods for quantifying and comparing thresholds. This paper quantifies thresholds semiarid watersheds in ephemeral streams and evaluates how they are affected by rainfall and watershed properties. The study sites are in southern Arizona, USA; one is hyperarid and the other is semiarid. At both sites rainfall and 3 2 2 Supporting Information: streamflow were monitored in watersheds ranging from 10- to 10 km . Streams flowed an average of 0-5 • Supporting Information 51 times per year in hyperarid watersheds and 3-11 times per year in semiarid watersheds. Although hyperarid sites had fewer flow events, their flow frequency (fraction of rain events causing flow) was higher than in Correspondence to: 2 semiarid sites for small ( < 1 km ) watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • Gully Migration on a Southwest Rangeland Watershed
    Gully Migration on a Southwest Rangeland Watershed Item Type text; Article Authors Osborn, H. B.; Simanton, J. R. Citation Osborn, H. B., & Simanton, J. R. (1986). Gully migration on a Southwest rangeland watershed. Journal of Range Management, 39(6), 558-561. DOI 10.2307/3898771 Publisher Society for Range Management Journal Journal of Range Management Rights Copyright © Society for Range Management. Download date 25/09/2021 03:08:17 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final published version Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/645347 Gully Migration on a Southwest Rangeland Watershed H.B. OSBORN AND J.R. SIMANTON Abstract Most rainfall and almost all runoff from Southwestern range- on gully erosion is from farmlands, rather than rangelands. lands are the result of intense summer thunderstorm null. Gully The southeastern Arizona geologic record indicates gullying has growth and headcutting are evident throughout the region. A occurred in the past, but the most recent intense episode of acceler- large, active headcut on a Walnut Gulch subwatershed has been ated gullying appears to have begun in the 1880’s (Hastings and surveyed at irregular intervals from 1966 to present. Runoff at the Turner 1965). Gullies in the 2 major stream channels of southeast- headcut was estimated using a kinematic cascade rainfall-runoff ern Arizona, the San Pedro and Santa Cruz Rivers, began because model (KINEROS). The headcut sediment contribution was about of man’s activities in the flood plains and were accelerated by 25% of the total sediment load measured downstream from the increased runoff from overgrazed tributary watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • Horse Gulch Management Plan
    Horse Gulch Management Plan Approved by City of Durango Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: May 8, 2013 Approved by City of Durango Natural Lands Preservation Advisory Board: May 13, 2013 Updated Management Plan Adopted by Natural Lands Preservation Advisory Board May 6, 2019 This updated 2019 Horse Gulch Management Plan replaces the 2013 Horse Gulch Management Plan in full. I. INTRODUCTION Horse Gulch is part of a large open space and recreational area that includes the City of Durango SkyRidge open space, adjacent to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Skyline and Grandview Ridge properties, as well as trail corridors passing through privately owned lands proposed to become the future Durango Mesa Park and recreation amenities. La Plata County is a 1/3 owner of 240 acres in Horse Gulch. This entire landscape encompasses more than 5,123 acres and is home to the Telegraph and Horse Gulch Trail System—an approximately 60-mile natural surface trail network that is used extensively for non-motorized activities such as hiking, trail running, horseback riding, and mountain biking. While the open space in Horse Gulch and SkyRidge remain open year round to public use, the BLM Grandview Ridge is subject to seasonal closures for big game habitat protection. City-owned open space in the area, including Horse Gulch, Raider Ridge and SkyRidge encompass 1,518.76 acres and includes approximately 25 miles of natural-surface trails. In total, 705 acres, or approximately 46 percent, is under conservation easement held by the La Plata Open Space Conservancy to protect recreational values and wildlife habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Merced River Hiking
    PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION Restoring, Enhancing and Sustaining Forests in California, Hawaii and the Pacific Islands Sierra National Forest Hiking the South fork of the Merced River Bass Lake Ranger District Originating from some of the highest ranges in Bicycles and horses are not allowed on the trail. As the Sierra, the Merced River begins its journey you meander along the trail, you will discover the from Mt. Hoffman and Tenaya Lake on the north, remains of the old Hite Mine that produced over $3 the Cathedral range on the east and the Mt. Ray- million in gold and a gold mining town that once mond area south of Yosemite. It has two stood on the banks of the river. Please remember branches: the main fork and the south fork. The that historic and prehistoric artifacts are not to be main fork flows through the Sierra National For- disturbed or removed as they are protected by est and Yosemite Valley. The South Fork flows law. Violators will be prosecuted. through Wawona, winding its way through the Sierra National Forest to Hite Cove where it joins DEVIL GULCH the main river at Highway 140. Road (3S02) to the South Fork of the Merced River. This section of the trail is 2.5 miles long and HITE COVE TRAIL fairly easy to hike. Dispersed campsites are at Devil A spectacular early spring wildflower display is Gulch, the river and Devil Gulch Creek both need to along the Hite Cove Trail from February to be forded in order to continue on the trail. Caution April, with over 60 varieties of wildflowers along during high water spring runoff.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Opportunities at Tributary Confluences: Critical Habitat Assessment of the Big Chico Creek/Mud Creek/Sacramento River Confluence Area
    Restoration Opportunities at Tributary Confluences: Critical Habitat Assessment of the Big Chico Creek/Mud Creek/Sacramento River Confluence Area A report to: The Nature Conservancy, Sacramento River Project1 By: Eric M. Ginney2 Bidwell Environmental Institute, California State University, Chico December 2001. 1Please direct correspondence to: TNC, Sac. River Project Attn: D. Peterson 505 Main Street, Chico CA 95928 [email protected] 2Bidwell Environmental Institute CSU, Chico, Chico, CA 95929-0555 [email protected] Cover: An abstract view of the Sacramento River, looking upstream. Big Chico Creek enters from the east, in the lower portion of the image. Photograph and image manipulation by the author. Table of Contents Section I Study Purpose, Methods, and Objectives 1 Purpose 1 Methods and Objectives 2 Section II Tributary Confluences: Restoration 3 Opportunities Waiting to Happen Ecological Importance of Tributary Confluences and 3 Adjacent Floodplain Importance of Sacramento River Confluence Areas in 5 Collaborative Restoration Efforts Conservation by Design 7 Site-Specific Planning 8 Section III Critical Habitat Identification and Analysis 10 of Physical Processes Location and Description of Study Area 10 Landscape Level 10 Historic Conditions of Study Area and Changes 10 Through Time Current Conditions and Identification of Critical Habitat 16 Hydrologic Data 16 Soils 17 Hydro-geomorphic Processes 17 Site-Level Description: Singh Orchard Parcel 18 On-The-Ground Observations: Singh Parcel 19 Critical Habitat for Species of Concern
    [Show full text]
  • Project Narrative Saddle Gulch Subdivision 628 31 ½ Road Major Subdivision Plan
    Project Narrative Saddle Gulch Subdivision 628 31 ½ Road Major Subdivision Plan Purpose/ Description: The purpose of this application is to obtain approval from Mesa County on a 5.46-acre residential subdivision located along 31 ½ Road and approximately ¼ mile north of Patterson Road. The proposed subdivision will consist of nineteen (19) single-family lots that range in size from approximately 8,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet with a density of 3.481 dwelling units per acre. The location of the project site is depicted below: Project Site Saddle Rock 31 ½ Road Site Location Map The subject property consists of approximately 5.46 acres that lies just east of 31 ½ Road and ¼ mile north of Patterson Road. 31 ½ Road makes up the properties west boundary, Price Ditch right-of-way makes up the south boundary, large-lot single family lots make up the north boundary and Saddle Rock Subdivision makes up the east boundary. Development of the property will consist of creating nineteen (19) single-family lots and extending Saddle Gulch Drive through the development to intersect with 31 ½ Road. The developments access is proposed from 31 ½ Road and Saddle Gulch Drive to the east. The 31 ½ Road access is located approximately 158-feet north of Dublin Way, 770-feet north of Kay Street and south of an Austin Civil Group, Inc. Page 1 of 5 Project Narrative Saddle Gulch Subdivision 628 31 ½ Road Major Subdivision Plan existing private driveway and Arrowhead Drive approximately 156-feet and 586-feet, respectively. The majority of the property is pasture land and surrounds parcel 624 31 ½ Road that is not part of the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Ingram Gulch Restoration Project Fourmile Watershed Coalition Colorado Watershed Restoration January 2020 Board Meeting
    Upper Ingram Gulch Restoration Project Fourmile Watershed Coalition Colorado Watershed Restoration January 2020 Board Meeting Program Application DETAIL S Total Project Cost: $350,116 Colorado Watershed $100,116 Restoration Program Request: Recommended amount: $256,707 Other CWCB Funding: $0 Other Funding Amount: $250,000 Applicant Match: $0 Project Type(s): Engineering Design and Construction LOCATIO N Project Category: Watershed Restoration County/Counties: Boulder Measurable Result: 1,392 CY of mine waste removed. Drainage Basin: South Platte 3,300 Linear Feet restored. 5,000 containers planted (riparian plants). Since 2015, the Fourmile Watershed Coalition has been awarded 7.3 million dollars in state and federal grant funds primarily for flood recovery and stream restoration planning and construction projects. These projects include three planning projects, eight watershed/stream restoration projects and staff capacity funds. Currently, the Coalition is expanding into the Boulder Creek watershed and expanding programing into forest health and resiliency. All projects have been multi-objective and incorporated the priorities of multiple agencies and landowners. The Upper Ingram Restoration Project proposes to prioritize, design and implement multiple smaller scale mine remediation projects within Ingram Gulch. This work will build upon ongoing and completed projects in Ingram Gulch that are incrementally improving water quality by decreasing sediment loading downstream. High sediment yields are due to increased erosion from gullying in the upper watershed as well as dozens of mine waste piles exposed during the Fourmile Fire. The primary objectives with the mine waste design is increased stabilization of the piles by encouraging vegetation growth through grading, soil amendments and native seeding and planting.
    [Show full text]
  • San Juan River Reserved Campsite Descriptions and Map
    San Juan River Reserved Campsite Descriptions and Map Conditions and group size suitability are subject to change. SLICKHORN A: river right; maximum group size 25; 17.5 miles from Clay Hills take-out Slickhorn A is a medium campsite at the mouth of a small drainage. The campsite is approximately ½ mile from the mouth of Slickhorn Canyon. There is a trail to the canyon, but depending on river and weather conditions, it can be a difficult walk, especially for small children. However, the distance from the canyon usually insures more privacy. There are few trees for shade, but the sun drops below the opposite cliff fairly early. SLICKHORN B: river right; maximum group size 25; 17 miles from Clay Hills take-out Slickhorn B is a large campsite just upriver from the mouth of Slickhorn Canyon, providing easy access for hiking. There is little shade, with tent sites scattered among boulders. The trail from Slickhorn A sometimes leads others through the campsite. It is also often a landing area for groups who are camping elsewhere but want to hike the canyon. SLICKHORN C: river right; maximum group size 25; 17 miles from Clay Hills take-out Slickhorn C is a large campsite downriver from the mouth of Slickhorn Canyon, providing easy access for hiking. There are some large tamarisks which can provide shade for a kitchen or small group tent sites; larger groups usually have tents scattered across the upper bench area. The trail from Slickhorn D, which is adjacent to this camp, leads through the edge of the campsite.
    [Show full text]
  • GEOMORPHIC FEATURES AFFECTING TRANSMISSION LOSS POTENTIAL" There Is an Imediate Need for an Economical Method That Provides
    Geomorphic Features Affecting Transmission Loss Potential Item Type text; Proceedings Authors Wallace, D. E.; Lane, L. J. Publisher Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science Journal Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest Rights Copyright ©, where appropriate, is held by the author. Download date 02/10/2021 15:44:59 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/301143 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES IN ARIZONA AND THE SOUTHWEST, VOLUME 8, p. 157 -164. Proceedings of the 1978 meetings of the Arizona Section of the American Water Resources Association and the Hydrology Section of the Arizona Academy of Science, held in Flagstaff, Arizona, April 14 -15. GEOMORPHIC FEATURES AFFECTING TRANSMISSION LOSS POTENTIAL" ON SEMIARID WATERSHEDS D.E. Wallace and L. J. Lane2/ ABSTRACT Water yield studies and flood control surveys often necessitate estimating transmission losses from ungaged watersheds. There is an imediate need for an economical method that provides the required ac- curacy. Analysis of relations between stream order, drainage area, and volume of channel alluvium exist- ing in the various orders is one means of estimating loss potential. Data needed for the stream order survey are taken from aerial photos. Stream order is analyzed using stereophoto maps. Stream lengths taken from the maps are combined with average channel width and depth data (determined by prior surveys) to estimate volumes of alluvium involved. The volume of channel alluvium in a drainage network is dir- ectly related to the stream order number of its channels. Thus, a volume of alluvium within a drainage network (with a known transmission loss potential) may be estimated by knowing the order of each length of channel and the drainage areas involved.
    [Show full text]
  • 342 Umtanum 346 Little Naches 330 West Bar 269 Moses Coulee 249
    1 Beverly Creek 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 T22-0N R17-0E Culver Bear Gulch Wenatchee East Little One Canyon Springs Camas Creek Second Wenatchee 249 Negro Creek Creek Canyon ·Æ285 Magnet Creek T22-0N Bean Creek T22-0N R18-0E T22-0N Sand Creek R21-0E Alpine Creek Peshastin R21-0E 266 East Fork Mission Creek ·Æ028 T22-0N T22-0N R19-0E R22-0E Miller Creek Middle Shaser Creek Dry Gulch Badger Columbia Bear Creek North Fork T22-0N River Bear Creek Mission Creek Rock Island Game Management Unit Johnson Creek R20-0E Lake Creek Creek Standup Cortez Rock Island Creek T22-0N T22-0N Transen Creek 328 - Nameum R15-0E R16-0E South Shaser Meadow Lake Stafford Creek Iron Creek 31 36 31 36 028 36 31 36 31 36 31 Scotty Creek 36 36 31 31 Æ Jack Creek · Pitcher 2021 - 2022Hunting 2021- Season Jungle Creek King Canyon Canyon T21-0N 1 T21-0N 6 1 6 6 1 6 West Fork Creek 6 1 6 1 6 1 R22-0E 1 R15-0E North Fork 1 6 1 Zimmerman Teanaway River Pond WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Swauk Creek Creek Aministrative Areas Indian Creek Hovey Creek Pine Rye Creek Miners 2021-22 Game2021-22 Management Unit Run Creek Rye Creek Nickels T21-0N R19-0E Stemilt Creek Dry Gulch Canyon WDFWWildlife Area Shirk Hurley Creek Creek [ Blue Creek West Fork d WDFWWater Acc essArea Ivy Walker Canyon Naneum 328 Moses Middle Creek T21-0N Creek T21-0N Colockum Creek Coulee Squilchuck Creek Clear Lake R17-0E T21-0N Clara Lake R20-0ELily Lake Orr Creek Public Land Survey System Other Major Public Medicine Creek Naneum R18-0E North Fork Scroggie 269 (Township and Range) Land Ownership Owl
    [Show full text]