DOCSLIB.ORG

Lorenz Gulch – Developed Alternative Dec 2012 IC-1 STA 19+00 Large

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lorenz Gulch – Developed Alternative Dec 2012 IC-1 STA 19+00 Large Lorenz Gulch – Developed Alternative Dec 2012 IC‐1 STA 19+00 Large Wood Complex – large wood placement to constrict channel width, encourage scour and deposition, rack mobile wood, provide cover, and increase channel complexity by varying channel width and varying bed topography. This is a large wood structure, approximately 30 ft by 30 feet in footprint, and extending vertically from below scour depth to above the 11,000 cfs water surface. The top surface of the log jam would be planted with clump plantings of woody vegetation. Low risk to navigation because of straight, low‐velocity approach. IC‐2 STA 21+00 – 26+00 Split flow channel complex. Purpose: increase channel complexity in low gradient, plane bed reach by altering bed and bank topography and increasing wetted edge and cover. Construction of this feature would involve fine sediment removal under footprint of structure and replacement with gravel. Large wood habitat structures incorporated into split flow channel at several locations. IC‐3 vegetated medial bar and large wood. Between the existing channel and the constructed split channel, a vegetated bar would be constructed. Existing vegetation would be retained and augmented with clump plantings. A course bar would be constructed at the downstream end, and the entire feature would be augmented with small aggregate placements consisting of 1 to 3 stems of large wood and slash material. STA 26+00, 28+00, 36+00 Wood Placement. Small to medium sized wood jam placements, 5‐15 main members, keyed into existing bank. Encourage localized scour, rack mobile wood, and provide cover for all life stages of fish. These would not be hydraulic structures, and would not be ballasted or secured. R‐1 STA 28+00 – 34+00 Side Channel. Re‐activate side channel built in 1990s, but for a shorter segment. Increase wetted edge length and amount and quality of salmonid rearing habitat. Large wood incorporated into side channel at select locations. Side channel non‐navigable. IC‐5 STA 32+00‐35+00 Skeletal Bar with Wood. Promote channel migration, pool/run consolidation. Increase velocity through existing run, enhance adult steelhead holding. Grading to lay back left bank, remove vegetation and fine sediment, and re‐create bar surface with ancillary benefits to juvenile fish, yellow legged frogs. Bar surface is proposed to have undulating topography and large wood to enhance rearing habitat area. STA 38+00‐40+00 Riparian Berm Removal. Removal of riparian vegetation and removal of fine sediment under footprint of feature, with intention of encouraging fine gravel deposition to enhance riffle for spawning. Some benefit for juvenile rearing and yellow legged frog. Improved bank access for recreation. STA 42+00 – 44+00 Boulder Placement. Boulder placement in existing run adjacent to exposed bedrock strath terrace on right bank. Anticipate placing 4’‐6’ diameter boulders in complexes to create pocket water and enhance adult holding, while maintaining navigability. Lower priority feature, inclusion funding dependent. Lorenz Gulch – Developed Alternative Dec 2012 42+00‐46+00 Floodplain Lowering. Floodplain lowering to target flows 2000‐6000 cfs, lower depth to groundwater to enhance riparian vegetation and create opportunities for natural recruitment. This floodplain would not have a typical “flow‐through” configuration, where flow access the floodplain from a lateral connection to the channel with flow conveyed across the floodplain in the downstream direction. Rather, this floodplain would be designed to be watered from the “bottom up”. An advantage of this configuration would be to maintain stream power within the main channel, and to capture fine sediment for enhancement of floodplain soils. This feature provides increased rearing habitat area outside the mainstem river, and has benefits for establishment of riparian vegetation. STA 42+00 – 55+00 Side Channel Left Bank. Increase wetted edge length and amount and quality of salmonid rearing habitat. Water would predominantly enter the side channel through hyporheic flow. The mainstem Trinity overtops the left bank in this area at discharges above 6000 cfs, and would continue to do so post construction. STA 42+00 – 50+00 Floodplain Lowering – Side Channel. Floodplain lowering adjacent to constructed side channel. Like the other floodplain lowering, this floodplain would be plumbed from the “bottom‐ up”, backwatered at discharges above 3000 cfs. Pond – left bank side channel. This feature proposes to construct pond in‐line with side channel on the left bank. Pond grading reflects a diversity of pond depths. Increase western pond turtle and yellow legged frog habitat; provide greater diversity of fish habitat with greater temperature variation, with specific benefits for Coho salmon. Further Analysis Grading developed, 2D hydraulics next week (12/10‐14) Bar Sizing: gravel/cobble matrix gradation Right Bank Side Channel, Split Flow – dimensions and grade, adjust for flow targets Large Wood Design Evaluate need for infiltration gallery at left bank side channel Boulder placement to be further evaluated at STA 33+00 Evaluate different floodplain configuration at STA 43+00 – 47+00 .
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]