Stream Restoration on Soldier Creek

Jared Neil Erickson

A Project Report submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Rollin H. Hotchkiss, Chair Jordan Nielson

E. James Nelson Daniel P. Ames

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Brigham Young University

March 2013

Copyright © 2013 Jared Erickson

All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT

Stream Restoration on Soldier Creek

Jared Neil Erickson Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, BYU

Master of Science

A stream restoration design was produced for roughly two stream miles of Soldier Creek in Spanish Fork Canyon. The objective satisfies the needs of two parties: the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) and the property owner, Lee Nelson. UDWR requested improved fish habitat and the creation of Spotted Frog Habitat. Lee Nelson has expressed a need for a dependable irrigation system on the property. UDWR has great interest in the project and worked in a consulting role; this is the most likely avenue for implementation of the project.

Geometric, flow, and biological data were collected for the project site. This data

included a topographic survey of the stream channel and surrounding valley, a hydrologic and hydraulic survey, and a fish survey through the channel reach.

Designs to improve fish habitat include: reconstruction of banks on roughly 1500 feet of the project reach, spot repairs of rapidly eroding banks, and construction of a cattle fence along the stream to prevent future bank erosion.

Two ponds for the Columbia Spotted Frog habitat between 300 and 450 m2 will be located near the western boundary of the property. The ponds will be watered by a renovated irrigation ditch (described below).

An irrigation system for the property was also designed. Water will be diverted from Soldier Creek using a Rosgen design Cross-Vane Weir. This weir will be both fish friendly and consistent in providing head for water to be diverted. The diverted water will enter a pipe capable of conveying approximately 4.5 cubic feet per second. The pipe will extend 1400 feet downstream where it will outlet into an open channel. From the open channel water can be directed to various fields on the property or the frog ponds. The channel will also provide a cattle watering location away from the stream.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First I need to acknowledge Jeremy Payne, my partner in putting this project together. I

couldn’t have asked for someone better to work with and I’m grateful to be able to leave this

work in his capable hands.

I also want to acknowledge the Spring 2012 CEEn 635 class for all the work that they put

into the project. They were instrumental in assisting with the data collection on Soldier Creek.

Each member of the class had a hand in the Data Collection section of this report.

Jordan Nielson has been a mentor of mine for a long time leading up to the project and it

was a blessing to have him as an official mentor to this project. He has patiently taught me a

great deal over the past couple of years and has been invaluable in developing me professionally

and personally.

My final acknowledgment is for Dr. Rollin H. Hotchkiss. He has been a true teacher. He

has always demanded that I bring my best and has pushed me to be better than I thought that I

could. I am grateful that he chose to work with me and for seeing in me the potential to be a

great engineer.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xi

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Area ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................... 1

1.1.2 Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 3

1.1.3 History ......................................................................................................................... 4

1.1.4 Beavers ........................................................................................................................ 7

1.2 Land Owner .................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Cooperative Agency ....................................................................................................... 8

2 Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Channel Survey ............................................................................................................. 11

2.2 Stream Classification .................................................................................................... 13

2.3 Valley and Channel Survey .......................................................................................... 14

2.4 Three Sections ............................................................................................................... 16

2.5 HEC-RAS Model .......................................................................................................... 19

2.6 HQI ............................................................................................................................... 23

2.7 Fish Survey ................................................................................................................... 24

3 Reference Reach .................................................................................................................. 26

4 Restoration Design .............................................................................................................. 29

4.1 Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 29

4.2 Improve Fish Habitat .................................................................................................... 29

4.2.1 Reconstruction of Banks near the House .................................................................. 29

4.2.2 Channel Modifications/ Considerations .................................................................... 32

vi

4.2.3 Non-Treated Eroding Banks ..................................................................................... 45

4.2.4 Cattle Grazing/Passive Restoration ........................................................................... 47

4.3 Construct Habitat Ponds for Endanger Spotted Frog .................................................... 49

4.4 Build a Dependable Diversion ...................................................................................... 51

4.4.1 Old Diversion ............................................................................................................ 52

4.4.2 Proposed Design ....................................................................................................... 53

4.5 Time to Complete/ Project Phasing .............................................................................. 59

4.6 Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................... 60

5 Appendix 1 Data Collection: .............................................................................................. 63

5.1 Soldier Creek ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.2 Hydraulic Survey .......................................................................................................... 63

5.2.1 Determining Slope, Discharge, and Manning’s “n” ................................................. 63

5.2.2 Sediment Analysis .................................................................................................... 70

5.2.3 Bankfull Indices ........................................................................................................ 72

5.2.4 Stream Profiles .......................................................................................................... 76

5.2.5 Stream Stats .............................................................................................................. 79

5.2.6 HQI ........................................................................................................................... 80

5.3 Salina Creek .................................................................................................................. 84

6 Appendix 2 Restoration Design ......................................................................................... 99

6.1 Frog Ponds .................................................................................................................... 99

6.1.1 Pond #1 ................................................................................................................... 100

6.1.2 Pond #2 ................................................................................................................... 101

6.2 Diversion ..................................................................................................................... 102

6.2.1 Diversion Structure ................................................................................................. 102

6.3 Pump ........................................................................................................................... 102

vii

6.4 Pipe ............................................................................................................................. 103

6.5 Channel ....................................................................................................................... 107

6.6 Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................. 109

7 Works Cited ....................................................................................................................... 111

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 : Hydraulic Measurements (Taken May 16, 2012) ...................................................11

Table 2: Bankfull Measurements ...........................................................................................12

Table 3: Bankfull Discharge ..................................................................................................12

Table 4: Predicted Fish Pounds Per Acre ..............................................................................24

Table 5: Fish Species Count ..................................................................................................25

Table 6: Fish Species Average Weight, and Length ..............................................................25

Table 7: Stream Dimensions and Fish Abundance Metrics ...................................................25

Table 8: Equations for Calculating Vane Length ..................................................................36

Table 9: Equations for Calculating Vane Spacing .................................................................36

Table 10: J-Hook Vane Parameters .......................................................................................36

Table 11: Minimum Rock Size Calculation...........................................................................37

Table 12: Location 2 Structure Dimensions ..........................................................................39

Table 13: Estimated Relic Channel Dimensions ...................................................................42

Table 14: Channel Dimensions ..............................................................................................59

Table 15: Time Estimate of Work to be completed ...............................................................59

Table 16: Potential Phase 1: Berm Removal .........................................................................60

Table 17: Potential Phase 2: Remainder of Project ...............................................................60

Table 18: Stream Improvement Material Costs .....................................................................61

Table 19: Diversion Material Costs .......................................................................................61

Table 20: Equipment Rental Costs ........................................................................................62

Table 21: Labor Costs ............................................................................................................62

Table 22: Total Costs .............................................................................................................62

Table 23. Velocity Measurements and Calculations..............................................................64

ix

Table 24. Slope Measurements ..............................................................................................65

Table 25. Slope Calculations .................................................................................................65

Table 26. Area and Discharge Calculations ...........................................................................66

Table 27. Wetted Perimeter Calculations ..............................................................................68

Table 28. Manning's Roughness Calculations .......................................................................69

Table 29. Bottom Shear Stress Calculations ..........................................................................69

Table 30: Wolman Pebble Count ...........................................................................................71

Table 31: Surficial Sediment Sample, Table of Percentiles ..................................................72

Table 32: Bankfull Indices Indicators (NEH 654) .................................................................73

Table 33: Bankfull Indices Values .........................................................................................75

Table 34: Water Quality Measurements ................................................................................82

Table 35: Count of Benthic Macroinvertebrates ....................................................................82

Table 36: Cover, Width, and Eroding Banks .........................................................................83

Table 37: Late Summer and Annual Flow .............................................................................83

Table 38: Predicted Fish Pounds Per Acre ............................................................................84

Table 39: Comparison Chart Between Salina Creek and Soldier Creek ...............................85

Table 40: Channel Dimension Ratios ....................................................................................86

Table 41: Channel Pattern Ratios ..........................................................................................86

Table 42: Channel Profile Ratios ...........................................................................................87

Table 43: Sediment Sample Salina Creek ..............................................................................88

x

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Deliniated Watershed for Soldier Creek ................................................................2

Figure 2: Soldier Creek Project Site ......................................................................................2

Figure 3: Lower Section of Project Site .................................................................................3

Figure 4: Upper Section of Project Site .................................................................................3

Figure 5: Old Denver and Rio Grande Western Steam Locomotive, Thistle Utah 1951 (Tempus, World) ..........................................................................4

Figure 6: Project Area Flooding After Landslide (Thistle, Utah Landslide, 1983) ...............5

Figure 7: Beaver Dam upstream of new diversion. ...............................................................7

Figure 8: Surveying the monument on an adjacent mountain top. ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 9: Distribution of both GPS and DEM data points along Soldier Creek. ...................15

Figure 10: TIN produced from GPS and DEM data points. ..................................................16

Figure 11: Lower, Middle, and Upper Sections .....................................................................16

Figure 12: Lower Section.......................................................................................................17

Figure 13: Middle Section .....................................................................................................18

Figure 14: Upper Section .......................................................................................................19

Figure 15: Cross Sections created in HEC-RAS....................................................................20

Figure 16: HEC-RAS Lower Section Cross Section .............................................................21

Figure 17: HEC-RAS Middle Section Cross Section ............................................................21

Figure 18: HEC-RAS Upper Section Cross Section ..............................................................22

Figure 19: HQI Sampling Locations ......................................................................................24

Figure 20: Regional Curve .....................................................................................................27

Figure 21: Salina Creek .........................................................................................................28

xii

Figure 22: Berms to Be Removed ..........................................................................................30

Figure 23: Excavation Cross Section .....................................................................................31

Figure 24: Reference Reach Sample Cross Section ...............................................................32

Figure 25: Locations of High Erosion Sites ...........................................................................32

Figure 26: Bare Wall of Location 1. ......................................................................................33

Figure 27: J-Hook Vanes. Flow going right to left. ...............................................................34

Figure 28: Design Parameters for J-Hook Vanes ..................................................................35

Figure 29: Cross Sectional View of a Bankfull Bench. .........................................................38

Figure 30: Exposed Bare Wall at Location 2. ........................................................................38

Figure 31: Location 2 Design ................................................................................................40

Figure 32: Exposed Hill Side at Location 3. ..........................................................................41

Figure 33: Newly Designed Channel at Location 3. ..............................................................42

Figure 34: Upstream Cross Section .......................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 35: Downstream Cross Section ..................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 36: Old Diversion .......................................................................................................44

Figure 37: Sensitive Beaver Areas .........................................................................................45

Figure 38: Non-Treated Eroding Banks .................................................................................45

Figure 39: Location 1 Eroding Banks ....................................................................................46

Figure 40: Location 2 Eroding Bank .....................................................................................46

Figure 42: Fence Location .....................................................................................................47

Figure 43: Fence Design ........................................................................................................48

Figure 44: H-brace Design .....................................................................................................49

Figure 45: Columbia Spotted Frog ........................................................................................50

Figure 46: Frog Ponds ............................................................................................................51

xiii

Figure 47: Old Diversion Structure........................................................................................52

Figure 48: Old Diversion and Irrigated Fields .......................................................................52

Figure 49: Proposed Diversion and Fields to Be Irrigated ....................................................53

Figure 50: Diversion Structure (flow from left to right) ........................................................54

Figure 51: Cross Vane Diversion Structure- Clear Creek in Sun Valley, Idaho ...................55

Figure 52: Cross Vane Diversion Structure - Clear Creek in Sun Valley, Idaho ..................56

Figure 53: Augmented Cross Vane Structure - East Fork Piedra River, CO .........................56

Figure 54: Head Gate Structure .............................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 55: Diversion Head Gate - Clear Creek in Sun Valley, Idaho ....................................57

Figure 56: Pipeline Profile .....................................................................................................58

Figure 57: Channel Depiction ................................................................................................59

Figure 58, Cross section with area calculation divisions .......................................................67

Figure 59: Wolman Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution ................................................70

Figure 60: Surficial Sediment Sample Locations ..................................................................71

Figure 61: Surficial Sediment Sample, Particle Size Distribution .........................................72

Figure 62: Bankfull Identification Sites .................................................................................74

Figure 63: Determination of Bankfull Indices .......................................................................75

Figure 64: HQI Sampling Locations ......................................................................................81

Figure 65: Longitudinal Profile for Salina Creek ..................................................................84

Figure 66: Particle Size Distribution for Salina Creek ..........................................................90

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Area

1.1.1 Project Location

Soldier Creek flows in a westward direction from Soldier Summit in Spanish Fork

Canyon and is a major tributary to the Spanish Fork River. A depiction of the delineated

watershed is provided in Figure 1. The stream is flanked on both sides for the majority of its

length by the Old Denver and Rio Grande Railroad (now owned and operated by Union Pacific),

and Highway 6. The project site is near the confluence with Thistle Creek where the Spanish

Fork River begins. The property also contains the confluence of Lake Fork with Soldier Creek.

Figure 2 below displays the project area with notable features labeled.

2

Figure 1: Delineated Watershed for Soldier Creek

Figure 2: Soldier Creek Project Site

Study Area

3

1.1.2 Vegetation

The landscape is dominated by sage and hedge type vegetation. There is also a well-

established riparian corridor with thick willow growth across the entire valley floor toward the

upstream end of the property. This riparian growth is considered healthy and desirable, as the

vegetation adds natural bank stability as well as improves habitat. Roughly one thousand feet

upstream of the confluence of Lake Fork with Soldier Creek the riparian vegetation becomes

more localized around the stream. This seems to be residual effects of past agricultural land use.

Figure 3 displays the lower section of the project site while Figure 4 shows the upper section.

Figure 3: Lower Section of Project Site

Figure 4: Upper Section of Project Site

4

1.1.3 History

In the late 1800s the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad was constructed from

Denver, Colorado to Ogden, Utah. The railroad passed the Wasatch Mountains by following the

Old Spanish Soldier Trail over Soldier Summit. The railroad was built to run parallel to Soldier

Creek for the majority of the stream reach (Figure 5). Typical flood prevention measures of the

time were taken which involved unnatural channelization of the stream channel.

Figure 5: Old Denver and Rio Grande Western Steam Locomotive, Thistle Utah 1951 (Tempus, World)

Later in the 1930s the U.S. Route 6 highway was constructed and ran parallel to Soldier

Creek. Again, flood prevention measures were implemented which further constrained the

stream.

Furthermore, the town of Thistle was located in the area and the project site was farmed for

grain and grazed by cattle. There was at least one permanent homestead on the property with

water and electric utilities running through it.

Soldier Creek remained constrained and channelized by the railroad and the highway for

roughly 50 years until 1983 when a landslide occurred in a narrow portion of the canyon just

5

downstream from Thistle Creek. The landside acted as a natural dam and caused water to back

up and the entire project area was inundated (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Project Area Flooding After Landslide – Flow from Left to Right (Thistle, Utah Landslide, 1983)

A new railroad and highway were built higher up the mountainside and a tunnel was bored

through the landslide to allow flow to pass through the earthen dam. The road and railroad base

aggregates and other erosion control riprap remain in the project area. The residents of the area

did not return to their homes and the human impacts have been greatly reduced in this area since

the landslide.

Aerial photographs from 1959 to 2011 have been collected and provide insight into

geomorphology of this stream reach. The historic aerial photographs collected are shown in

figure 7.

6

Figure 7: Aerial Photography (Images on slightly varied scale)

7

1.1.4 Beavers

The study area has an active beaver population. New dams are continuously being built

and the geomorphological processes in the upper portion of the property are dominated by the

activity of the beavers. The beaver activity ceases roughly one thousand feet above the Soldier

Creek and Lake Fork confluence. Figure 8 shows an example of a beaver dam on Soldier Creek.

Figure 8: Beaver Dam upstream of new diversion (Taken in Dec. 2012).

1.2 Land Owner

Lee Nelson is one of the owners of the property and has represented the owners’ interests

for this project. According to cedarfort.com:

Lee Nelson was a public relations and advertising copywriter before his first book was published in

1979. Lee is best known for his Storm Testament series historical novels (nine volumes), and his

Beyond the Veil series (four volumes).

8

Lee is well known for his authentic research, which includes killing a buffalo from the back of a

galloping horse with a bow and arrow, crossing the murky waters of the Green River many times on

horseback, and riding with Mongolian nomads while gathering research for an upcoming book.

Mr. Nelson has been a willing land owner and very cooperative about the restoration

effort.

Currently the land is used to raise cattle. Mr. Nelson has expressed aspirations of using

the land to again grow crops. No portion of the land is currently being used for this purpose. The

fields on the property south of Soldier Creek are the most likely location for cultivated farm land.

Water rights attached to the land allow for up to six cubic feet per second (cfs) to be

diverted from Lake Fork. Through an agreement with the water conservancy agency this water

has been diverted in the past from Soldier Creek. The high flow events of the 2011 runoff season

proved to be too powerful for the existing diversion causing it to wash out. There has been no

functioning diversion on the property since.

1.3 Cooperative Agency

The Utah Department of Natural Resources- Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has

worked as the cooperating agency on this project. The UDWR will play a key role in finding

funding and implementing this project. Through the Division, access to state, federal, and private

funding sources will be available. The UDWR has also offered their resources and expertise to

help produce the project designs.

Jordan Nielson is an Aquatic Biologist and Stream Restoration Specialist with the Division

of Wildlife in the Central Utah Division. He serves as both liaison with the division and mentor

to the project. He has provided the necessary biological consulting for the restoration effort. He

9

has also provided the information required for designs to comply with UDWR requirements. The

common restoration method preferred by the UDWR is a Rosgen type restoration (Rosgen D. ,

1997), because of the proven ecological benefits it provides.

11

2 DATA COLLECTION

2.1 Channel Survey

Measurements were taken on Soldier Creek to determine the hydraulic characteristics of

the stream. The cross sectional area, wetted perimeter, hydraulic radius, channel velocity, and

slope were all determined in order calculate the Manning’s n value. Manning’s n was calculated

using the Manning’s equation for open channel flow. The Manning’s equation variables are

presented in Table 1. More details on the calculated values are contained in the Appendix 1, Data

Collection.

Table 1 : Hydraulic Measurements (Taken May 16, 2012)

Cross Sectional Area (A) 18.3 ft2 Wetted Perimeter (Pw) 14.8 ft Hydraulic Radius (R) 1.24 ft Mean Velocity (V) 2.23 fps Slope (S) 0.0033 ft/ft Manning’s Roughness (n) 0.044 Manning’s Roughness (n; NEH 654 Figure 11-7) 0.043

Bankfull measurements were also made. The measurements presented in Table 1 provide

the variables required to calculate the effective discharge, or the flow that is primarily

12

responsible for shaping the channel. Bankfull measurements were taken in two locations (Figure

9), and measurement values are presented in Table 2.

Figure 9: Bankfull Identification Sites

Table 2: Bankfull Measurements

Site Bankfull Depth Bankfull Width, Flood Prone Entrenchment Measurement, ft ft Width, ft Ratio 1 1.75 20 26.75 1.34 2 1.75 18.4 25.5 1.39

Bankfull discharge for Solider Creek was calculated using Mannings Equation for open

channel flow. The cross-sectional area, wetted perimeter, hydraulic radius and slope were

measured and calculated for the location described in Table 2. The roughness coefficient (n) was

taken from Table 1. The calculated flow is presented in Table 3. More details pertaining to the

bankfull discharge are provided in Appendix 1, Data Collection.

Table 3: Bankfull Discharge

Flow Area (A) 25.8 ft2

Wetted Perimeter (P) 19.7 ft Hydraulic Radius (R) 1.3 ft Roughness Coefficient (n) 0.044 Slope (S) 0.030 Flow (Q) 181.7 cfs

13

The calculated bankfull discharge for Soldier Creek below the confluence with Lake Fork

is roughly 180 cfs. Regression equations made available by the USGS on the USGS- SteamStats

website were used to approximate the bankfull discharge frequency. The regression equations

were chosen because there is not a gauging station on this stream. A StreamStats summary page

is provided in Appendix 1. By extrapolating the StreamStats read out down slightly the bankfull

discharge return interval is approximately 1.75 years.

2.2 Stream Classification

Soldier Creek was classified using three different stream classification systems. The three

systems used are the Channel Evolution Model, Montgomery-Buffington, and Rosgen

classification systems. (Schumm, 1973) (Buffington, 1998) (Rosgen D. , 2007) The

classifications from each system are:

• Channel Evolution Model – Type IV

• Montgomery-Buffington – Pool-riffle

• Rosgen – F3 from the downstream limit of the property to roughly 500 feet above the

confluence of Soldier Creek and Lake Fork, and B4 from that point to the upstream of the

property.

Stream classifications are important in understanding the current condition of the river, as well as

predicting any further geomorphological changes to the channel in the future.

14

2.3 Valley and Channel Survey

A key component of this project was a GPS survey of Soldier Creek and the surrounding

valley. Using a Topcon survey grade GPS, over 5,000 points were taken with an emphasis on the

thalweg, the banks, and the floodplain on either side of the river. Approximately 100 cross

sections were also taken that produced highly detailed geometry data of the channel that was

used to create a Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) model of the channel geometry.

Due to weak GPS signal strength in Spanish Fork Canyon, it was necessary to establish a

GPS base station. A suitable location for the base station was selected that over looked the entire

project site. The base station was then geo-referenced to a monument that was found on top of a

mountain nearby.

The project reach is approximately 1.5 miles long and extends from the top of Mr. Lee

Nelson’s property to a culvert below the property line. The culvert was chosen as an end point

because it represents a “hard point” in the channel. This survey also covers sections of Lake

Fork, a tributary to Soldier Creek, which are located within the property boundary. To capture

the surrounding valley features which were less critical to the model, a 5 meter resolution Digital

Elevation Model (DEM) was used (downloaded from http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/).

Figure 10 is a plan view of the project site with the locations of the GPS and DEM points

labeled.

15

Figure 10: Distribution of both GPS and DEM data points along Soldier Creek.

To account for small errors in the elevation readings, 2 control points were taken; one near

the house and the other near the upstream end of the project site. Each time the GPS was used on

this project the control points elevations were collected, allowing the elevation errors to be

corrected and the data sets to be normalized.

All of the points, both survey and DEM, were then displayed using ArcMap 10. After

being corrected for errors, the points were meshed together and a TIN was produced. The TIN

was necessary for determining cross sections which were used to create a HEC-RAS model. The

resulting TIN is shown in Figure 11.

16

Figure 11: TIN produced from GPS and DEM data points.

2.4 Three Sections

From observations made in the field it was determined that the project site could be broken

into three sections. Each section displayed distinct characteristics distinguishing it from the other

sections and have been defined as the lower, middle, and upper section. The section boundaries

are displayed in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Lower, Middle, and Upper Sections

17

The lower section has steep and incised banks lined with imported rock material that heaps

up above the natural floodplain to form berms on both sides of the channel. An image from the

lower section is presented in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Lower Section

The middle section has a more natural form. Even though some areas of steep and high

banks are present, there is general floodplain connectivity and a well-developed riparian corridor.

This section contains some rapidly eroding banks which are generally located on bends. There is

also debris such as old cars, power lines, and other material found on the banks of this section.

Figure 14 displays the channel conditions of the middle section.

18

Figure 14: Middle Section

The upper section (Figure 15) is similar to the middle section, except it shows little

channel bank erosion. Floodplain connectivity is readily available and stream plant life is well

established. This section was used, in conjunction with a reference reach from Salina Creek, to

assist with making restoration considerations for the other sections. In particular, the upper

section was used as guide for height of the first flood terrace that should be present in other

sections of this reach.

19

Figure 15: Upper Section

2.5 HEC-RAS Model

A HEC-RAS model was built from cross-sections extracted from the TIN shown in Figure

10 above. Cross sections were chosen for reaches of river where the hydrology or

geomorphology of the river changed. The HEC-RAS cross sections for a majority of the project

area are shown in Figure 16.

20

Figure 16: Cross Sections created in HEC-RAS.

A HEC-RAS model is necessary to show which flows will exit the channel and flow onto

the floodplain. In following the Rosgen method (Rosgen D. , 2007), water should flow onto the

floodplain at bankfull flow, which for Soldier Creek, was determined to be about 150 cfs above

the confluence. As mentioned in Table 3, the bankfull flow return interval is approximately 1.75

years.

The HEC-RAS model was run using three different flows. The first flow modeled was the

measured flow on the day that the hydraulic survey was conducted (40.8 cfs). This flow was

chosen to allow for comparison of modeled and observed flow depths and was used for model

calibration. The second flow modeled was the approximate bankfull discharge (180 cfs - below

the confluence). The third flow modeled was the 50 year flood event (1190 cfs).

Cross sections from the Lower, Middle, and Upper Sections are provided in Figures 17,

18, and 19 and show the water surface profiles for the 50-yr flood, bankfull conditions, and the

measured extent.

FullReach

292.1618

244.8914

169.2305

124.1372

66.8826834.97347.931462

L

ak

eFork Upper

3613453.393353.131

3312.9173239.2

3188.4683171.5233089.917

3057.5442937.0142875.87

2708.8522560.2072400.588

2304.58

2283.399

2229.4872138.0482051.6861838.888 Soldie

rCr

eek

Middle

1688.215

LakeForkConf

21

Figure 17: HEC-RAS Lower Section Cross Section Looking Downstream

Figure 18: HEC-RAS Middle Section Cross Section Looking Downstream

200 300 400 500 600 700

5090

5095

5100

5105

SoldierCreek Plan: PreDevPlan 2/28/2013

Station (ft)

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)

Legend

WS 50-yr Flood

WS Bankfull Flow

WS Measured Extent

Ground

Bank Sta

.042

150 200 250 300 350

5122

5124

5126

5128

5130

5132

5134

5136

5138

SoldierCreek Plan: PreDevPlan 2/28/2013

Station (ft)

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)

Legend

WS 50-yr Flood

WS Bankfull Flow

WS Measured Extent

Ground

Bank Sta

.042

22

Figure 19: HEC-RAS Upper Section Cross Section Looking Downstream

The longitudinal profile of Soldier Creek with the water surface elevations of the three

flows modeled is also provided in Figure 20. On the plot, the reach labeled “Soldier Creek

Upper” is the reach of Soldier Creek above the Lake Fork Confluence. Similarly, the reach

labeled “Soldier Creek Middle” is the reach below the confluence.

50 100 150 200

5132

5134

5136

5138

SoldierCreek Plan: PreDevPlan 2/28/2013

Station (ft)

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)

Legend

WS 50-yr Flood

WS Bankfull Flow

WS Measured Extent

Ground

Bank Sta

.042

23

Figure 20: Soldier Creek Longitudinal Profile

The results of the HEC-RAS model support the observations made about the three sections

described above. In the middle and upper sections of the property floodplain connectivity is

predicted in the model. The lower section shows no floodplain connectivity even during the 50-

year flood. Furthermore, the longitudinal profile shows a noticeable drop in channel and flow

complexity in the lower section.

2.6 HQI

To further understand Soldier Creek’s potential as a fishery, a fish habitat survey was

performed on the project area. Habitat Quality Index (HQI) (Binns, 1982) was recommended by

UDWR as it is their preferred method. Three sampling locations were chosen; one each for the

lower, middle, and upper sections (Figure 21).

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 120005040

5060

5080

5100

5120

5140

5160

SoldierCreek Plan: PreDevPlan 2/28/2013

Main Channel Distance (ft)

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)Legend

WS 50-yr Flood

WS Bankfull Flow

WS Measured Extent

Ground

SoldierCreek Middle SoldierCreek Upper

24

Figure 21: HQI Sampling Locations

Variables such as water temperature, velocity, fish cover, fish food abundance, and eroding

banks were scored and run through a series of functions outlined by the HQI procedure. The

functions are used to predict fish pounds per stream acre. The length and average width of each

sampling location was also measured so that the stream surface area at each location could be

calculated. Table 4 contains the predicted values for each of the three sites surveyed using the

HQI method.

Table 4: Predicted Fish Pounds Per Acre

HQI - Fish Pounds per Acre Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Average

333 292 147 279 The HQI shows that the site nearest the house (Site 1) predicts the highest fish pounds per acre.

Detailed information on the HQI survey is given in Appendix 1: Data Collection.

2.7 Fish Survey

A fish survey was performed on Soldier Creek on September 24, 2012. The creek was

sampled at the same three HQI sampling locations (Figure 21). There were six species of fish

25

sampled: Brown Trout (BNT), Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (CTT), Mottled Sculpin (MSC),

Leatherside Chub (LSC), Mountain Sucker (MSK), and Long Nosed Dace (LND). The

abundance (count) of each species sampled at all three locations is recorded in Table 5 while the

average weight (W) and length (L) of each species is recoded in Table 6.

Table 5: Fish Species Count

Species Location 1

Location 2 Location 3 Total

BNT 0 3 2 5 CTT 0 1 1 2 MSC 4 80 65 149 LSC 129 62 28 219 MSK 49 176 92 317 LND 51 48 33 132

Table 6: Fish Species Average Weight, and Length

BNT CTT MSC LSC MSK LND W (g) 247.8 44 3.0 10.5 26.0 5.7 L (mm) 292.8 165.5 68.4 95.1 132.1 78.2

Using the stream area the density (fish/surface acre) and biomass (fish/acre) were calculated.

These values are reported in Table 7.

Table 7: Stream Dimensions and Fish Abundance Metrics

Location Length

(ft) Average Width

(ft) Stream Area

(acre) Fish per

Stream Acre Fish Pounds

Per Acre 1 232 16.3 0.087 2686 74.54 2 326 17 0.127 2908 113.26 3 197 15.8 0.072 3091 111.41

These results show a large native fish population in the project reach. The Bonneville

Cutthroat Trout, Mottled Sculpin, Leatherside Chub, Mountain Sucker, and Long Nosed Dace

are all native species to the region. It is noteworthy that there is a significant Leatherside Chub

population in the stream area. The Leatherside Chub is listed as a state sensitive species due to

26

the substantial decrease in its current population (State of Utah Natural Resources - Wildlife

Resources).

The stream reach has a low trout population. Only five Brown Trout and two Bonneville

Cutthroat Trout were sampled. Three Brown Trout and one Cutthroat Trout were sampled at

Location 2. The other two Brown Trout and One Cutthroat Trout were sampled at Location 3.

There were no trout sampled at Location 1. It is unlikely that these fish are native to this stream.

The low numbers and large size of the trout sampled lead to the conclusion that these fish are

transient. It is likely that they were reared in a connecting stream location and have swum to this

location to feed on native minnows. The low trout populations are most likely due to the high

turbidity levels in the stream.

2.8 Reference Reach

Step five of Rosgen’s eight steps for river restoration, entails selecting a reference reach

which can be used to obtain dimensionless ratios for newly designed river reaches. (Rosgen D. ,

2007) Streams were selected as potential reference reaches based on valley type and surrounding

geology. The five streams were Ferron Creek, Salina Creek, White River, Muddy Creek, and Salt

Creek. Using these streams, a regional curve was created that shows the relationship between

bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and drainage area (mi2). This regional curve is found below in Figure

22 with the drainage area plotted on the x-axis and bankfull discharge plotted on the y-axis.

27

Figure 22: Regional Curve (Rosgen D. , 2007)

28

Using the regional curve and with input from local biologists from the Utah Division of

Wildlife Resources (UDWR), Salina Creek was selected as a reference reach. Salina Creek is

located in southern Utah and is relatively undisturbed. A GPS survey, channel measurements,

and sediment samples were collected. The information obtained from measurements taken on

Salina Creek was used as a guideline for appropriate bank slopes above the first terrace. Figure

23 is a picture of Salina Creek and shows its dense riparian vegetation and stable banks. More

detailed information about the reference reach can be found in Appendix 1 Data Collection.

Figure 23: Salina Creek

29

3 RESTORATION DESIGN

3.1 Objectives

• Improve Fish Habitat

• Construct Habitat Ponds for Endangered Spotted Frog

• Build a Dependable Water Diversion

3.2 Improve Fish Habitat

A major component of this project is to improve fish habitat. It has been identified that the

best way to improve habitat is to improve the conditions of the banks along the channel. Key

areas of needed bank improvement have been identified and a plan for improvement at each

location is outlined in this section.

3.2.1 Reconstruction of Banks near the House

The large steep banks on the lower section of the property will need to be reconstructed.

The heaped up banks and imported riprap lining the channel are no longer necessary for flood

prevention because the highway and railroad are no longer in the potential flood prone area.

30

The channel in this section is significantly incised. As previously mentioned, the HEC-

RAS model shows no connectivity to the floodplain even during an extreme flow event. The

historic aerial photography shows that the channel upstream has meandered and adjusted.

However, the reach near the house has remained unchanged, restricted by the channel riprap.

The lower section scored well for habitat quality in the HQI report, but this section

contained 34% less fish pounds per acre then the middle and upper sections. The riprap’s

constriction of natural channel functions is believed to be a contributing factor to the reduced

fish populations. It is assumed that once the geomorphological processes are no longer

constrained by the riprap fish populations will improve.

Figure 24 below displays the banks that will require work in the lower section. This

section is approximately 2000 feet long; it extends from the downstream boundary edge of the

property to roughly 500 feet above the Soldier Creek - Lake Fork Confluence.

Figure 24: Berms to Be Removed

Removal of the berms on both sides of the channel will be necessary in this section to

restore natural channel geomorphology. Figure 25 below displays a profile view of the channel

modification to be performed (cross section location is marked on Figure 24).

31

Figure 25: Excavation Cross Section

Some banks in the section do not have elevated berms as depicted in Figure 25, but are still

heavily incised and lined with riprap and will also be cut back to increase stability and floodplain

connectivity.

There is a distinguishable bankfull depth in this section. Berm removal will not extend into the

bankfull area. All willows removed during reconstruction will be stockpiled during excavation

and replanted along the new channel section just outside of the bankfull area.

A rough estimate of 40,000 cubic yards will be removed from the top of banks in this

reach. All rock material larger than 1.5 will be stockpiled for further stream improvement work

upstream. The remaining material will be piled elsewhere on the property. This location will be

determined by the property owner.

The reference reach can be used as a guide for bank slopes. Outside of the bankfull area

the bank slope should be between 1:5 and 1:10. A sample cross section from Salina Creek

(reference reach) is provided in Figure 26.

5086

5088

5090

5092

5094

5096

5098

5100

5102

5104

5106

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

CurrentConditionBermsRemoved

Station (ft)

Elev

atio

n (f

t)

32

Figure 26: Reference Reach Sample Cross Section

3.2.2 Channel Modifications and Considerations

A large amount of sediment in Soldier Creek comes from exposed raw banks within our

reach. A major aspect of this project deals with stabilizing these banks with in-channel

structures. These structures are built with the purpose of redirecting the flow away from the

banks and into the center of the channel. This decreases the shear stresses near the banks, thus

decreasing the amount of erosion. These structures also produce habitat for fish.

A survey of the river led to the identification of 4 key reaches with high rates of erosion.

Different methods and structures were used in each instance to stabilize the banks and channel.

The 4 selected reaches are identified in Figure 27.

Figure 27: Locations of High Erosion Sites

6934

6936

6938

6940

6942

6944

6946

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

Station (ft)

33

Location 1

For the first location, high stream velocities have cut into the left bank, leaving a 10 foot

bare wall. The wall is located on a bend after a straight stretch, which increases the power and

velocity of the river as it enters that bend. Figure 28 is a picture looking upstream at the bare wall

with water flowing from the top of the picture to the bottom.

Figure 28: Bare Wall of Location 1 looking upstream.

To stabilize this bank the depression on the left bank will be filled and two J-Hook Vanes

will be installed on the outer bend of the reach. A representation of the location and design of

the J-Hook Vanes is shown below in Figure 29.

34

Figure 29: J-Hook Vanes. Flow is from right to left.

The hole will be filled by layering logs and rocks. The logs will be approximately 1 foot in

diameter and will be approximately 20 feet long. The first layer in the hole will be the logs. They

will be place perpendicular to the flow. To anchor the logs down, rocks will be placed on top of

them to form the second layer. The rocks for the hole can be taken from the stockpile of rocks

taken from the downstream berm removal. The two layers combined should build a bank

approximately 3 to 4 feet high. This will then be covered with top soil and sod taken from the

nearby field.

The J-Hook Vanes will be designed according to instructions given in a report on the

Wildland Hydrology webpage (Rosgen D. , The Cross-Vane, W-Weir and J-Hook Vane

Structures…Their). A description of the design parameters for a J-Hook is found in Figure 30,

taken from the Rosgen article.

35

The structure is designed with the main vane extending away from the outside bank at a

20-30˚ angle and spanning 1/3 of the bankfull width into the channel. From the bankfull height to

the invert rock, the vane is angled downward 2-7% with the rocks being tightly packed together.

The hook extends another 1/3 of the bankfull channel width, but the rocks are placed 3-4 inches

apart. This increases the velocities at this location, deepening the pool that is formed just

downstream of the structure, as well as efficiently passing sediment and debris through the

system.

Figure 30: Design Parameters for J-Hook Vanes (taken from

http://www.wildlandhydrology.com/assets/cross-vane.pdf)

The length of the vane can be determined by using equations given in chapter 11 of the

National Engineering Handbook (NEH) 654 (2007). Both the vane length and vane spacing are

36

functions of the radius of curvature (Rc) of the bend and the bankfull width (W). The departure

angle is the angle between the vane and a line tangent to the bank at bankfull flow. The equations

for vane length and vane spacing are shown in Table 8 and Table 9 respectively.

Table 8: Equations for Calculating Vane Length

Rc/W Departure angle (degrees)

Equation VL=Vane Length (ft)

3 20 VL = 0.0057W + 0.9462 3 30 VL = 0.0089W + 0.5933 5 20 VL = 0.0057W + 1.0462 5 30 VL = 0.0057W + 0.8462

Table 9: Equations for Calculating Vane Spacing

Rc/W Departure angle (degrees)

Equation VS=Vane Spacing (ft)

3 20 VS = -0.006W + 2.4781 3 30 VS = -0.0114W + 1.9077 5 20 VS = -0.0057W + 2.5538 5 30 VS = -0.0089W + 2.2067

By measuring the radius of curvature and bankfull width, the vane length and spacing for

Location 1 could be calculated. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 10.

Table 10: J-Hook Vane Parameters

Parameter Value Bankfull Width (W) 23.3 ft Radius of Curvature (Rc) 40 ft Vane Length 20 ft Vane Spacing 50 ft

37

The minimum rock size can also be calculated using equations given in NEH 654. The

minimum rock size is a function of shear stress in the channel. The shear stress was calculated

using the discharge (Q), the hydraulic radius (R), and the slope (S). There is a considerable

amount of uncertainty in the shear stress values; therefore, a large factor of safety will be used. It

has been determined through familiarity with this type of structure that the minimum rock

diameter should be 1.5 ft. The minimum rock size calculations can be found below in Table 11.

Table 11: Minimum Rock Size Calculation

Parameter Value Flow (Q) 150 cfs Specific Weight 62.4 lb/ft3 Hydraulic Radius (R) 2.17 ft Slope (S) 0.0069 ft/ft Bankfull Shear Stress (τ) 0.93 lb/ft2 Minimum Rock Size Minimum Rock Size * FS

0.25 ft 1.50 ft

To prevent scour that could flank the structure, a cut off sill is installed which extends

from the base of the vane into the bank approximately 5 or 6 feet. These rocks are typically

larger and are placed in a line perpendicular to the stream.

If the bank in which the structure is being installed is higher than the bankfull height of

the river, then a bankfull bench needs to be created. The bench must be cut into the outer bank at

the bankfull height and be approximately 5 feet wide. The bench must also extend a length of 35

feet upstream from the outside bank footer stone and angle back to the stream for a length of

approximately 5 feet downstream. Figure 31 is a cross sectional view of a bankfull bench.

(Rosgen D. , The Cross-Vane, W-Weir and J-Hook Vane Structures…Their)

38

Figure 31: Cross Sectional View of a Bankfull Bench (taken from

http://www.wildlandhydrology.com/assets/cross-vane.pdf).

Location 2 The second location is where the newly proposed diversion will be built. High flows have

cut out a large piece of the left bank, exposing a 15-20 foot bare wall that adds sediment to

Soldier Creek during high flow. This exposed bank is shown in Figure 32.

Figure 32: Exposed Bare Wall at Location 2 looking down stream.

39

This location is important not only because of the new diversion structure, but also because

it is the access point to the upstream portion of the property. Without restoration action at this

location, high flows can cut further into this bank, cutting off access to the upper ends of this

property.

To repair this bend, the left bank will be filled into the channel to the edge of the main

flow. Two J-Hook Vanes will be built in addition to the diversion structure as illustrated in

Figure 33. The bank will be extended using the same method used to build the bank on Location

1.

The first J-Hook will be located just upstream from where the erosion begins and the

second will be located approximately 70 feet downstream. The diversion structure will be located

approximately 70 feet downstream from the second structure. The structure design will be

similar to those outlined for Location 1. The Structure Dimensions are provided in Table 12

Table 12: Location 2 Structure Dimensions

Vane length (ft) 20 Vane Spacing (ft) 70 Minimum Rock Size (ft) 1.5

40

Figure 33: Location 2 Design

Location 3 The third location consists of a 20-25 foot exposed wall that is just upstream from the

new diversion structure. The river runs along the base of the wall and is undermining the bank

(Figure 34).

41

Figure 34: Exposed Hill Side at Location 3 looking upstream.

By closer examination, it appears that the channel has migrated to its current location over

the past 30 years, and that a failed beaver dam may have been the trigger that caused the initial

shift. A survey of the area reveals a shallow depression approximately 20-30 feet to the left of

the current river location, which is believed to be the location of the original channel. For this

location it is proposed to re-form this relic channel to receive the flow. The location of the new

channel can be seen in Figure 35.

42

Figure 35: Redesigned Relic Channel at Location 3.

The depression of the relic channel is still present, and will need to be cleared of vegetation

and debris. Using upstream and downstream cross sections the correct relic channel dimensions

can be estimated (Table 13). The dimensions of the relic channel should be checked against the

estimated values. If the relic channel dimensions are not similar to the estimated values, the

channel should be altered to more closely match the estimated dimensions.

Table 13: Estimated Relic Channel Dimensions

Parameter Value Length ~150 ft Bankfull Width ~30 ft Bankfull Depth ~3 ft Slope ~0.008

In order to reestablish the relic channel, the beaver dam remnants will be removed from

the upstream end of the restored relic channel. The existing channel will be plugged at this

location and the channel plug will be constructed like the wood rock fill construction outlined for

43

locations 1 and 2. All willows and sod removed from the relic channel will be saved and used to

plant on top of the plug to further strengthen the bank. The location where the existing channel

and restored channel meet will not be plugged in order to allow for a back water habitat

environment to form.

By returning the river to its previous channel, active erosion of the right bank will cease,

decreasing the sediment load in Soldier Creek.

As noted in Figure 35, it may be necessary to install a J-Hook structure downstream from

the new channel. High velocities exiting the new channel may run directly into the right bank at

the location noted, but it is recommend that construction of such a structure be postponed until

erosion at this location is observed.

Location 4

The final location under consideration for erosion mitigation is the old diversion shown

in Figure 36. Large flows in 2011 dislodged and toppled the rocks from the diversion, re-

directing the flow from the center of the channel into the left bank.

The first step to fix this problem is to remove the remaining rocks from the diversion to

prevent the flow from being directed into the left bank. The next step is to observe the how the

stream reacts when the rocks are removed. If erosion of the left bank continues, then cross vane

rock structures will be used to stabilize this bank. The vane structures will be built with the same

dimensions as the structures described for Location 1. (VS=70 ft, VL=20 ft, Min. rock size=1.5

ft)

44

Figure 36: Old Diversion looking upstream.

Beavers

There are several active beaver dams along our project reach that have been established

within the last six months. Beavers play an active role in a healthy, functioning aquatic

ecosystem and in restoration for multiple reasons. Beaver dams raise the upstream water level,

which subsequently raises the water table for the surrounding property. By raising the water

level, the channel and floodplain are better connected, allowing an exchange of nutrients

between the two. Beaver dams allow for increased infiltration into the soil, which provides water

for longer periods of time during the summer. The dams also create more aquatic habitat for

macro invertebrates and native Cutthroat trout (Michael M. Pollock, 2003). Finally, beaver dams

are a prime location for aggradation to occur. This decreases the turbidity of the water and

increases the probability that trout can survive in Soldier Creek.

Beavers can be problematic, however, if their dams are built directly downstream of the

diversion structure, or if the raised water levels cause the formation of new channels which cut

off the flow from the diversion. Measures must be taken to ensure that this does not happen.

Figure 37 shows the stretch of river that is susceptible to the formation of new channels due to

45

high water levels. Beaver dams that are compromising the efficiency of the diversion should be

dismantled. The UDWR has many methods for effectively controlling problematic beaver

activity and should be consulted if problems of this nature occur.

Figure 37: Area requiring beaver dam maintenance.

3.2.3 Non-Treated Eroding Banks

There are two eroding banks in the middle section (Figure 38) for which no direct

restoration plan has been made.

Figure 38: Non-Treated Eroding Banks

46

No active restoration was planned for Location 1 (Figure 39) because it is believed that the

degraded banks in this section will improve once the fence outlined in the next section is built.

Also, recent beaver activity has been observed and will help this section to repair itself.

Figure 39: Location 1 Eroding Banks

No restoration was planned for Location 2 (Figure 40) because of beaver activity. A large

beaver dam has recently been built just downstream from this location and water is now backed

up in this area. The near bank stresses have been greatly reduced and the bank is becoming more

stable naturally.

Figure 40: Location 2 Eroding Bank

47

3.2.4 Cattle Grazing/Passive Restoration

Much of the bank instability is caused by the mechanical hoof action by grazing cattle.

Livestock decrease fish habitat and productivity by increasing erosion, sediment, and turbidity.

An example of bank erosion due to cattle grazing can be seen in Figure 39.

To adress this problem, a fence will be built on both sides of the river with styles inserted

in locations dictated by land owner and UDWR personnel (Figure 42). On the south side of the

river the fence will extend from the house upstream to the new diversion to keep livestock out of

the river. This fence will be approximately 3,000 feet long. On the north bank the fence will

extend from the new diversion site down to a quarter mile below the ranch house (approximately

5,000 feet long) (Figure 41).

Fencing will be designed to allow cattle to cross the stream at controlled locations. These

locations will be selected by the land owner. At these gaps the fence will be extended partially

across the stream from both banks to discourage cattle from wandering up or down stream.

Figure 41: Fence Location

The fence will be built to wildlife friendly specifications used by the UDWR. It will

consist of four strands of barbed wire with steel posts spaced 16-1/2 feet apart. The spacing of

48

the barbed wire will be, from the ground up, 16”-8”-8”-10”, with the top wire being no higher

than 42 inches above the ground. There needs to be one wood post for every five metal posts.

The metal posts need to be driven to a minimum depth of 20 inches, while the wood posts need

to be driven 24 inches into the ground (Nielson, 2012). A schematic of the fence is shown in

Figure 42.

Figure 42: Fence Design (Nielson, 2012)

At bends, gates, gullies, and styles H-braces must be installed (Figure 43). Wooden posts

for the H-braces will be placed in line with the fence and set 24 inches into the ground, with the

earth around each post being sufficiently tamped down.

49

Figure 43: H-brace Design (Nielson, 2012)

3.3 Construct Habitat Ponds for Endanger Spotted Frog

Due to habitat degradation along the Wasatch Front, the Columbia Spotted Frog is

included on the Utah Sensitive Species List (State of Utah Natural Resources - Wildlife

Resources). Part of the restoration plan includes building two ponds that will provide breeding

and hibernaculum habitat for this sensitive species. Figure 44 below is a picture of a Columbia

Spotted Frog.

50

Figure 44: Columbia Spotted Frog (State of Utah Natural Resources - Wildlife Resources)

Habitat specifications were provided by Chris Crocket (Crocket, 2012) and (Peterson, 1998).

Frog ponds should have both deep and shallow sections, with the shallow sections being

on the north side of the pond and the deeper sections on the south side. The deeper sections

should have a depth of 1.5-2.0 meters and the shallow sections should be 0.1-0.2 meters deep.

The deeper sections will be used primarily for hiding and hibernating, while the shallower

sections will be used for basking and breeding.

Diverted water needs to flow year round through the deeper section, providing nutrients,

food, and oxygenated water. There should be little or no flow along the shallower northern

shoreline as to not disrupt breeding.

Structures, such as logs, stumps, or root wads, should be randomly placed within the

pond for cover and overwintering habitat. Structures can also be placed within 50 m of the pond

for frogs that overwinter in terrestrial habitats.

There should be little to no canopy cover over the shallow portions. Smaller vegetation

consisting of sedges and rushes can be placed along the shallow edges to provide cover.

Vegetation consisting of cottonwood and willow should exist over the deeper southern side

where breeding does not occur.

51

For this project two ponds will be located northwest of the old ranch house and adjacent

to Soldier Creek. The diverted water will flow through both ponds and will then be dispersed

into a field west of the ponds. Figure 45 shows the location of the frog ponds in relation to the

house and stream. Detailed drawings of both frog ponds can be found in Appendix 2: Restoration

Design.

Figure 45: Frog Ponds – Flow from right to left

3.4 Build a Dependable Diversion

The water rights attached to the land allow for up to six cubic feet per second (cfs) to be

diverted from Lake Fork. Through an agreement with the water conservancy agency this water

has been diverted in the past from Soldier Creek. High flow in the 2011 runoff washed out the

existing diversion structure and a new diversion is now necessary.

52

3.4.1 Old Diversion

The washed out diversion structure is depicted in Figure 46. While functioning, it

delivered irrigation water to all of the fields south of the stream on the property (Figure 47).

Figure 46: Old Diversion Structure

Figure 47: Old Diversion Locations and Irrigated Fields – Flow from right to left

The old diversion is located toward the upstream end of the property on a left to right

turning bend. This allowed water to be diverted through the left bank and into the southern fields.

The functioning diversion structure consisted of large rocks piled four to six feet high that

spanned the entire channel width, producing approximately four feet of head.

The canyon wall serves as a hard point and is up against the left side of the diversion. There is no

hard point on the right side of the old diversion.

53

3.4.2 Proposed Design

The new diversion was designed to meet three criteria: (1) provide flows of irrigation

water to the same fields as the old diversion, (2) withstand high flows, and (3) be minimally

intrusive to the native in-stream habitat.

To best achieve the design requirements the following design is proposed (Figure 48):

The location of the diversion will be moved roughly 1,500 feet downstream of the old diversion.

The new delivery system will have both pipe and channel sections. The pipe section will begin at

the diversion and will be roughly 1400 feet long. The water will exit the pipe and flow into an

open channel where it will be delivered to the bottom portion of the property.

Figure 48: Proposed Diversion and Fields to Be Irrigated – Flow from right to left

Diversion Structure The diversion structure will be an augmented Rosgen type design Cross Vane (Rosgen D. ,

The Cross-Vane, W-Weir and J-Hook Vane Structures…Their). The vane structure will be

augmented because it will be placed on a bend. For the purpose of bank stabilization a J-hook

would be used in this location, but a J-hook will not provide the grade control that is required for

the diversion. Therefore, a J-hook/Cross Vane hybrid structure will be used to best protect the

channel bank and also provide the needed grade control. Augmenting the structure will also shift

54

more water toward the head works, ensuring that water will be diverted year around. A

schematic drawing of the diversion to be built is provided in Figure 49.

Figure 49: Schematic Drawing of Diversion Structure (Rosgen D. , The Cross-Vane, W-Weir and J-Hook Vane Structures…Their)

The structure dimensions are as follows:

• Vane length of ~30’.

• Vane Spacing of ~70’

• Minimum Rock Size of ~1.5’

• Average Rock Size of ~3’.

• Angle from bank to stream channel between 2-7%.

55

• Departure Angle between 20 and 25 degrees.

• The hydraulic head produced will be 6 inches (h=6in).

• The footer stones will be buried 2.5 feet (5h).

Because the designed diversion is built into a bank that exceeds bankfull height, a bankfull

bench must be cut into the left bank. The bench must be approximately 5 feet wide and will

extend a length of 35 feet upstream from the left bank footer stone and angle back to the stream

for a length of approximately 5 feet downstream.

Figures 50 and Figure 51 are examples of Cross Vane Diversion structures built by David

Rosgen on Clear Creek in Sun Valley Idaho.

Figure 50: Cross Vane Diversion Structure- Clear Creek in Sun Valley, Idaho (Rosgen D. , 2012)

Photo by: Ed Kern

56

Figure 51: Cross Vane Diversion Structure - Clear Creek in Sun Valley, Idaho (Rosgen D. , 2012)

Photo by: Ed Kern

Figure 52 depicts an Augmented Cross Vane Structure similar to the structure to be built

on the property.

Figure 52: Augmented Cross Vane Structure - East Fork Piedra River, CO (Rosgen D. , 1997)

Head Works A steel fabricated head gate will be used. The head gate is designed with two gates and a

screen. The first gate will be used to control flow into the pipe while the second screen will be

used to control a return flow to the channel. The screen will be used to prevent fish and other

floating debris from being caught in the pipe. While operating, the gate system is designed to

57

prevent sediment aggradation and debris buildup in front of the pipe opening. The second gate is

typically left open to allow sediment and screened debris to return to the channel.

A photograph of a head gate similar to the gate that will be constructed on Soldier Creek is

provided in Figure 53.

Figure 53: Diversion Head Gate - Clear Creek in Sun Valley, Idaho (Rosgen D. , 2012)

Photo by: Ed Kern

Pipe A pipe is necessary because the topography of the area would not permit a channel to be

used in the upper section. A profile view of the topography where the pipe will be buried as well

as a profile of the pipeline is presented in Figure 54. From the Figure it can be seen that the pipe

will be buried as deep as 12 to 13 feet in some locations.

Inflow

Irrigation

Return

58

Figure 54: Pipeline Profile

The pipe material will be PVC- PIP (Pipe in Pipe) plastic conduit. It will be 15 inches in

diameter, 1400 feet long, and have the capacity to move 4.5 cfs. Modifications to the pipe length

could be made with more excavation at the outlet.

Pump A pump will be used to provide water to the upper south field (Figure 48). A gas powered

generator will be used to power the pump. The pump and generator will be capable of being

loaded in a truck and carried out to the project site when pumping is needed. The pump will

need to provide 12 ft of hydraulic head and will deliver a flow of 3cfs. In order to achieve this, a

15 Hp pump is required. More pump specifics are provided in Appendix 2: Restoration Design.

Channel At the end of the pipe a channel will be used to deliver the water to irrigate the fields. A

channel used for the previous diversion already exists. Diverted water will empty into this

channel. The channel will need to be adjusted to fit the dimensions provided in Figure 55 and

Table 14.

51125114511651185120512251245126512851305132

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

Distance from Diversion (ft)

Pipeline Profile

Land Survey

Pipe Profile

59

Figure 55: Channel Depiction

Table 14: Channel Dimensions

Channel Dimensions b (ft) T (ft) y (ft) z1 (ft) z2 (ft) slope

1 4 2 0.75 0.75 0.0062

3.5 Time to Complete/ Project Phasing

All of the work outlined to be done on the property should take an estimated 50 days. A

breakdown of time required to complete each task is presented in Table 15.

Table 15: Time Estimate of Work to be completed

Time Estimate

Quantity Unit Unit/Day Days

Excavation 40000 yrd^3 1500 27 Ponds 185 yrd^3

1

Structures 6 Structure 3 2 Bank Fill 2 Banks 0.75 3 Diversion 1 Diversion 1 1

Pipe 1400 ft 300 5 Channel 1 Section 1 1

Fence 8000 ft 500 12

Total 51

60

The work to be completed could be phased to be done in a multi-year sequence. A

suggested sequence to complete the project would be: Phase 1 - to reconstruct the banks on the

lower section, Phase 2 – all other tasks.

Table 16: Potential Phase 1: Bank Reconstruction

Phase 1

Quantity Unit Unit/Day Days

Excavation 40000 yrd^3 1500 27

Table 17: Potential Phase 2: Remainder of Project

Phase 2

Quantity Unit Unit/Day Days

Ponds 185 yrd^3

1 Structures 6 Structure 3 2 Bank Fill 2 Banks 0.75 3 Channel 1 Section 1 1

Diversion 1 Diversion 1 1 Pipe 1400 ft 300 5

Fence 6000 ft 500 12

Total 24

The proposed phases are a suggestion and could be altered. While deciding the task

phasing sequence consider: (1) equipment is generally rented on a monthly basis, (2) the rock

and fill materials will be taken from the lower section.

3.6 Cost Estimates

An estimate of the costs required to complete the work presented in this report are

provided in this section. The costs and quantities of materials to be purchased and delivered are

provided in Table 18 and Table 19.

61

Table 18: Stream Improvement Material Costs

Stream Improvements Materials Quantity Units $/unit Delivery Cost

Rock (Structures) 161 Tons $ 25.00 $ 6,650.00 $ 10,675.00 Rock (Fill) 552 Tons $ 25.00 $ 5,250.00 $ 19,050.00

Wood 136 Tons $ 15.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 3,440.00 Fence 8000 ft $ 1.00 $ 500.00 $ 8,500.00

1. Assumes a double load trailer: 38 ton capacity and $350/trip Total $ 41,665.00 2. Estimate by Geneva Rock

This estimate assumes that all materials are purchased and delivered to the project site.

Much of material used will be supplied by the land owner, taken from other locations on the

property. The quantities of materials used and the material cost could be adjusted with the

information provided in Table 19.

Table 19: Diversion Material Costs

Diversion Materials Quantity Units $/unit Delivery Cost

Pipe1 1400 ft $ 8.49 $ 300.00 $ 12,186.00 Pump1 1 - $ 3,500.00 $ - $ 3,500.00

Generator 1 - $ 2,000.00 $ - $ 2,000.00 Diversion Box 1 box $ 500.00 $ - $ 500.00

Diversion Gates 2 gate $ 400.00 $ - $ 800.00 1. Estimate by Howard Irrigation, Springville UT Total $ 17,686.00

The equipment used on this project will need to be rented. For this estimate the cost of

running two track hoes and a dump truck was calculated; and costs presented in Table 20.

62

Table 20: Equipment Rental Costs

Equipment Rental

Equipment Rent Cost Months

Used Fuel

Needed1 Unit $/Unit Fuel Cost Delivery Total Cost

Track Hoe (1)2 $ 6,500.00 2 1950 Gal $ 4.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 700.00 $ 15,000.00

Track Hoe (2)2 $ 6,500.00 2 1950 Gal $ 4.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 700.00 $ 15,000.00

Dump Truck2 $ 11,000.00 2 1950 Gal $ 4.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 700.00 $ 19,500.00 1. Assumed 50 gal/day Total $ 49,500.00

2.Rental from Wheeler CAT, Lindon UT

Labor costs were also considered and are presented in Table 21. This estimate assumes the

use of UDWR crews working at their regular rates.

Table 21: Labor Costs

Wage Pickup Truck

Labor Crew Pay

Periods1 Days Used Wage Cost Rent Cost Miles2 $/mile Cost Cost Total

Heavy Equipment 4 39.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 700.00 1682 $ 0.40 $ 1,372.80 $ 25,373.00

Seasonal 6 55.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 1,050.00 2090 $ 0.40 $ 1,886.00 $ 7,886.00

1. Must pay for full pay period

Total $ 33,259.00

2. 19 miles from Springville Office to Soldier Creek, 200 Miles to get to Springville, 100 miles driven on site

The total costs of the project are summarized in Table 22.

Table 22: Total Costs

Service Cost Materials (Stream) $ 41,665.00

Materials (Diversion) $ 17,686.00 Equipment $ 49,500.00

Labor $ 33,259.00 Total $ 142,110.00

63

4 APPENDIX 1 DATA COLLECTION:

This appendix contains reference materials and more detailed/complete reports of the

data collection presented in Section 2 of this report.

4.1 Hydraulic Survey

A hydraulic Survey was performed for the project site. Notable measurements taken include;

• Slope, Discharge, and Mannings Roughness Coefficient (n)

• Bankfull Measurments

• Sediment Analysis

• Bankfull Discharge

It should be noted that these measurements were taken in localized areas and may not

precisely represent the entire stream reach. It is expected that some variation in reported values

occur throughout the stream reach.

4.1.1 Determining Slope, Discharge, and Manning’s “n”

The measurements and calculations used to determine the roughness are reported below. A

location on the lower end of Soldier Creek near the culvert was chosen. This location was chosen

because it was straight and uniform. Stations were set up at one foot increments across a 13.5

64

foot wide cross section. Note that station 2 and station 14.5 mark the banks. Velocity at each

station was estimated using a Price meter. Each measurement was taken twice at 60% of the

depth. The measurements taken are summarized in Table 23. Velocity is estimated by counting

the number of revolutions in a given amount of time and using the equation in item (i) of the

explanation of Table 23.

Table 23. Velocity Measurements and Calculations

(a) Station (b) Depth taken first time across cross section (c) Number of revolutions first time across cross section (d) Depth taken second time across cross section (e) Number of revolutions second time across cross section (f) Time period in which revolutions were counted (both times across) (g) Average of (b) and (d) (h) Average of (c) and (e)

(i) 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑓𝑝𝑠) = 2.2048 ∗ 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 (𝑟𝑒𝑣./𝑠) + 0.0178

Slope was measured using a surveying level and level rod. The elevation and depth of two

riffles were used, one upstream and the other downstream of the level. The distance from the

(a) Station

(ft)

(b) Depth 1

(ft)

(c) Revolutions 1

(d) Depth 2

(ft)

(e) Revolutions 2

(f) Time (sec)

(g) Average Depth

(ft)

(h) Average

Revolutions

(i) Velocity

(fps)

14.5 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 13 1.1 26 1.1 28 60 1.10 27 1.0 12 1.3 42 1.3 37 60 1.30 39.5 1.5 11 1.45 61 1.4 59 60 1.43 60 2.2 10 1.6 59 1.5 62 60 1.55 60.5 2.2

9 1.55 64 1.5 65 60 1.53 64.5 2.4 8 1.55 65 1.5 67 60 1.53 66 2.4 7 1.65 70 1.55 78 60 1.60 74 2.7 6 1.7 83 1.6 85 60 1.65 84 3.1 5 1.9 65 1.6 73 60 1.75 69 2.6 4 1.9 59 1.8 57 60 1.85 58 2.1 3 1.8 62 1.75 58 60 1.78 60 2.2 2 1.55 40 1.55 45 60 1.55 42.5 1.6

1 0 - 0 - - 0 - -

Overall Average Depth: 1.55

Mean Velocity: 2.2

65

level to each point was estimated using 100 times the distance between the stadia marks. A

summary of the measurements recorded are shown in Table 24.

Table 24. Slope Measurements

The slope of the water surface was found in the following manner. The run was calculated

as the sum of the distances to each point from the level rod. The rise was found as the difference

between the downstream elevation minus the downstream depth and the upstream elevation

minus the upstream depth. The slope of the water surface was found by dividing the rise by the

run. A summary of these calculations is displayed in Table 25.

Table 25. Slope Calculations

Run = Distance(DS) + Distance(US) Rise = [Elevation(DS)-Depth(DS)] –[Elevation (US)-Depth(DS)] Slope = Rise/Run

The cross sectional area and discharge in the channel were calculated by dividing the cross

section into smaller areas. The boundaries of each area straddle a station and velocity

measurement. In this way, an area and discharge for each station was found. The area of each

division was found using the area of a trapezoid formula. The total cross sectional area and the

Dow

nstr

eam

Elevation 5.82 - ft

Depth 1.4 - ft

Stadia 4.84 6.80 ft

Distance 196 - ft

Ups

trea

m Elevation 3.95 - ft

Depth 0.9 - ft

Stadia 2.85 5.05 ft

Distance 220 - ft

Run 416 ft Rise 1.37 ft

Slope (S) 0.003293 ft/ft

66

total discharge was found by summing the respective divisions. Table 26 contains a summary of

the calculations performed and Figure 56 shows a plot of the cross section and the area divisions.

Table 26. Area and Discharge Calculations

(a) Station at the center of the area (b) Depth on right side of the area (c) Depth on the left side of the area (d) Top width of the area (e) 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑓𝑡2) = 1

2∗ �(𝑏) + (𝑐)� ∗ (𝑑)

(f) Velocity from Table 1, Column (i) (g) 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 (𝑐𝑓𝑠) = 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑓𝑝𝑠) ∗ 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑓𝑡2)

(a) Station

(b) Depth1

(ft)

(c) Depth2

(ft)

(d) Base (ft)

(e) Area (ft2)

(f) Velocity

(fps)

(g) Discharge

(cfs) 13 0 1.20 2 1.20 1.0 1.2 12 1.20 1.36 1 1.28 1.5 1.9 11 1.36 1.49 1 1.43 2.2 3.2 10 1.49 1.54 1 1.51 2.2 3.4

9 1.54 1.53 1 1.53 2.4 3.7 8 1.53 1.56 1 1.54 2.4 3.8 7 1.56 1.63 1 1.59 2.7 4.4 6 1.63 1.70 1 1.66 3.1 5.2 5 1.70 1.80 1 1.75 2.6 4.5 4 1.80 1.81 1 1.81 2.1 3.9 3 1.81 1.66 1 1.74 2.2 3.9 2 1.66 0 1.5 1.25 1.6 2.0

Cross Sectional Area: 18.3 Total Discharge: 40.8

67

Figure 56, Cross section with area calculation divisions

Table 26 shows the calculations for the wetted perimeter. The wetted perimeter is

calculated as the sum of the distances between each station. The distance was calculated using

the distance formula.

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16De

pth

(ft)

Station (ft)

Cross SectionArea Divisions

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Dept

h (ft

)

Station (ft)

Cross SectionArea Divisions

68

Table 27. Wetted Perimeter Calculations

(a) Stations (b) Depth to point on right (c) Depth to point on left (d) Difference between depths (e) Horizontal width between points (f) 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ(𝑓𝑡) = �(𝑑)2 + (𝑒)2

Manning’s roughness coefficient was calculated using the parameters calculated above

and Manning’s equation (see Equation 1). It was also calculated using Rosgen’s method found in

the National Engineering Handbook section 654 in Figure 11-7 (see Equation 2). The results of

these calculations are summarized in Table 28. Bottom shear stress was also calculated using

Equation 3 for the channel and the results are shown in Table 29.

(a) Station

(b) Depth1

(ft)

(c) Depth2

(ft)

(d) Rise (ft)

(e) Run (ft)

(f) Length

(ft) 1-2 1.55 0.00 1.55 1.00 1.84 2-3 1.78 1.55 0.23 1.00 1.03 3-4 1.85 1.78 0.07 1.00 1.00 4-5 1.75 1.85 0.10 1.00 1.00 5-6 1.65 1.75 0.10 1.00 1.00 6-7 1.60 1.65 0.05 1.00 1.00 7-8 1.53 1.60 0.07 1.00 1.00 8-9 1.53 1.53 0.00 1.00 1.00 9-10 1.55 1.53 0.02 1.00 1.00 10-11 1.43 1.55 0.12 1.00 1.01 11-12 1.30 1.43 0.13 1.00 1.01 12-13 1.10 1.30 0.20 1.00 1.02 13-14.5 0.00 1.10 1.10 1.50 1.86

Wetted Perimeter: 14.7

69

Equation 1. Manning's Equation

21

32

**49.1 SRn

V = where,

V = Velocity, fps R = Hydraulic radius, ft S = Channel slope, ft/ft

Equation 2. Rosgen n Equation

16.038.0 **39.0 −= RSn where, S = Channel slope, ft/ft R = Hydraulic radius

Table 28. Manning's Roughness Calculations

Equation 3. Bottom Shear Stress

RSγτ = where, τ = Bottom shear stress, lb/ft2

γ = Unit weight of water, lb/ft3 R = Hydralic radius, ft S = Channel slope, ft/ft

Table 29. Bottom Shear Stress Calculations

Cross Sectional Area (A) 18.3 ft2 Whetted Perimeter (Pw) 14.8 ft Hydralic Radius (R) 1.24 ft

Mean Velocity (V) 2.23 fps Slope (S) 0.0033 ft/ft Manning's Roughness (n) 0.044

Manning’s Roughness (n; NEH 654 Figure 11-7) 0.043

Unit Weight of Water (γ) 62.4 lb/ft3

Shear Stress (τ) 0.25 lb/ft2

70

4.1.2 Sediment Analysis

A Wolman Pebble Count analysis was performed on a stretch of river near the locations

that the bankfull measurements were taken. For each pebble count analysis one hundred samples

were randomly selected and measured. The procedure used to achieve random selection was as

follows:

Start at one bank and work diagonally across the cross section stepping heal to toe.

After every step select a sample from the stream substrate that lies at the point of the toe.

Do not look at the substrate, rather blindly reach to the bottom and select the first piece of

substrate that your finger touches.

Measure the sample using the gravelometer. Record the smallest size that the sample will pass

through.

The data recorded was then analyzed using a particle size distribution method. The D16,

D50, and D84 were all interpolated off of the particle size distribution charts provided in Figure

57 and are reported in Table 30.

Figure 57: Wolman Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1101001000

Perc

ent F

iner

(%)

Diameter( mm)

Site 2

Site 1

71

Table 30: Wolman Pebble Count

Wolman Pebble Count

Percentile Diameter (mm) Site 1 Site 2

D16 8 <2 D50 17 47 D84 46 102

Surficial sediment samples were also analyzed. A total of 4 samples were taken. The

location of each sample is displayed in Figure 58. These samples were collected by inserting a

bottomless 50 gallon drum into the stream substrate. Water was then extracted from the drum to

allow access to the substrate material. Bed armor and subsurface material was taken from each

applicable location (no apparent bed armor at location 3). These samples were taken to the lab to

be dried and sieved. The sieved samples were weighed and a particle size distribution analysis

was performed (Figure 59). The D16, D50, and D84 were all extrapolated using the particle size

distribution graph (Table 31).

Figure 58: Surficial Sediment Sample Locations

Location 2 Location 3

Location

Location

72

Figure 59: Surficial Sediment Sample, Particle Size Distribution

Table 31: Surficial Sediment Sample, Table of Percentiles

Percentile Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Armor Bed Armor Bed N/A Armor Bed (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

D16 12 0.6 18 2.2 0.5 42 1.5 D50 102 9 50 13 16 90 15 D84 137 45 92 38 65 135 40

4.1.3 Bankfull Indices

Visual inspection of the Soldier Creek project site was performed in order to determine

certain indicators used in the identification of the bankfull stage dimensions. Bankfull refers to

the elevation of the water surface where flooding begins (the water level exceeds the channel

banks and enters the floodplain). The flow at this level has been labeled as the effective

discharge. This discharge has been identified as the stream discharge that is able to transport the

most sediment over a given time span. Therefore; the effective discharge value is most readily

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

0.1110100Size [mm]

Location 1,ArmorLocation 1, Bed

Location 2,ArmorLocation 2, Bed

Location 3

Location 4,ArmorLocation 4, Bed

73

used in stream restoration design as it has been shown to have the greatest influence on the

channel formation, and maintenance over time. Table 32 identifies the field indicators that were

assessed in performing this analysis. While subjective in nature these indices help to provide a

starting point for the bankfull stage assessment.

Table 32: Bankfull Indices Indicators (NEH 654)

Two areas were measured for bankfull dimensions. Figure 60 depicts the areas chosen.

These areas appeared to be in a relatively stable condition with easily identifiable bankfull

indicators. Each measurement was also taken in a riffle section.

74

Figure 60: Bankfull Identification Sites

Areas where indicators were identified were marked and assessed along a section

measuring approximately 200 feet in length. These indicators were assessed as a whole and an

approximation of the bankfull level along the right bank was determined. Once this level was

determined a string line was placed across the stream in order to determine the level on the left

bank. A measurement was taken from the string line to the THALWEG. This was determined to

be the bankfull depth measurement. By multiplying the bankfull depth measurement by a factor

of 2 the flood prone depth measurement was found. An additional string line was placed at this

elevation across the stream and the width measured. Using these string lines the bankfull width

and the flood prone width were determined. These values were used to determine the

entrenchment ratio of the stream. Equation 4 details the calculation of the entrenchment ratio.

Equation 4: Entrenchment Ratio

Entrenchment Ratio ER = Flood Prone Width/Bankfull Width Figure 61 depicts the string line that has been placed over the creek at site 1 to identify the flood

prone level measurement.

75

Figure 61: Determination of Bankfull Indices

Table 33 identifies the values determined in performing the bankfull analysis.

Table 33: Bankfull Indices Values

Site Bankfull Depth Bankfull Width, Flood Prone Entrenchment Measurement, ft ft Width, ft Ratio 1 1.75 20 26.75 1.34 2 1.75 18.4 25.5 1.39

76

4.1.4 Stream Profiles

1541

1542

1543

1544

1545

1546

1547

1548

1549

1550

1551

0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0

Elev

atio

n (m

)

Station (m)

Culver to West Boundary of Property

1549

1550

1551

1552

1553

1554

1555

1556

1300.0 1400.0 1500.0 1600.0 1700.0 1800.0 1900.0 2000.0 2100.0

Elev

atio

n (m

)

Station (m)

Lower Section

77

1554

1555

1556

1557

1558

1559

1560

1561

1562

1563

1564

1900.0 2100.0 2300.0 2500.0 2700.0 2900.0 3100.0 3300.0

Elev

atio

n (m

)

Station (m)

Middle Section

1563

1564

1564

1565

1565

1566

1566

1567

1567

3100.0 3150.0 3200.0 3250.0 3300.0 3350.0 3400.0

Elev

atio

n (m

)

Station (m)

Top Section

78

79

4.1.5 Stream Stats

80

4.1.6 HQI

In order to further understand Soldier Creek’s potential as a fishery, a fish habitat survey

was performed on the project area. The fish habitat survey performed is called the Habitat

Quality Index (HQI) (Binns, 1982).This particular survey was recommended by the Division of

Wildlife correspondent to the project – Jordan Nielson. It is the same survey method used by the

division.

For the HQI several habitat factors are measured and recorded. Each habitat factor is scored and

then used to produce an estimate of fish pounds per stream acre. The habitat factors recoded for

the HQI are as follows:

• Late Summer Flow Variation

• Annual Stream Flow Variation

• Temperature

• Nitrate Nitrogen Levels

• Fish Food Abundance

• Cover Rating

• Eroding Banks

• Water Velocity

• Stream Width

Three sampling locations were chosen for the HQI in order to capture the variation in habitat

along the project reach. Site 1 is located in the bottom section of the project area; just below the

confluence of Soldier Creek and Lake Fork. Site 2 is located in the middle of the project area

while Site 3 is located at the top of the project area. Figure 62 illustrates the three sampling

81

locations. The measurements were all taken on the same day in late-August from 9 AM to 12

PM.

Figure 62: HQI Sampling Locations

Water Quality Water quality measurements were collected at each of the three locations (Table 34).

Each sample was collected in a riffle zone at the top of the stream reach. The first site sampled

was Site 1, then Site 2, and finally Site 3. The sampling occurred during a 3 to 4 hour period, this

could have attributed to a slight ambiguity in the temperature reading caused by raising

temperatures from the morning to afternoon hours.

Only the NO3- and temperature readings are considered in the HQI report. Both were given high

rankings according to the HQI method. However, inadequate temperature measurements were

taken. To accurately score the temperature rating of the stream a temperature study would need

to be conducted. The study would include measurements taken throughout the year and at varied

times of the day.

The pH, ammonia (NH4+), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Turbidity, and Dissolved Oxygen

(DO) were also measured.

82

Table 34: Water Quality Measurements

Location Temp pH NO3- NH4+ TDS Turbidity LDO LDO °F mg/l mg/l g/l NTU % Sat mg/l

1 60.30 8.27 0.18 1.70 0.40 46.94 106.19 8.73 2 65.45 8.54 0.22 1.55 0.40 41.06 109.20 8.50 3 66.77 8.52 0.22 1.53 0.40 47.83 105.18 8.06 Average 64.17 8.44 0.21 1.59 0.40 45.28 106.86 8.43

Benthic Macroinvertebrates A Benthic Macroinvertebrate sample was collected at each of the three HQI sampling

locations. The Benthic Macroinvertebrates are used to provide a fish food abundance estimate.

Samples were collected using a Surber Sampler. The sample was collected in a riffle at the top of

each sample location. While collecting the sample, the surber sampler was first placed flat on the

channel bottom. Then all of the rocks that lied within the frame were scrubbed clean to a depth

of approximately 6 inches.

The invertebrates were then counted and roughly identified on site (Table 35). The

invertebrates were identified as Stonefly (Plecoptera), Mayfly (Ephemeroptera), Caddisfly

(Trichoptera), or other. For Site 1 the sample was counted until a quantity of 500 was achieved.

This was done because the threshold for the highest rating in the HQI is 500.

Table 35: Count of Benthic Macroinvertebrates

Location Stonefly (Plecoptera)

Mayfly (Ephemeroptera)

Caddisfly (Trichoptera) Other Total

Site 1 114 0 356 30 500 Site 2 96 1 409 45 551 Site 3 39 4 198 78 319

Cover, Width, and Eroding Banks The cover, width, and eroding banks were measured for each site. The measurements

were taken using standard field measuring tape.

83

Cover was defined as anything in the stream that might serve as a resting, hiding, or sheltering

location for fish (Table 36).

Table 36: Cover, Width, and Eroding Banks

Location Cover Width Eroding Banks

% ft % Site 1 27.5% 22.25 5% Site 2 20.0% 20.4 8% Site 3 8.8% 18.75 10%

Late Summer and Annual Flow There is no gauge station on Soldier Creek so in order to assess the Late Summer Flow

and Annual Flow Variability the flow patterns of the three gauged streams used for the regional

curve were analyzed. The gauge information came from the U.S. Geological Survey website.

The Late Summer Flow Index was calculated using the average daily flow values. The average

daily flows from August 1st to September 15th were averaged (CPF) and then divided by the

annual average daily flow (ADF). The Annual Flow Variability was calculated by dividing the

maximum average monthly flow by the minimum average monthly flow. The results of the

analysis are presented in Table 37.

Table 37: Late Summer and Annual Flow

Stream CPF/ADF ASFV Salina Creek 0.75 10.33 Ferron Creek 0.54 31.54 White River 0.22 38.46

Summary All of the variables were scored and ran through a series of functions outline by the HQI

procedure. The functions are used to predicted fish pounds per stream acre. Table 38 contains the

predicted values for each of the three sites surveyed using the HQI method.

84

Table 38: Predicted Fish Pounds Per Acre

HQI - Fish Pounds per Acre Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Average 333 292 147 279

4.2 Salina Creek

Salina Creek: Stream Survey Jared Erickson; Jeremy Payne October 5, 2012

Figure 63: Longitudinal Profile for Salina Creek

94

96

98

100

102

104

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Rela

tive

Ele

vaio

n [f

t]

Distance From the Most Upstream Point [ft]

Salina Creek - Longitudinal Profile Channel BottomWater SurfaceBankfull

94

96

98

100

102

104

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Rela

tive

Ele

vaio

n [f

t]

Distance From the Most Upstream Point [ft]

Salina Creek - Longitudinal Profile Channel BottomWater SurfaceBankfull

85

Table 39: Comparison Chart Between Salina Creek and Soldier Creek

Comparison Between Salina Creek And Soldier Creek Property (Bankfull) Salina Creek Soldier Creek Q (cfs) ~100 170 Return Period (yr) ~1.5 1.5 A (ft2) 20 24.44 WP (ft) 19 19.71 R (ft) 1.053 1.24 S (ft/ft) 0.00958 0.003/0.0055/0.01 Manning’s “n” 0.0335 0.044 Rosgen Calssification B3c (C3) F3/B4c/F4 D16 (mm) 65 42 D50 (mm) 120 90 D84 (mm) 210 135 Entrenchment Ratio 1.95 <1.4/1.42/1.38 W/D Ratio 11.35 10.71/13.48 Sinuosity 1.48/1.09 1.18/1.35/1.36 Drainage Area (mi) 52 236

The bankfull Q and return for Salina Creek are only approximates because many different

methods were employed (Regional Curve, Manning’s “n”, Log Pearson) to determine these

values and the values varied between methods.

For Solder Creek, many of the columns contain 3 values; this corresponds to the 3

different locations where samples were collected. The 3 different collection sites are shown in

the map below. Sediment samples were collected from the pavement layer in a riffle zone. There

is more information on the sediment collection later on in the report.

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

86

Table 40: Channel Dimension Ratios

Channel Dimensions mean riffle depth 1.4 ft riffle area 23.71 ft2 mean pool depth 2.85 ft pool area 50.94 ft2 mean pool depth/ mean riffle depth 2.04

pool area/ riffle area 2.15

max riffle depth 2.26 ft max riffle depth/ mean riffle depth 1.61 max pool depth/ mean riffle depth 3.49

point bar slope

Riffle Width 17.67 ft Streamflow: Estimated Bankfull Velocity 4.5 ft/s Pool width 17.86 ft Streamflow: Estimated Bankfull Discharge 90 ft3/s Pool width/ riffle width 1.01

Estimating Method manning

max pool depth 4.89 ft Drainage Area 58.1 mi2

Table 41: Channel Pattern Ratios

Channel Pattern

mean min max

mean min max

Meander length 286 190 375 ft Meander length ratio 16.18 10.75 21.22 radius of curvature 64.4 35.9 113.5 ft radius of curvature/riffle width 3.64 2.03 6.42 belt width 62.3 42.7 98 ft meander width ratio 3.54 2.41 5.55 individual pool length 14.75 13 16 ft pool length/riffle width 0.83 0.74 0.91 pool to pool spacing 135.3 97 202 ft pool to pool spacing/ riffle width 7.66 5.49 11.43

87

Table 42: Channel Profile Ratios

Channel Profile

Valley Slope 0.0144 ft/ft Average water surface slope 0.00883 ft Sinuosity 1.48

Stream length 277.4 ft valley length 254.4 ft Sinuosity 1.09

low bank height start 2.78 ft max riffle depth start 2.26 ft bank height ratio LBH/maxriffledepth

start 1.23

end

ft end 1.85 ft end

Facet Slopes mean min max Dimmensionless geometry ratios mean min max

Riffle slope 0.01 0.006 0.02 Riffle slope/average water surface slope 1.13 0.68 1.92

run slope 0.07 0.045 0.11 run slope/average water surface slope 7.93 5.09 12.23

pool slope 0.008 0 0.02 pool slope/average water surface slope 0.91 0.00 1.92

glide slope -0.056 -0.048 -0.1 glide slope/average water surface slope -6.34 -5.43 -7.13

Feature Midpoint mean min max

riffle depth 1.4 0.46 2.26 riffle depth/mean riffle depth 1 0.329 1.61

run depth 1.97 0.68 2.8 run depth/mean riffle depth 1.4 0.49 2

pool depth 2.85 1.18 4.89 pool depth/mean riffle depth 2.04 0.84 3.49

glide depth 1.94 0.78 3.39 glide depth/mean riffle depth 1.39 0.56 2.42

Tables 39 - 41 contain many of the dimensionless ratios that will be needed to design the

new channel at Soldier Creek. These ratios are most important because on Soldier Creek we are

not considering a priority 1 restoration; rather we plan on selecting specific hotspot locations

where erosion and bank stabilization are a problem. These ratios will help us determine how to

restore and stabilize the channel without severely changing the profile of the river (riffle, run,

pool, glide).

Channel Materials

Sediment samples were collected and analyzed. There were two separate sets of

sediment material collected. The first set is the armor layer and sub armor layer collected from a

riffle zone. The second is the armor and sub armor layer collected from a point bar. The D16,

D35, D50, D84, D95, and D100 for all four are recorded, as well as the combined particle size

percentiles in Table 43.

88

Table 43: Sediment Sample Salina Creek

Channel Materials

Pavement (mm)

Subpavement (mm)

PB Subpavement (mm)

PB Pavement (mm)

Combined (mm)

D16 65 21 2.2 5.1 3 D35 100 29 9 11 19 D50 120 35 10.6 20 48 D84 210 125 68 130 130 D95 245 190 100 155 210 D100 250 250 127 200 250

These percentiles were read off of the graph provided in figure 66. This graph displays

the five mentioned particle size distributions. The particle size in millimeters is graphed on the

x-axis with the percent finer graphed on the y-axis.

89

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

% P

assi

ng

Size [mm]

Subpavement

Pavement

Point Bar Subpavement

Point Bar Pavement

Combined

90

Figure 64: Particle Size Distribution for Salina Creek

The channel measurements taken include 12 bankfull measurements, stream bed and

surface water slopes, a longitudinal profile, and bankfull discharge measurements. The bankfull

measurements were taken using a measuring tape and rod with cross sectional measurements

being taken every foot. For each phase of the river (riffle, run, pool, glide), 3 bankfull

measurements were taken to account for any irregularities in the reach that was chosen. The

cross sections are depicted below.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

% P

assi

ng

Size [mm]

Subpavement

Pavement

Point Bar Subpavement

Point Bar Pavement

Combined

91

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Riffle 1

Riffle 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Riffle 2

Riffle 2

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Riffle 3

Riffle 3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 5 10 15 20

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Glide 1

Glide 1

92

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 5 10 15

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Glide 2

Glide 2

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 5 10 15

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Glide 3

Glide 3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 5 10 15 20 25

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Run 1

Run 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 5 10 15 20

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Run 2

Run 2

93

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 5 10 15

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Run 3

Run 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Pool 1

Pool 1

94

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 5 10 15

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Pool 2

Pool 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 10 15 20

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Pool 3

Pool 3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Riffle 1

Riffle 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Riffle 2

Riffle 2

95

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Riffle 3

Riffle 3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 5 10 15 20

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Glide 1

Glide 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 5 10 15

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Glide 2

Glide 2

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 5 10 15

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Glide 3

Glide 3

96

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 5 10 15 20 25

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Run 1

Run 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 5 10 15 20

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Run 2

Run 2

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 5 10 15

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Run 3

Run 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Pool 1

Pool 1

97

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 5 10 15

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft)

Pool 2

Pool 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 10 15 20

Dept

h (ft

)

Width (ft) Pool 3

Pool 3

99

5 APPENDIX 2 RESTORATION DESIGN

This appendix contains reference material for the restoration designs presented in

Section 3 of this report.

5.1 Frog Ponds

Detail drawings of the two ponds to be constructed are provided. The drawings are given

with meter (m) units.

100

5.1.1 Pond #1

101

5.1.2 Pond #2

102

5.2 Diversion

5.2.1 Diversion Structure

5.3 Pump

Qcfs

S. Weightlbs/ft^3

Rft

WS. Slope(ft/ft)

Bankfull Shear Stresslbs/ft^2

Bankfull Shear Stresskg/m^2

Minmum Rock Sizem

Minmum Rock Sizeft

150 62.4 1.5 0.0066 0.62 0.03 0.01 0.02840 62.4 4 0.0069 1.72 0.07 0.18 0.60

Shear=Gamma*R*S

Rock Size

Rad of Curvature (RC) Bankfull Width (BFW) Bankfull Width (BFW) RC/BFW Departure Angle 20-Rc/W 3 Departure Angle 30-Rc/w 3 Departure Angle 20-Rc/W 5 Departure Angle 30-Rc/w 5ft ft m ft/ft90 30 9.1 3.00 1.00 0.67 1.10 0.90

Length (m) 9.13 6.17 10.05 8.22Length (ft) 30.0 20.2 33.0 27.0

Rad of Curvature (RC) Bankfull Width (BFW) Bankfull Width (BFW) RC/BFW Departure Angle 20-Rc/W 3 Departure Angle 30-Rc/w 3 Departure Angle 20-Rc/W 5 Departure Angle 30-Rc/w 5ft ft m ft/ft90 30 9.1 3.00 2.42 1.80 2.50 2.13

Spacing (m) 22.16 16.49 22.88 19.44Spacing (ft) 72.7 54.1 75.0 63.8

Angle from Bank to Invert2% to 7%

Vane Spacing

Vane Length

103

5.4 Pipe

Max Q Max P cfs psi 4.54 2.20

L (m) L (ft) top (OBJECT_ID) Top El. (ft) bottem (OBJECT_ID) Joint El. (ft) del (ft) slope n Diamter (in) Diameter (ft) Rad (ft)426.5 1398.92 538 5118.58904 1408 5113.517084 5.07196 0.003626 0.012 15 1.25 0.625

Pipe and Channel From diversion to below the house near the road

pipe section

104

h (ft) Theta A (ft^2) P (ft) R (ft) Q (cfs) dh hL (ft) P (lbs/ft^2P (psi)0.167 1.49517 0.097271 0.93448 0.104091 0.160924 0.416364 1.992 192.191 1.3350.333 2.17056 0.262712 1.356598 0.193655 0.657449 0.77462 2.336 170.737 1.186

0.5 2.73888 0.45839 1.711798 0.267783 1.423816 1.071132 2.602 154.108 1.0700.667 3.27502 0.665637 2.046891 0.325194 2.3534 1.300777 2.776 143.247 0.9950.833 3.82127 0.869103 2.388292 0.363901 3.311997 1.455606 2.882 136.629 0.949

1 4.42859 1.05246 2.767872 0.380242 4.12992 1.520966 2.925 133.976 0.9301.167 5.23856 1.19205 3.274097 0.364085 4.544218 1.45634 2.493 160.945 1.118

1.25 6.28319 1.227185 3.926991 0.3125 4.225125 1.25 0.000 316.490 2.1981.333 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 0 #NUM! #NUM! 0.000 0.000

1.5 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 0 #NUM! #NUM! 0.000 0.0001.667 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 0 #NUM! #NUM! 0.000 0.0001.833 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 0 #NUM! #NUM! 0.000 0.000

2 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! 0 #NUM! #NUM! 0.000 0.000rho V (ft/s) D (ft) mue Re E/d f

1.94 1.654391 1.25 1.21E-05 3.32E+05 0 0.01351.94 2.502547 1.25 1.21E-05 5.02E+05 0 0.01251.94 3.10612 1.25 1.21E-05 6.23E+05 0 0.0121.94 3.53556 1.25 1.21E-05 7.09E+05 0 0.01181.94 3.810824 1.25 1.21E-05 7.64E+05 0 0.01181.94 3.924064 1.25 1.21E-05 7.86E+05 0 0.0122.94 3.812105 1.25 1.21E-05 1.16E+06 0 0.0123.94 3.442942 1.25 1.21E-05 1.40E+06 0 0.0123.94 #NUM! 1.25 1.21E-05 #NUM! 0 0.0124.94 #NUM! 1.25 1.21E-05 #NUM! 0 0.0125.94 #NUM! 1.25 1.21E-05 #NUM! 0 0.0126.94 #NUM! 1.25 1.21E-05 #NUM! 0 0.0127.94 #NUM! 1.25 1.21E-05 #NUM! 0 0.012

105

106

y = -0.00238x + 5,117.28891

51125114511651185120512251245126512851305132

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

Distance from Diversion (ft)

Pipeline Profile

Land Profile

Pipe Profile

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00

Exca

vatio

n De

pth

(ft)

Distance from Diversion (ft)

Excavation Depth

107

5.5 Channel

y = -0.00238x + 5,117.28891

51125114511651185120512251245126512851305132

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

Distance from Diversion (ft)

Pipeline Profile

Land Profile

Pipe Profile

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00

Exca

vatio

n De

pth

(ft)

Distance from Diversion (ft)

Excavation Depth

108

h (in) h (ft) S W (ft) A (ft)^2 P (ft) R (ft) V (ft/s) Q (ft^3/s)

4 0.333333 1.5 0.416667 4.75 0.087719298 0.46489 0.193704 8 0.666667 2 1 6 0.166666667 0.713159 0.713159 12 1 2.5 1.75 7.25 0.24137931 0.912894 1.597564 16 1.333333 3 2.666667 8.5 0.31372549 1.087227 2.899271 20 1.666667 3.5 3.75 9.75 0.384615385 1.245388 4.670205 24 2 4 5 11 0.454545455 1.392104 6.960522

L (m) L (ft) top (OBJECT_ID) Top El. (ft) bottem (OBJECT_ID) Bottom El. (ft) del (ft) slope n b (ft) T (ft) y (ft) z1 (ft) z2 (ft)515.82 1691.89 1408 5113.517084 2469 5102.95264 10.5644 0.006244 0.05 1 4 2 0.75 0.75

Channel Section

109

5.6 Cost Estimates

110

Rock Dia (ft) vol (ft^3)/rock # of rocks* Vol total (ft^3) lb of Rock Tons of

Rock 3 14.14 140 1979.2 321106 160.6

Rock (ton) Ton/Load Loads $/ton hr/trip $/hr $ Rock $ Delivery $ TotalDouble* 160.6 38 4.23 25.00$ 2.5 140.00$ 4,013.82$ 1,478.78$ 5,492.60$ Single* 160.6 22 7.30 25.00$ 2.5 120.00$ 4,013.82$ 2,189.36$ 6,203.18$ *Double needs 120 feet to get turned around

Rock (ton) Ton/Load Loads $/ton hr/trip $/hr $ Rock $ Delivery $ TotalDouble* 552 38 14.52 25 2.5 140 13,790.40$ 5,080.67$ 18,871.07$ Single* 552 22 25.07 25 2.5 120 13,790.40$ 7,522.04$ 21,312.44$ *Double needs 120 feet to get turned around

Rock (ton) Ton/Load Loads $/ton hr/trip $/hr $ Rock $ Delivery $ TotalDouble* 552 38 14.52 17 2.5 140 9,377.47$ 5,080.67$ 14,458.15$ Single* 552 22 25.07 17 2.5 120 9,377.47$ 7,522.04$ 16,899.51$ *Double needs 120 feet to get turned around

Rock (ton) Ton/Load Loads $/ton hr/trip $/hr $ Rock $ Delivery $ TotalDouble* 136 38 3.58 17 2.5 140 2,312.00$ 1,252.63$ 3,564.63$ Single* 136 22 6.18 17 2.5 120 2,312.00$ 1,854.55$ 4,166.55$ *Double needs 120 feet to get turned around

Rock for Stream Structures (Geneva Estimate) (< 3 ft diameter)

Wood for Fill () ()

Rock for Fill (Geneva Estimate) (< 3 ft diameter)

Rock for Fill (Geneva Estimate) (0.5 to 1 ft diameter)

Area Depth Wood Depth Rock Volume Wood Volume Rock W. Wood W. Rock(ft^2) (ft) (ft) (ft^3) (ft^3) (Tons) (Tons)

Fill Site 1 1000 2 2 2000 2000 40 162Fill Site 2 2000 2 2 4000 4000 80 324Plug Fill Site 3 400 2 2 800 800 16 65

Total 6800 6800 136 552

Fill Volume

111

REFERENCES

Thistle, Utah Landslide. (1983, April). Retrieved December 2012, from U.S. Geological Survey.

Binns, N. A. (1982). Habitat Quality Index Procedures Manual. Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Buffington, M. D. (1998). Channel Processes, Classification, and Responce. River Ecology and Management.

Crocket, C. (2012). Columbia Spotted Frog Habitat Requirements. (J. Payne, Interviewer)

DWR, U. (n.d.). Fence Construction Specifications.

Hotchkiss, R. (2012). CEEN 635 Sediment Transport. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, Fullerton College of Engineering.

Michael M. Pollock, M. H. (2003). Hydrolic and Geomorphic Effects of Beaver Dams and Their Influence on Fishes.

Nielson, J. (2012). Mentor/ Corespondant. Utah, Springville: Utah Division of Wildlife.

Paige, C. (2008). A Landowner's Guide to Wildlife Freindly Fences. Helena, MT: Montana Fish and Wildlife Parks.

Peterson, D. R. (1998). A Review of the Habitat Requirements of the Columbia Spotted Frog in the Intermountain Region and Recommendations for the Restoration of Columbia Spotted Frog Habitat along the Middle Provo River. Pocotello, ID: Idaho State University - Dept of Biological Sciences.

Photography, U. D. (n.d.). Thistle, Utah.

Rosgen, D. (1997). A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision.

Rosgen, D. (2007, August). Part 654 - Stream Restoration Design/ Chapter 11: Rosgen Geomorphic Channel Design. Retrieved from NRCS eDirectives: http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/viewerFS.aspx?id=3491

112

Rosgen, D. (2012, June). Sun Valley Restoration Tour. Sun Valley , Idaho: Wildland Hydrology.

Rosgen, D. (n.d.). The Cross-Vane, W-Weir and J-Hook Vane Structures…Their. Retrieved January 2013, from Wildland Hydrology: http://www.wildlandhydrology.com/assets/cross-vane.pdf

Schumm, A. a. (1973). Implications of complex response of drainage systems for quaternary alluvial stratigraphy. Nature (Physical Science).

State of Utah Natural Resources - Wildlife Resources. (n.d.). Retrieved Dec 2012, from List of Fishes in Utah: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/Search/Display.asp?FlNm=gilacope

Tempus, World. (n.d.). Born with the epic of American Railroads. Retrieved December 2012, from http://www.worldtempus.com/en/brands/partner-brands/ball-watch/history/born-with-the-epic-of-american-railroads/

USGS, U. S. (n.d.). StreamStats. Retrieved May 2012, from http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/

Wilcox, P. (2012, August). Stream Restoration Workshop. Sediment Transport in Stream Assessment and Design. Logan, Utah: Utah State University.