Re: Survey of constructed cross section per Restoration Framework on Wind River, Fremont County, WY

Similar documents
KKR S. 6 th St. to I-94 Bridge Project Location. Expanded Floodplains

Town of Westlake Construction Plans Review Checklist

The Basics. HECRAS Basis Input. Geometry Data - the basics. Geometry Data. Flow Data. Perform Hydraulic Computations. Viewing the Output

RE: Engineered Riffle Concepts for Sodom Dam Removal Grade Control Elements

URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

Floodplain Modeling 101. Presentation Goals

APPENDIX I FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS

50.24 Type, Size and Location Plans for Culverts, Bridges and Culvert Bridges

PART XIII: HYDRAULIC/ HYDROLOGY SURVEYS

Appendix N: Data Capture Guidelines Summary of Changes

Ecological Restoration Drafting & Design Guidelines

Anne Arundel County Dept. of Inspections and Permits Storm Drain Checklist

APPENDIX E CIVIL DESIGN (QUANTITY CALCULATION)

B422 - PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS AND BOX SEWERS - OPSS 422

DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST

City of Massillon Site Plan Checklist

Field Observations and One-Dimensional Flow Modeling of Summit Creek in Mack Park, Smithfield, Utah

Sewer Line Extension Permit Design Checklist

Iowa Bridge Sensor Demonstration Project Phase I and Phase II Executive Summary Report. Floodplain Management Services Silver Jackets Pilot Study

Compensatory Mitigation Monitoring Report Aquatic Habitat Improvement City of Montrose Whitewater Park, Montrose County, Colorado March 6, 2014

Authorized Agent: City of Manassas Check List Attached: Contact: Address: Phone Number: Fax Number: Developer s Name: Phone Number:

B-PERMIT PLAN CHECK MANUAL

CE 365K Exercise 2: HEC-RAS Modeling Spring 2014 Hydraulic Engineering Design

Flood Hazard Area Delineation Guidelines MOSER & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING ICON ENGINEERING URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

Attn: Emil Pierson, Community Development Director

APPLICATION FOR SITE PREPARATION PERMIT

BRASELTON WATER AND WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST May 2006

B.2 MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN CHECKLIST

CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CIVIL ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST PROJECT: LOCATION:

MAJOR GRADING PLAN CHECKLIST

Digital Flood Hazard Area Delineation (DFHAD) Guidelines

This Land Surveying course has been developed by. Failure & Damage Analysis, Inc.

Surveying & Measurement. Detail Survey Topographic Surveying

CITY OF TUMWATER 555 ISRAEL RD. SW, TUMWATER, WA (360)

For crossing under a railroad, contact the specific railroad company's engineering department.

TYPICAL SECTIONS TYPICAL NO. 1 (MAINLINE) STA TO STA STA TO STA ROUNDING DETAIL TYPICAL NO.

SECTION 100 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS & INSTRUCTIONS

UTILITY AND STREET CONSTRUCTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS SECTION 1

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. General Submission Requirements

Loy Gulch, Paint Pony, East Fork Paint Pony LOMR

Technical Memorandum ECO-7

CHAPTER 11 SURVEY CADD

Hillside & Foothills Development Application

SUMMIT COUNTY PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS Department of Public Works and Transportation Civil Engineering Division STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST

Survey Data and TOPO Checklist

City of Beaumont. Public Works Engineering. Street Improvement Plan Checklist REV 4/18/16

Hydraulics and Floodplain Modeling Managing HEC-RAS Cross Sections

APPENDIX E - FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION

Traffic and Roadway Improvements - Rte 123 (Belmont Street) Brockton, MA Client: BETA Group, Inc.

This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library.

September 21, Mannik Smith Group 1771 North Dixie Highway Monroe, Michigan RE: LA Fitness City File No.: CVLP

STATE UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION FUND

A. Dewatering observation wells are part of dewatering allowance.

City of Colleyville Community Development Department. Site/Landscape Plan Application Packet

Presented By: Todd Ward Project Manager

SPECIAL PUBLIC NOTICE

SECTION DEWATERING PART 1 - GENERAL 1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS

Date Requested, 200_ Work Order No. Funding source Name of project Project limits: Purpose of the project

CITY OF DANA POINT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

SITE PLAN, SUBDIVISION & EXTERIOR DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS

ACWWA DRAWING SUBMITTAL INFORMATION - UTILITY DRAWING REQUIREMENTS

CHAPTER 2C - PRELIMINARY DESIGN. General... 2C-1. Review of Work Load... 2C-2 Establishing Priorities... 2C-2

List of Figures. List of Forms

Rebman Creek Evaluation of In-Stream Rehabilitation Structures

Hydraulics and Floodplain Modeling Managing HEC-RAS Cross Sections

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION LAKE ODESSA HABITAT REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL APPENDIX F

Digital Letter of Map Change (DLOMC) Guidelines May 2010

Chapter 13 Plan Submittals

SECTION 3 IMPROVEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS

SECTION DEWATERING TANKAGE PART 1 - GENERAL 1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS

Example Application C H A P T E R 4. Contents

The Benefits and Appropriate Use of Base Flood Approximate Shapefiles to Calculate Zone A Base Flood Elevations. Jeremy Kirkendall, CFM June 12, 2013

MULTIPLE-FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

Essential Skills: Reading and Interpreting Maps and Plans

Legal Description & Site Plan Requirements and Layouts

Section E NSPS MODEL STANDARDS FOR TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS Approved 3/12/02

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Relief Well Spacing

RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICANT CHECKLIST

Bestall Collaborative Limited Planning Environment Construction Management Development

3 Table of Contents. Introduction. Installing and Activating... 8 Getting Updates Basic Working Procedures

King And Queen County, VA P.O. Box 177 King and Queen Courthouse, VA (804) (804) (fax)

PRE-LAB for: Introduction to Aerial Photographs and Topographic maps (Ch. 3)

Porter County Plan Commission

SECTION SITE SURVEYS

Oil-Water Separator Design Checklist

Plan Preparation Checklist

Discovery Report Appendix L Dams and Floodplain Structures Lake Ontario St. Lawrence Watershed HUC

The several methods for making linear measurements are quite simple and straightforward. They are described below:

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS Department of Public Works and Transportation Civil Engineering Division SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST

Bentleyuser.dk Årsmøde 2010 Nordic Civil 2010

1.1 GENERAL RECORD DRAWING REQUIREMENTS

CONCEPT REVIEW GUIDELINES

Water Surface Profiles

Oakland County Michigan Register of Deeds Plat Engineering, GIS, & Remonumentation Dept. Ph: (248) Fax (248)

MINOR SUBDIVISION. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] B. Dimensions, bearings and curve data for all property lines and easements.

Zoning District: R-1, R-2, and R-4 Applicant: Exeter Rose Farm, LLC, 953 Islington Street #23D Portsmouth, NH 03801

GCG ASSOCIATES, INC. February 8, Mr. Nathaniel Strosberg, Town Planner 101 Main Street Town of Ashland Ashland, MA 01721

580 - NOISE BARRIERS OPSS 580 INDEX

Town of Apex, North Carolina

Transcription:

1-11-17 LeClair Irrigation District 1418 Cowboy Lane Riverton, WY 82501 (307) 856-4018 Re: Survey of constructed cross section per Restoration Framework on Wind River, Fremont County, WY Dear Mr. Hoelzen, We were approached by you last week to look at the Restoration Framework and survey a cross section just downstream (East) of the partially constructed South channel plug. I reviewed the Restoration Framework plan under the Master Settlement Agreement as presented to us. Sheet 3 of the plan shows the construction of a plug or dam with a rock revetment across the existing South channel. This dam, in effect, is supposed to restore the historical south bank of the Big Wind River prior to the construction of a minor dike which allegedly forced the river to use the South channel. A new North river channel including riffles and pools was to be constructed along some 2800 feet from the LeClair diversion structure. The stationing along the proposed new North channel begins at or near the LeClair Canal diversion structure with a station value of -600 feet. We were able to locate our surveyed cross section relative to some reference construction lath (set by Biota) still visible along the banks of the new North channel. We surveyed (using a survey grade GPS) a cross section about 76 feet downstream of a lath labeled 880 which puts our cross section (+965 station) in the middle of a designed riffle per the profile on sheet 4. We checked into the temporary benchmark pin set by Biota at the canal bridge (+1265 foot station elevation 5220.49). I have attached the plan view (with photo background) of the cross section we surveyed and a profile view of the surveyed cross section of the channel from the North edge of the canal road (0+00) to the right bank of the new channel (5+44). Holes were punched through the ice (8 to 12 inches thick) to survey the bottom of the channel. There was about 6 to 8 inches of snow on the ground outside of the channel. The ground shots were taken at the ground surface beneath the snow. The actual surveyed elevations of each cross section point are labeled under the channel bottom profile on our 956-Section Profile view. The apparent right and left design channel banks were determined by surveying an existing lath (set by Biota) marking that location. What we found, as summarized on the profile sheet, was that at the surveyed cross section the cross sectional area between the banks as constructed was ±281 square feet (sf). The distance between the two laths was ±180 feet as opposed to the design 193 foot. Page 1

On page 6 of the Wind River Restoration Framework Restoration Treatments states that; Design riffle geometry was developed based upon sub-reaches of the 2011 morphologic survey area that were identified as relatively stable and functional during field observation. These sub-reaches, utilized during restoration design as reference reaches, have average bankfull channel cross sectional area of 784 sq ft. The geometry of the subreach with lowest width/depth ratio was hydraulically scaled to achieve the design cross sectional area. This approach maintains the hydraulic geometry of the input reference reach while achieving cross sectional area typical of all reference conditions. The design channel geometry has bankfull area of 784 sq ft, bankfull width of 193 ft, mean depth of 4.1 ft, maximum depth of 5.8 ft, width depth ratio of 48, and channel capacity of 4,400 cfs at the existing channel slope of 0.24% (Figure 6). The design riffle cross section can be shifted vertically to identify design channel invert elevations throughout the project area based upon local floodplain elevation. This actual surveyed cross section does not appear to meet the required cross sectional area of 784 sf to pass the design flow of 4400 cubic feet per second (cfs). This requires a flow velocity of about 5.6 ft/sec. At that velocity the section we surveyed with a bankfull area of 281 sf will only carry about 1577 cfs. This is markedly smaller than the design 4400 cfs. We then looked at the available cross sectional area between the top of the right (south) bank and a water surface line extended north to intersect the ground surface North of the constructed left bank of the channel. The cross sectional area available at this level is ±610 sf. This is still less than the design required area of 784 sf. The water surface elevation that would need to be attained to provide the required 784 sf of flow area is ±5216.4. The resulting water cross sectional area requires a water surface distance of ±272.5 feet across as compared to the design 193 foot wide cross section. Additionally, on our plan view sheet showing the cross section alignment, we surveyed a point just east of the 956 cross section. The existing elevation (5216.1 feet) here will allow water to spill over into the visible old channel running southeast at design flows of 4400 cfs. The anticipated flow (4400 cfs) will require the river to utilize the floodplain area between the reconstructed North channel and the bank of the LeClair canal road. The vegetated floodplain area will increase the friction coefficient. Flow of the river over the floodplain will potentially damage existing vegetation and cause a further rising of the level of the water surface. It is not desirable for the flow to reach the toe (±5217.5 elevation) of the right bank of the LeClair canal at this or any other cross section along this reach. For anticipated flows above 4400 cfs (during spring runoff 10,000 cfs could occur), the reconstructed channel will not carry the total flow without serious erosion potential to the LeClair canal bank. Addendum No. 3 (Restoring Floodplain Connectivity on the South Bank) addresses the spoil piles that are opposite the LeClair headgate. The Addendum states; This addendum defines specific locations and approximate boundaries of spoil piles that would be eliminated or minimized to restore floodplain connectivity thereby allowing overbank flooding along the south bank upstream of the revetment shown on Sheet 3. There is concern as to whether the floodplain South of the Wind River, upstream of the constructed plug, will be able to carry enough of the 10 year peak runoff flow volume (possibly 12,078 cfs as referenced on page 10 of the Restoration Framework) to assure that Page 2

no damage to the LeClair canal bank will occur. Is there any analysis as to how much water can be expected to come down the North channel during flood events? LeClair also has concerns about water backing up enough to overtop the diversion structure (at -600 station) headwall at elevation 5224. Presently, the dam/plug is not yet complete and part of the south channel is still being used even with 450 cfs in the river. Apparently the West end of the dam was removed or breached concurrently with the end of the construction activity (December 2016) to relieve rising water levels upstream of the dam/plug. See dam breach in center of photo below. Once the breach is repaired, there are grave concerns as what extent flooding in the North channel will occur. While an exhaustive asbuilt survey of the completed channel has not been made available, evidence presented by this one surveyed cross section (956 section) should at least bring some attention to LeClair s concerns for the bigger picture. I would be available to answer any questions you might have on what we have provided. Terry Zenk, P.E. Apex Surveying, Inc. Page 3