Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />0021J7 <br /> <br />characteristics are explained above. Because the water level of the reservoir was low <br />during the time of this survey, and appeared to have been low for some time, the reservoir <br />water was not reaching this erosion site. As a result, this location was determined to be <br />inactive. <br /> <br />Understanding that 95% of the erosion sites were active at the time of this survey, and <br />that 86% of the erosion occurring was bank cut, it is fitting that sixteen of the twenty-two <br />(73%) erosion sites had a class ranking of 4, the most severe on a I to 4 scale. The nature <br />of bank cut erosion results in the removal 100% of the upper layers of soil, and in many <br />instances the removal of deeper layers of soil as well. At numerous sites on the Williams <br />Fork Reservoir, waves are undercutting the reservoir bank and removing the deeper <br />layers of soil first. As these lower soil layers are removed, the upper layers simply fall to <br />the beach and are eroded away, This results in the 100% removal of the upper soil <br />horizons, which defines a Class 4 ranking. One erosion site (5%) had a class ranking of <br />3, and five erosion sites (22%) had a class ranking of 2, No erosion sites were found to <br />have a class ranking of 1, the least severe on the scale of I to 4. <br /> <br />Observations of resource risk varied greatly for the erosion lines present at the Williams <br />Fork Project. Eight of the twenty-two erosion sites (36%) presented no resource risk at <br />the time of data collection (see Section 2,1), Eleven erosion sites (50%) presented <br />various minor resource risks, including minor loss of upland areas and aesthetics, Only <br />three erosion sites (14%) presented a significant resource risk. These sites are discussed <br />in Section 4.0. Therefore, while approximately 29% of the reservoir edge was <br />experiencing erosion, only three of the sites identified pose a significant resource risk. <br />These three sites make up 4% of the entire reservoir edge, <br /> <br />Photo documentation of each erosion site was collected as part of this erosion survey, and <br />the photographs are provided in Appendix C. <br /> <br />WillillIT15 Fork Reservoir <br />Hydroelectric Project <br />January 2004 <br /> <br />Srelgers Corporation <br />Erosion Survey Report <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />