Laserfiche WebLink
photographs. Investigations will include walking the stream, taking notes and collecting photographs <br />to document observations. In order to minimize duplication and field data collection, the PHABSIM <br />sites will be utilized for this effort where available. Reaches with no field data from either previous <br />efforts or from the PHABSIM surveys, will require additional surveyed cross sections. Survey <br />information required for this analysis includes cross sections, bed profiles, substrate information, <br />bank conditions and bed material sampling. For the purposes of this proposal and fee estimate it is <br />assumed that 100 cross sections will be required. The information collected at each reference site <br />will generally follow that described in a “Level II” assessment (Rosgen 1996). The results of the <br />stream assessment will be documented including written descriptions, photographs and mapping as <br />required describing this assessment. <br /> <br />3.3 <br />Conduct Aquatic Habitats Assessment. The goal of this task is to identify opportunities and <br />suitability of reaches, on a conceptual basis, for restoration. This work will be conducted in two <br />phases. First, utilizing available information, characterize existing and historic regional aquatic <br />(channel, riparian and wetlands) habitats. Secondly, the project team will perform a cursory field <br />investigation and qualitatively characterize current riparian types (e.g. shaded-riverine, riparian <br />forest, cottonwood canopy seasonal wetland, etc.) at each project reach, identifying dominant <br />vegetation types such as cottonwood trees, willows, grasses and other ground cover. We will identify <br />habitats in or adjacent to the potential restoration sites that may be subject to regulation under Section <br />404 of the Clean Water Act if flow regime is altered due to the two Firming Projects, and/or if <br />restoration is to occur. There are two concerns: the first being if restoration projects are <br />implemented, what habitat exists today and can it be improved, and what are the potential permitting <br />issues with restoration. Secondly, are there reaches that may loose riparian vegetation if flows are <br />reduced/groundwater lowered etc. regardless of whether or not any restoration is implemented. This <br />effort will be based on visual observations and will be incorporated into the decision making process <br />for reaches that may be considered for restoration as well as reaches that may be or have been <br />impacted by changes in flow regime and warrant further study. The results will be documented <br />including written descriptions, photographs and mapping as required describing the assessment. <br /> <br />3.4 <br />Prepare Restoration Master Plan. The work effort for this task shall generally include the following: <br />development of conceptual (35%) level of design; hydrologic, hydraulics and geomorphic analyses; <br />and conceptual cost estimate. <br /> <br />3.4.1 Hydrology <br /> <br />For the selected restoration sites use gage information, where available, to estimate peak flows for the <br />1.5-year, 2-year, 10-year and 100-year return interval peak flows. Where gage information is not <br />available or not adequate, develop hydrology using HEC HMS an appropriate methodology for the <br />given basin. Methodology may be dependant on the site’s location and if any other existing <br />information is available. Some calibration may be performed depending on availability of records. <br />The goal of this analysis is to estimate the peak flow hydrology in order to perform hydraulic <br />analyses. <br /> <br />3.4.2 Hydraulics and Geomorphic Assessment <br /> <br /> 3 <br />