|
<br />. cyonellus), J@hnnyclilrter (Etheostoma nigrum),plains toptninnew (Fundulus sciadicus),and brassym1'anGW
<br />(lflyh(Jgnau$ hantdnsom'),no longereccurinthc area.
<br />, ,
<br />
<br />.egetatiQu. The Upland Vegetation CqmmltnitYfnventoly andmanagemCnn~itrCOlMlc1!1~atioIis~~~qjjt
<br />(Mauree1i(),'Sh\lacStlDn\l,1997) identi:fie€lsixh~bitattypes(ex~ludingwetlan€!1i}:, eottonwG@dgrf/J~ea(;/!!iwi(lus
<br />spp.), co:tt@Iiw0odlslumbs,cobb1e bars, reclaimedfJ,elds/pastures,weedY Eetds,and,c~It1'\TatedEtilds. .', ..., '. ." '
<br />Cottonw@od groves andcottonwood/slumbs are the desirell!i1Ol!1Wianithrsfoft1!reFtp!lrlancQJltidor.We~4Lyplant
<br />speciesdotninatemany of the uplandllJieas.Twenty-two of'tlleU;J~ t!pland.plant speciresidetitifh'll!1 ililthe
<br />UlllaJil,d Vegetatiofl report are listed as noxions weeds undet tJlte'Cellltifdo .Weel\!. Law@a@lliltletCol;lntiTl;I:li1S}~
<br />Ofthe tenspedes Hst\ldas "hjgh:est ptiority" for cOlitr@lunderColera:deWeed Law, five,-diffuse kma:pwe\ld
<br />(Acosta diffilsa)" Can~da thistle (Cirsiumarvel1se),tnuskthistle(Carduus ,nuttlns),bl;ltter-and'eggs'~fnui'ta
<br />VIillgaris), and field bifldweed, (C<involvutusarvensis-)--oe\':J:ir 01tl!)feprojectsite.
<br />
<br />
<br />Thc 1988repoWelititled, "Mappil1g,.Ecotogiea,lCha.ractti)rizatIclnaild'FUIieti011al A:ssessmel1t ofWetl!li).dsand
<br />Riparian Ateas akmg tower BoultlerCteek", identifie051 wetIltni:lareas(Bt:Jtl1detCoUl1ty 1998).~ei1ty.tjve
<br />of those are natur411andscape features, ,and mostrrccurinthefr!tquent floodplain o'fBbulder Creek.A,1t\lled
<br />flewregimes,channelizatron, and land developfnenfhavest!rai:gE\relied and shottenedthecftmmel and'tedueed
<br />or climina:tedtheactivefloodplain. As a tesult, these riparianwehlaJil,ds have been signifi'cantlyreduGii.q.l1:1 '
<br />addjtiGn,many of the 51 wetlands areliew domihatedby ihtroclhceii species such as reed canaryg'tilS's
<br />(PhalaroidesaruntJinaae(Je). '
<br />
<br />Watel.' ~uality. WatetqualityprobleltisinlowerBoWOer Cteek;lhwe existe'dfor sometftne. Wa.ter~!.lldbty
<br />datacol1eetedin .1'986 show significant changes in water quaHty Ilfelow thcClty of:EloUlder' swastew~er
<br />treatlllentplant Recentd4ta.indicateeontinuedanunoliiaIOltdihg GfB6ulUerCteek. During lowffowFci'feds"
<br />the .flows in Boulder Creek are primarily wastewater return flows; which are not cOIlducive to thede",ltopment
<br />.d maintenance of aquatic cormnurtities.Coa:l Creek flews are alsodoIi1inatedbygray"waterrelu'rnfIt\lws from
<br />upstream wasteWater facilities. '
<br />
<br />His not thc purpose of the Scotian 206projeeHo acldresswater q1iHl1it-y complianeeissl;lcs, as-thi:swat1lube
<br />contrary to program guidelines. Compliance issues and human use constraints deriving from water q[Ual~~y
<br />problems are addressed by other programs within other agencies, and by Corps regulatory functions. Seej;i0n
<br />206 rcstoration and enhancement features are intended to improve habitat for the benefit offish and wildlife;
<br />any impact on watcr quality compliance issues would be incidental to the habitat restoration purposes.
<br />
<br />The expected outputs aJid how they will be measured. The restoration of degraded wildlifehabitatwonld
<br />beneEt resident fish, wildlife, and migratory birds by improving biodiversi-tyand earrying capooity. 'the'
<br />proposed project would improve, restore, or enhance approxintately 1.6 miles of13ouldet Creek and aSSlil"eiated
<br />riparian corridor. Restoration actions may include il1crea:singsinuosity andrll'fleJpoolcomplexes, imprGving .
<br />connectivitybetwe.enth\l river and the flaodplain,plantingl1ativevegetation, installingwet1andprote<\tiol1
<br />measures, and constn.rtting in-stream structureS (e.g. benlder elusters, j-weirS, v-weirs, woodydebri'S,etc).
<br />
<br />Queen of the River Fish Cempany conducted a survey and analysis of chmmcl stability and fish habitat in 1997
<br />as part of the Lower B0Ulder Creek and Coal CreekOpenSpaceMasterPlail(BoUlderCeunty 199$}:.'1'he
<br />analysis found that most ef the study area was in fair to poor condition, which would likely remai:iJ.thesame or
<br />degrade further over time. Output from the restoration project would strive to rai.se the rating to good. A
<br />detailed rating analysis is presented in the MasterPlan. Key c0tnponelits used to develop the rating an.u'Ysis
<br />include bank slope gradicnts, width to depth ration, bank rock content, ctc. The following table summarizes
<br />.ese eutputs. , '
<br />
<br />
<br />.7-
<br />L:\SecUon Folders\SECA\Board Meetings\September 2002\Agenda item 19.Corps report attachement.doc
<br />~~ '
<br />
<br />09/03/2002 PM
<br />
|