Laserfiche WebLink
Page 5 <br />active cutting to make the channel steeper and deeper is not <br />occurring. This cross section appears stable. <br />Cross Section 4 This area is noticeably steeper than the channel <br />above. This area is on the lower edge of the bonded strip. Flow <br />in the channel appears to be concentrating into a single channel <br />instead of braiding as noted in last years report. Cross Section <br />4 of Figure 1 shows agradation in the northern channel and in fact <br />this area showed considerable vegetation. The main channel shows <br />no increase in depth of the channel but a steepening of the side <br />wall to the north. Rock armoring at the bottom of the channel <br />varies in size from 2 to 3 inches in diameter. Vegetation, thinner <br />than the upper reaches, exists on the bottom and south sides of the <br />main channel. The area in the vicinity of this cross section <br />appears stable, however the potential for cutting from this section <br />to the next is possible. This area will continue to be monitored <br />for excessive erosion. <br />Cross Section 5 This cross section is located on un-bonded land <br />and is being monitored only to predict how this area might affect <br />that of the bonded portion. In this vicinity vegetation is present <br />on some of the side slopes of the channel but none was noticed in <br />the bottom. Rock size in the channel varies from 2 to 6 inches in <br />diameter and the channel appears well armored. Comparing of the <br />cross sections between 1992 and 1993 shows minor degradation at the <br />channel bottom but not enough to say that head cutting is <br />threatening the bonded area above. This area shows very little <br />change from last years survey and over this span of time can be <br />considered stable. <br />Based on the data collected from these five cross section areas and <br />a general survey of the area this concentrated flow feature does <br />not appear to be experiencing excessive erosion. For this reason <br />no mitigative measures are proposed for this concentrated flow <br />feature at this time. <br />Subarea 1 Erosion Condition Classification <br />This area is shown in the 1992 report on Exhibit 1, Sheet 2 of 2. <br />South of Shop Subarea 1 was evaluated using the methods described <br />in BLM Technical Note No. 346. The erosion condition composite <br />soil surface factor score for this site is 10.6, which places it in <br />the Stable erosion class. The tabulated results for the 1993 <br />survey are contained in Table 3. <br />Subarea 2 Erosion Condition Classification <br />This area is shown in the 1992 report on Exhibit 1, Sheet 2 of 2. <br />This area was also evaluated using the methods described in BLM <br />5/26/93 DLB <br />