Big Thompson River Restoration Master Plan Stakeholder Kick off Meeting and Workshop April 12, 2014
AGENDA 1:30 to 2:10 Information 2:10 to 2:35 Questions 245t 2:45 to 4:00 400 Worksession in Cafeteria Cft 4:00 to 4:30 Conversations with Agency Representatives
PURPOSE OF TODAY S MEETING Information What is a master plan? Who does it affect? What is the schedule? What are others doing related dto the master plan? Answer Questions Obtain information that will help the project team develop the restoration master plan
INTRODUCTIONS Project Sponsors Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Community Foundation of Northern Colorado Larimer County City of Loveland NorthernWater Conservancy District New Belgium Brewing Project Lead Organizations Big Thompson River Restoration Coalition (BTRRC) Wildlands Restoration Volunteers (WRV) Consulting Team Ayres Associates, Logan Simpson Design Agencies and Partners Colorado Dept. of Transportation (CDOT), Larimer County, Loveland, Milliken, Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPW), US Forest Service (USFS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Big Thompson Watershed Forum, Central Federal Lands (CFL), Trout Unlimited
BTRRC Lukas McNally lukas@ wlrv.org 970 493 2075 Bigthompsonriver.org
WHAT IS A MASTER PLAN? Planning document that establishes a holistic framework. Purpose is to result in a cohesive design as individual projects are designed and implemented. Based on private and public goals Written document Existing conditions, goals, choices, preferred concepts, potential projects, implementation possibilities, management practices Graphics Conceptual plans, prototypical sections, etc.
MASTER PLAN GOALS Increase Resiliency through Improved River Function Reduce Risk to Lives and Property (flooding, erosion, contamination, safe river access) Protect Public Infrastructure Avoid Impacts to Private Improvements Enhance Water Quality Improve Ecological lfunction Enhance Aesthetics
BENEFITS TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS Opportunity for input into restoration activities Provides information needed for grant and loan applications Coordinated restoration approach and guidance for activities (bank stabilization and river channel improvements, soil replacement, revegetation, fisheries, etc.)
MASTER PLAN STUDY AREA Big Thompson from Olympus Dam to the South Platte North Fork and its upper tributaries nearglen Haven Glen Haven Drake I 25 North Fork Loveland South Platte River Olympus Dam Big Thompson River Estes Park Milliken
SCHEDULE
SCHEDULE
THE FLOOD OF SEPTEMBER 2013 Compared to 1976 flood 1976 Heaviest rainfall on watershed below Olympus Dam Very intense, short duration rainfall (10 inches in 3 hours) Heavy rainfall covered a very small area 2013 Widespread rainfall including watershed above Olympus Dam Less intense but much longer duration rainfall Watershed average was 885inches 8.85 over 10 days Some areas had over 13 inches total Much greater total volume of rainfall Much less loss of life
THE FLOOD OF SEPTEMBER 2013 Peak Discharge Comparison 2013 Higher: North Fork BigThompsoninLoveland in anddownstream downstream Buckhorn Creek Emergency releases from Olympus Dam 2013 Lower: Big Thompson above Drake Big Thompson Mouth of Canyon
THE FLOOD OF SEPTEMBER 2013 Damage in 2013 flood caused by: Deep flood waters at high velocity Bank erosion and channel shifting Surfaceerosion erosion on floodplain Massive sediment deposition in places Flanking of bridges (aggravatedby debris) Channel enlargement River breached dinto ponds Loss of hillsides through erosion at base
RESTORATION MEANS: Put the river back the way it was Return it to a natural state Give me my property/land back Get a good, resilient road built Restore access to my property Prevent future destruction by floods Limit public access to my property Plant more streamside vegetation/trees Put in good fishing sites
CHANNEL STABILITY LATERAL bank erosion, channel shifts VERTICAL aggradation or degradation d LOCATION steep canyon versus wide valley bottom CHANNEL CAPACITY wide channel versus narrow channel, roadway encroachment OBSTRUCTIONS bridges, debris (woodyor or man made), boulders/bedrock
CHANNEL CAPACITY Confined reach with encroachment increased flood elevation Post road flood elevation Pre road flood elevation Roadway Embankment Fill Embankment Riprap Pre road ground Existing ground
CHANNEL CAPACITY Confined reach channel widening Pre flood ground Post flood ground
FLOODWAY CAPACITY Wide valley floor aggradation and channel shift Post flood ground Pre flood ground
RESTORATION SHOULD: Account for public safety Protect tproperty and infrastructure t Restore the channel to a geomorphically and hydraulically stable condition Create or improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat Be designed to withstand certain levels of flooding Be aesthetically pleasing
RESTORATION WORK Determine if we can use hard versus soft bank armoringor a combination Hard armor = quarry stone riprap, boulder revetment Soft armor = willow pa plantings, root wads, tree trunks, encapsulated soil lifts Do we have room to increase channel capacity? Will it be stable under targeted flow conditions? Will it have an adverse impact on conditions upstream or downstream?
QUESTIONS
WORKSHOP Walk to cafeteria and find table with map of reach that you are interested in. Glen Haven Drake Narrows Mariana Butte I 25 North Fork Loveland South Platte River Olympus Dam Big Thompson River Estes Park US287 Milliken
WORKSHOP Work in groups to identify needs, goals, o g oupsto de t y eeds, goa s, opportunities or challenges related to key themes: Safety Access (bridges/roads) or access management Erosion/Stabilization Habitat Creation (terrestrial and aquatic/fishing) Aesthetics Water Quality
WORKSHOP Summarize great ideas, areas of agreement, areas of disagreement Make list of additional questions that emerge At 4:00 official meeting is over. Can stay to ask questions of agency representative or planning team members. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!