4.0 recommended improvement projects study website... · presentation of projects has been...

RIPARIAN CORRIDOR STUDYFINAL CITY CREEK MANAGEMENT PLAN

SALT LAKE CITY OCTOBER 2010

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES BIO-WEST, INC.4-1

Figure 4.1. Schematic illustration of a contributing watershed areadraining to an urban riparian corridor. Illustration from FISRWG 1998.

4.0 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Overview of ProjectTypes

A variety of improvementprojects are recommended toaddress the issues identified aslimiting riparian functions in theCity Creek corridor and toimprove overall riparianconditions. To be effective,different types of projects mustbe implemented at differentspatial scales. Therefore, thepresentation of projects has beenorganized into four groups basedon the appropriateimplementation scale.

“General” projects includemeasures that are appropriate toimplement at any scale within theriparian corridor. Generalprojects are effective whenimplemented at a single point orproperty within the corridor, andthey are also effective whenimplemented at a broader scalethroughout an entire streamreach or the entire ripariancorridor.

“Local-scale” projects arerelevant to specific individuallocations or features such as aparticular storm drain, stream-crossing culvert, or in-channelstructure. These types of projectsare appropriate to implement ata local scale, although upstreamand downstream reach andwatershed conditions should be

considered in the design of local-scale projects.

“Reach-scale” projects are mosteffective when implementedthroughout an entire streamreach or throughout a series ofconnected stream reaches. Bank-stabilization efforts thataffect channel areas within theAHWL, grade-control projects toimprove streambed stability, andprojects involving recreationaltrails and access are examples ofreach-scale projects. The startingand ending locations for reach-scale projects should typically beestablished “hard” points such asstream crossings where thechannel position is fixed. Reach-scale projects related torecreational access should beimplemented comprehensivelythroughout all reaches within agiven management unit.

“Watershed-scale” projects areapplicable both within andbeyond the riparian corridor,throughout the entire watershedarea that drains to City Creek(Figure 4.1). Watershed-scaleefforts attempt to halt or reversesome of the root causes ofriparian corridor degradation,such as hydrologic alteration,sediment-supply alteration,and/or water quality pollution.

General Projects

Stream Cleanup

This improvement measureinvolves organizing a group ofpeople to pick up trash within aspecific riparian corridor area. Planning a cleanup eventinvolves selecting a date andspecific location, publicizing the




event and recruiting volunteerhelp, making arrangements forproper disposal and recycling ofthe collected trash, and obtainingsupplies via purchase ordonations (trash bags, first aidkits, waders, water/refreshments,etc.). Stream cleanups can beorganized by local individualcitizens, school groups, localgovernment entities, or otherorganizations.

A special consideration on CityCreek is that western poison ivyis prevalent in some reaches;cleanup organizers should besure to educate volunteers toidentify and avoid the plant and

provide preventative lotions asneeded. A County flood-controlpermit may be required forcertain types of cleanup projects. Stream-cleanup projects enhancethe aesthetic function of ripariancorridors and can also improvewater quality by removingpotential pollution sources fromthe riparian corridor.

Mechanized TrashRemoval

Many of the litter areas that werenoted and mapped duringbaseline assessment effortsconsist of heavy, over-size itemsthat would not be possible toremove by hand during avolunteer cleanup event. Therefore, trash removal incertain locations would requiremechanized equipment such asbackhoes or all-terrain vehicles. City or County crews would mostlikely be the most appropriateentities to implement this type ofproject, as they have theappropriate equipment andtrained labor on staff. However,there may also be opportunitiesto use volunteer labor orequipment by involving localconstruction or landscapingbusinesses in the cleanup project.

Planning a mechanized trashcleanup project involves selectinga date and specific location forthe project, making arrangementsfor proper disposal and recyclingof the collected trash,constructing temporaryequipment access routes if

needed, and revegetating accessroutes once work is complete. Inlocations where the trash to beremoved includes failed bankrevetment or in-channelstructures (concrete pieces, etc.),the mechanized cleanup projectmay need to be implemented inconjunction with a bank orstreambed stabilization project toensure that the removal of theold materials does not initiateany new erosion. Relevant City,County, and/or State permits willbe needed if the project wouldcause significant disturbance orinvolve the use of heavyequipment in riparian areas. Mechanized trash removalprojects enhance the aestheticfunction of riparian corridors andcan also improve habitat andfiltration functions whenrevegetation is included as acomponent of the project.

Stream Adoption

The state of Utah has establishedan “Adopt-a-Waterbody”program through a partneringeffort between the UtahDepartment of EnvironmentalQuality, the Utah Department ofNatural Resources, and the UtahDepartment of Agriculture andFood with support from UtahState University Water QualityExtension (www.adoptawaterbody.utah.gov/). Modeled afterthe national “Adopt-a-Highway”program, this program provides away for community volunteergroups or local businesses tomake a formal commitment totake care of specific sections or

Potential partneringorganizationsfor stream-cleanupprojects:

• Trout Unlimited

• Natural ResourcesConservation Service

• Utah Division of WildlifeResources

• Utah Federation forYouth

• Girl Scout and Boy ScoutGroups

• Utah State UniversityWater Quality Extension

• School Groups orClassrooms

• American Rivers NationalRiver Cleanup Program




areas of a stream, lake, orwetland. Activities could includeorganizing stream cleanups,monitoring water quality,controlling invasive species, orplanting native riparian

vegetation. A sign posted nearthe upper Bonneville Boulevarddebris basin lists Trout Unlimitedas having adopted a portion ofCity Creek within the RCS studyarea.

Removal of Invasive PlantSpecies

This improvement measureinvolves controlling andremoving invasive plant speciesand replacing them with nativeplants. Invasive plant removalprojects are important for theenhancement of riparianfunctions including habitat forwildlife and birds, filtration ofsediment and pollutants, andstream stability. Table 4.1provides a comprehensive list ofinvasive vegetation species toavoid planting within the CityCreek corridor. In reaches wherethese species are present,removal of the invasive speciesand replacement with nativeplants are recommended.

Techniques for invasive speciescontrol and removal includephysical, cultural, biological, andchemical measures. Physicalcontrols, also known asmechanical controls, involvepulling or otherwise removingplants or portions of plants. Types of physical controlsincluding hand pulling, disking,or mowing. Cultural controlsinvolve establishing vigorous,desirable plant species that areable to out-compete the invasiveweed species. Biological controls

involve reducing invasive weedpopulations through theintroduction of insect orpathogen bio-control agents. Chemical controls involveapplying herbicides to weedinfestations. Because of thesensitive nature of riparian areas,chemical controls should always

Internet resources for improvementprojects:

Stream cleanup and adoption:

• www.adoptawaterbody.utah.gov/

• www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/national-river-cleanup/nrc-organizer-handbook.pdf

Invasive species control:

• www.recreation.slco.org/planning/natural.html

• www.weeds.slco.org/html/weedInfo/index.html

• extension.usu.edu/weedweb/www.utahweed.org

• www.slch2o.com

Utah State UniversityExtension - firewise plantinformation:

• www.utahfireinfo.gov/prevention/firewiseplants.pdf

Center for WatershedProtection (low impactdevelopment and storm watermanagement):

• www.cwp.org/

Best managementpractices for herbicideapplicationin streamside areas:

• use herbicides cautiouslyas one element of anintegrated weed controlstrategy

• spot spray rather thanbroadcast spray

• avoid spraying duringwindy conditions

• avoid spraying in the rainor when rain is forecast

• only use chemicalsformulated and approvedfor use near water

Local sourcesof watershed safeherbicides: a

• Steve Regan Company,Salt Lake City,801-268-4500

• Wilbur Ellis Company,Ogden, 801-399-3775

a This list is partial, provided forreference only, and does notconstitute an endorsement bySalt Lake City.




Table 4.1. List of weeds and invasive species to avoid planting within the riparian corridor. Where thesespecies are present, they should be controlled using appropriate techniques and replacedwith native species.

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAMEUTAH STATE

LISTED NOXIOUSWEED a

CITY WATERSHEDDIVISION LISTED

WEED

OTHER INVASIVESPECIESTO AVOID

SPECIES NOTED AS CURRENTLYPRESENT IN THE CITY CREEK

RIPARIAN CORRIDORBlack henbane Hyoscyamus niger X XDiffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa X XLeafy spurge Euphorbia esula X X

MedusaheadTaeniatherum

caput-medusaeX X

Oxeye daisyChrysanthemumleucanthemum

X

Perennial sorghum(Johnson grass)

Sorghum halepense X X

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria X XSpotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa X X XSquarrose knapweed Centaurea squarrosa X XYellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis X X XYellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris X XMusk thistle/Nodding plumeless thistle Carduus nutans X XBermudagrass Cynodon dactylon X XBroad-leaved peppergrass Lepidium latifolium X XDalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica X X XDyer's woad Isatis tinctoria X X XWhitetop (Hoary cress) Cardaria spp. X X XPoison Hemlock Conium maculatum XRussian knapweed Centaurea repens X XSquarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata X XCanada thistle Cirsium arvense X X XGypsyflower (Houndstongue) Cynoglossum officinale X X XSaltcedar Tamarix ramosissima X XQuackgrass Elymus repens X XPuncture vine Tribulus terrestris X XPurple starthistle Centaurea calcitrapa XMyrtle spurge Euphorbia myrsinites X XScotch thistle Onopordum acanthium X XBull thistle Cirsium vulgare X XCommon burdock Arctium minus X XGarlic mustard Alliaria petiolata XCamelthorn Alhagi pseudalhagi XGoatsrue Galega officinalis XRussian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia X XSiberian elm Ulmus pumila X XTree of heaven Ailanthus altissima X XJointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrical X X

Field bindweed Convolvulus spp. X

English ivy Hedera helix X XPeriwinkle spp. Vinca minor/major X Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia X X

Rampion bellflowerCampanula

rapunculoidesX

Norway maple Acer platanoides XCheatgrass Bromus tectorum X X

a Utah State-listed noxious weeds (http://ag.utah.gov/divisions/plant/noxious/documents/noxUtah.pdf) are subject to regulation by State law under Section 4-17-3,Utah Noxious Weed Act.




Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila).

English ivy (Hedera helix). FromJeff McMillian, Plants.usda.gov.

be implemented using bestmanagement practices (BMPs).

Species-specific controlrecommendations for many ofthe species listed in Table 4.1 aredescribed in existing availablepublications, many of which areavailable online. Specific controlrecommendations are includedbelow for several invasive speciespresent in the study area that arenot as well documented inavailable literature. City andCounty permits may be requiredfor certain types of invasivespecies removal projects.

English Ivy ControlEnglish ivy is a woody, evergreenclimber that has advantageousroots along the stems. Theleaves have a dark green,smooth, waxy surface and arefound along the length of thestems. This species is atraditional ornamental thatestablishes a thick mat along theground and also climbs up

adjacent vertical elements, suchas trees, fences, and buildings. This species is present as aground cover within forestedriparian areas adjacent todevelopment and has thepotential to out-compete nativeunderstory, shrub layers, andcanopy vegetation components. Because it has a shallow rootsystem and low stem density,English ivy performs poorly interms of serving the riparianfunctions of bank stabilizationand nutrient filtration.

Manual control has been sited asone of the best options foreffective control of English ivy. Mowing, raking, pulling, anddigging accessible plants areviable options. Due to the waxyleaves of English ivy, herbicidetreatments have not been verysuccessful. This species isconsidered tolerant to manyherbicides because of the thick,waxy cuticle. If herbicide use isnecessary, particular attentionshould be paid to activelyyoung/growing plants. Makesure that any herbicide usedwithin the riparian corridor isapproved for use near water. There are no known biologicalcontrols available for this species. Revegetation with nativeunderstory plants should alwaysaccompany English ivy removalefforts. Revegetation areasshould be monitored forsuccessful regrowth of desirablespecies.

Siberian Elm ControlSiberian elm (Ulmus pumila) is adeciduous tree that has escapedcultivation and become aninvasive component withinriparian forest ecosystems,around lakes, and other naturalareas. This species propagatesreadily from seeds, establishes inharsh environments, and growsrapidly. It is a brittle tree thatoften sheds its branches, evenduring mild winds. This specieshas been a popular choice as ashade tree, but its presence canimpair riparian functions. Specifically, the species modifiesits environment by displacingnative plant species, using a greatamount of ground water, andreducing the abundance anddiversity of wildlife species. Itsbrittle habit contributessubstantially to blockages alongstream channels and at culverts(USDA 2003).




Girdling the trunks has beencited as a viable option for thecontrol of mature Siberian elm. Girdled trees die over the course

of 1–2 years and have beenreported not to resprout if thegirdling is implemented correctly. This practice should beimplemented in late spring tomid summer. When girdling,avoid cutting into the woody partof the tree and only strip a bandthrough the bark. Often, whenwoody portions of trunks areimpacted, resprouting from theroots can occur. Seedlings andsmall trees can be removed bypulling or using a weed wrenchor grubbing hoe.

The use of glyphosate isrecommended for use ascut-stem application for largetrees and resprouts. Herbicideapplications are recommendedduring fall or winter to preventspring resprouts. There are noknown available biologicalcontrols for Siberian elm.

Revegetation with NativePlants

As a general practice,revegetation with native plants isrecommended for existingdisturbed areas or areas whereinvasive plants have beenremoved. Revegetation practicescan also be used to re-establishnative understory or shrubcommunities where thesevegetative layers are currentlylacking. Projects to re-establishhealthy, structurally diversenative riparian plant populationscan enhance the riparianfunctions of habitat, nutrientfiltration, bank stability, organic

matter inputs, shading, andfloodplain storage. To besuccessful, general revegetationefforts should only occur in areaswhere any underlying causes ofdisturbance (e.g., streambankerosion or scour, soil compactionfrom foot traffic) have beenaddressed. Otherwise, therevegetation efforts should beimplemented in conjunction withother types of projects (accesscontrol, bank stabilization, etc.),as appropriate.

Steps involved in generalrevegetation projects include:adding or preparing andloosening topsoil; planting withnative vegetation using seed,containerized plants, and/or liveplant stakes; and protecting thearea with mulch. To maximizewildlife habitat, shading, andfiltration, use a mix of understory,shrub, and tree species selectedfrom the recommended ripariancorridor planting lists (Tables 4.2,4.3, and 4.4), as appropriate. Bark, straw, or wood fiber mulchis typically adequate to protectrelatively gentle slopes of 3:1 orflatter. For slopes between 3:1 to2:1 in steepness, use the plantingtechniques described above, butinstead of mulch use abiodegradable erosion-controlblanket (matting or netting madeof jute, wood fiber, straw, orcoconut) to protect therevegetated area. Use ofadditional preparationtechniques, such as sloperoughening or micro-terracing,can also improve revegetation

Local sources of nativeplants: a • Blue Sky Perennials

801-718-7715www.blueskyperennials.com

• Cactus and Tropicals 801-485-2542www.cactusandtropicals.com

• Dryland [email protected]

• Grow Wild LLC 801-467-8660www.growwild.biz/

• Growing EmpirePerennials and Shrubs801-685-7099www.growingempire.net

• High Mountain Nursery435-731-0107www.highmtnnursery.com

• Millcreek Gardens801-487-4131www.millcreekgardens.com

• Sun Mountain [email protected]

a This list is partial, provided forreference only, and does notconstitute an endorsement bySalt Lake City.




Table 4.2. Recommended native canopy (tree) species for planting efforts within the riparian corridor.

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME

PREFERRED LIGHTCONDITIONS

PREFERRED MOISTURECONDITIONS

SPECIESSUITABLE

FOR PLANTINGAS A LIVECUTTING

Sun ShadePartSun/

Shade

RelativelyDry Upper-

Slope Areas

SeasonallyMoistAreas

Springor Seep

AreaBigtooth maple Acer grandidentatum X X Chokecherry Prunus virginiana X X X Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziessi X X Gray alder Alnus incana X X Narrowleafcottonwood

Populus angustifolia X X X

Netleaf hackberry Celtis laevigata X X Peachleaf willow Salix amygdaloides X X X XTwoneedle pine Pinus edulis X X Utah juniper Juniperus osteosperma X X X Water birch Betula occidentalis X X

Table 4.3. Recommended native shrub species for planting efforts within the riparian corridor.


PREFERRED LIGHTCONDITIONS

PREFERRED MOISTURECONDITIONS

SPECIESSUITABLE

FOR PLANTINGAS A LIVECUTTING OR STAKE

Sun ShadePartSun/

Shade

RelativelyDry Upper-

Slope Areas

SeasonallyMoistAreas

Springor Seep

AreaAlderleaf mountain mahogany Cercocarpus montanus X X Antelope bitterbrush Purshia tridentata X X Big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata X X X Creeping barberry Mahonia repens X X X Golden currant Ribes aureum X X X Mallow ninebark Physocarpus malvaceus X X X XMountain snowberry Symphoricarpos oreophilus X X X Narrowleaf willow Salix exigua X X X XOregon boxleaf Paxistima myrsinites X X Redosier dogwood Cornus sericea X X X XSkunkbush sumac Rhus trilobata X X Snowbrush ceanothus Ceanothus velutinus X X Twinberry honeysuckle Lonicera involucrata X X XUtah mountain-lilac Ceanothus martinii X X Utah serviceberry Amalanchier utahensis X X X Western snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis X X Whitestem gooseberry Ribes inerme X X Woods’ rose Rosa woodsii X X X XYellow willow Salix lutea X X X XYellow rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus X X




Table 4.4. Recommended native understory (ground cover) species for planting efforts within the ripariancorridor.


PREFERRED LIGHT CONDITIONS PREFERRED MOISTURE CONDITIONS

Sun ShadePart Sun/

Shade

Relatively DryUpper-Slope

Areas

SeasonallyMoist Areas

Spring or Seep

Area

Arctic rush Juncus arcticus X

Arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata X X

Aspen fleabane Erigeron speciosus X X

Blue wildrye Elymus glaucus X X

Butterfly weed Asclepias tuberosa X X

Desert needlegrass Achnatherum speciosum X X

Feathery false lilyof the valley

Maianthemumracemosum

X X

Fendler's meadow-rue Thalictrum fendleri X

Firecracker penstemon Penstemon eatonii X X X

Hairy false goldenaster Heterotheca villosa X X

Indian ricegrass Achnatherumhymenoides

X X

Indianhemp Apocynum cannabinum X X

Littleseed ricegrass Poptatherummicranthum

X X

Longleaf phlox Phlox longifolia X X

Mountain phlox Phlox austomontana X X

Muttongrass Poa fendleriana X X

Prairie flax Linum lewisii X X

Purple threeawn Aristida purpurea X X

Rocky Mountain penstemon Penstemon strictus X X X

Showy lupine Lupinus polyphyllus X X X

Slender cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis X X

Starry false lily of the valley Maianthemum stellatum X X

Sticky purple geranium Geranium viscosissimum X X

Torrey's rush Juncus torreyi X

Towering Jacob's ladder Polemoniumfoliosissimum

X X

Wasatch beardtongue Penstemon cyananthus X X X

Western sweetroot Osmorhiza occidentalis X X

Western columbine Aconitum columbianum X

Western white clematis Clematis ligusticifolia X X

White sagebrush Artemisia ludoviciana X X

Wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa X X




Figure 4.2. Importance of slope steepness in selecting appropriaterevegetation and stabilization measures. Illustrationfrom FISRWG 1998.

success on slopes in thissteepness range. On slopessteeper than 2:1, revegetationefforts should incorporatebiotechnical slope stabilizationmeasures to prevent slopeerosion (Figure 4.2).

Containerized plants susceptibleto herbivory by deer or otherwildlife should be protected usingwire mesh or other methods. Fall (September 15–December 1)is the recommended time periodfor revegetation efforts using seedand containerized plants; projectscompleted during the spring areoften successful as well. Latewinter/early spring is therecommended time period forconducting projects using liveplant stakes, which should beharvested while dormant andplanted prior to the growingseason. Where revegetationefforts are implemented as partof larger-scale stabilization orchannel-improvement projects,planting and seeding effortsshould be timed to occur shortlyafter all ground-disturbingactivities are complete.

Establishment of No-MowBuffers

This improvement measureinvolves establishing a fringe ofnaturalized vegetation betweenthe stream channel and adjacentmanicured turf areas. Thistechnique is relevant within theformal lawn area of MemoryGrove Park (reach LCC_R02B). No-mow buffers enhance theriparian functions of nutrientfiltration, shading, andstreambank stability, and reducethe potential for water qualitycontamination from fertilizers andchemicals. Ideally, the bufferwould consist of a 50-foot orwider fringe of native plants;where this is not possible, theestablishment of even a narrowarea where turf or native grassesare not cut shorter than 8 inches

Native seed sources: a

• Ames Utah Native Seed,Eureka [email protected]

• Granite Seed Co., Lehi801-768-4422www.graniteseed.com

• Maughan Seed Co.,Manti801-835-0401

Other Planting Resources:

• Utah Native Plant Societywww.unps.org

• Intermountain NativePlant GrowersAssociationwww.utahschoice.org

• Tree Utahwww.treeutah.org

a This list is partial, providedfor reference only, and does notconstitute an endorsement bySalt Lake City.




Figure 4.3. Schematic illustration of toe, bank, and upper slopezones and recommended treatment approaches.

will provide significant benefits. Research has shown that buffersas narrow as 15 feet caneffectively provide 85% removalof suspended solids from runoff(Wenger 1999). The use offertilizers, insecticides, andpesticides should be avoidedwithin the no mow buffer area. A detail drawing of one type ofno-mow buffer technique isprovided in Appendix B, drawing1. Available publications provideadditional examples and detailsabout this technique and how toresolve potential concernsregarding safety, visibility,aesthetics, and transitioning to“active” turf areas (BSC 2009).

Biotechnical SlopeStabilization

This improvement measureinvolves combining revegetationwith more traditional, “hard”geotechnical slope-stabilizationtechniques. Biotechnical slope-stabilization methods incorporatestructural elements that make itpossible to achieve stability onsteep slopes where plants alonewould not provide adequatestrength. Because theyincorporate vegetation, thesetechniques enhance the riparianfunctions of habitat, filtration,aesthetics, organic matter inputs,shading, and floodplain storage

as well as bank stability. Stabilization methods that lackvegetation (e.g., concrete walls,rip-rap) are not recommendedfor the study area because theydecrease the ability of thecorridor to serve these riparianfunctions. In general, the use ofconcrete and other impervioustreatments should be avoidedbecause of widespread erosionproblems observed at soil-concrete interfaces during RCSfield assessments. Concretestructures are also generally lessaesthetically pleasing thanvegetative techniques and areprone to being defaced withgraffiti.

Biotechnical slope stabilization isrecommended as a general typeof project when implemented inareas above the AHWL whereany underlying causes ofdisturbance have beenaddressed. Appropriate areas forgeneral application ofbiotechnical measures includethe slope zone and upper portionof the bank zone as identified inFigure 4.3 . If stability problemsat a specific location areassociated with stream erosion orundercutting of the bank toe,biotechnical slope-stabilizationprojects should be implementedat the reach scale and shouldincorporate toe protection andgrade control, as appropriate.

Relevant State, County, and Citypermits are required for mostbiotechnical slope-stabilizationprojects occurring within theriparian corridor.




Specific types of biotechnicalslope-stabilization techniquesrecommended for use within theCity Creek riparian corridorinclude:

• vegetated soil lifts

• vegetated rock revetmentusing live stakes, poleplantings, and/or brushlayering

• vegetated modular blockretaining walls

• vegetated crib retainingwalls

• vegetated gabion basketretaining walls

Photographs illustrating some ofthese techniques are provided inFigure 4.4, and selected detaildrawings are provided inAppendix B, drawings 2–6. Thislist is not intended to beexhaustive. Biotechnical plantingtechniques are adaptable andcan readily be combined increative ways to meet site-specificneeds. Other techniques such aswillow bundles, brush mattresses,live fascines, vegetated rockwalls, and coir fiber rolls are alsorecommended for use within thestudy area. Comprehensivediscussion of individualtechniques is beyond the scopeof this document, but moredetailed information is readilyavailable in existing publicationssuch as those listed in thesidebars of this chapter.

Figure 4.4. Photographs of revegetation and biotechnical slope-stabilization techniques. Top left: erosion-controlblanket and live stakes (image from FISRWG 1998). Topright: live pole plantings (image from FISRWG 1998).Bottom left: containerized cottonwood (Populus sp.)planting protected from herbivory with wire mesh cage.Middle right: installation of live plant posts to createvegetated rock revetment (image from NRCS 2007).Bottom right: vegetated soil lifts with live plant stakesand rock toe protection.




Local-Scale Projects

Storm Drain OutletProtection

The use of vegetated rock isrecommended as outletprotection for new storm drainoutfalls installed within theriparian corridor and as a retrofitmeasure to correct erosionproblems at existing outfalls. Avegetated, rock-lined swaleshould be installed to conveyrunoff from the protected outletto City Creek. Vegetated rock-lined swales should also beinstalled where rills wereobserved at interface pointsbetween installed gabion basketsand natural bank material. Useof these techniques avoids theerosion and scour problemscommonly associated withconcrete outlet protectionstructures and providesenhancement of the riparianfunctions of wildlife habitat,streambank stability, andfiltration of pollutants, sediment,and nutrients.

Photographs illustrating thesetechniques are provided inFigure 4.5, and detail drawingsare provided in Appendix B,drawings 7 and 8. Installation ofstorm drain outlet-protectionmeasures requires relevant State,County, and City permits. In some locations where existingdrain outfall systems appear tobe inadequate for runoff volume,outlet protection measuresshould be accompanied by

measures to improve storm watermanagement (e.g., installation ofretention basins, flow spreaders,French drains, or additional drainpipes).

Stream Crossings and Utility CulvertReplacement

This improvement measureinvolves replacing existing

Figure 4.5. Photographs of outlet protection and stream crossingtechniques. Top left: rock outlet protection. Top right:stream crossing using a bridge made from a recycledrailroad flatcar. Middle left: vegetated rock-lined swaleimmediately following construction. Middle right: streamcrossing using an open-bottom box culvert. Bottom left:vegetated rock-lined swale in second growing season.Bottom right: tailwater pool at culvert outlet.




narrow-span culverts and bridgeswith wider-span open-bottombox culvert or bridge structures. In City Creek, no major erosionor scour problems were generallynoted at stream crossings. However, some crossings haveopenings as narrow as six feetand affect flow hydraulics andtransport of sediment and debris(see Table 3.5). Replacementstructures should have widespans equal to or greater thanthe wetted width of the streamchannel during high-flowconditions. Use of wide-spancrossing structures with natural-substrate bottoms allows forcontinued transport of sedimentand debris, and eliminates thepotential for deposition andscour problems that can occurwhen flows are constricted atnarrow-diameter crossings. It isrecommended that wide-spanstructures be used for any newcrossings built within the CityCreek corridor. Implementationof this measure will improve theriparian functions of streamstability, connectivity for fish andwildlife, aesthetics, andfloodplain storage, and willreduce the maintenance neededto prevent culverts from clogging. Photographs of these techniquesare provided in Figure 4.5, and adetail drawing is provided inAppendix B, drawing 9. Stream-crossing projects will typicallyrequire site-specific professionalengineering design as well asrelevant State, County, and Citypermits.

Stream Daylighting

Where feasible, daylightingselected portions of City Creekdownstream from the RCS studyarea that are currently piped isrecommended as a ripariancorridor improvement measure. Returning piped stream sectionsto the landscape as naturalchannel features is potentiallyone of the most valuable types ofimprovement projects. Daylighting projects can improvehabitat connectivity, aesthetics,filtration, floodplain storage,recreational opportunities, andoverall habitat quality and area. Because these projects convertstraight, narrow pipes to moresinuous, wider open-air channels,downstream erosive velocities arealso reduced, leading toadditional stability benefits. Stream daylighting projectsinvolve the use of heavyequipment and require site-specific professional design aswell as relevant State, County,and City permits. Landscapingdesigns for daylighted channelsshould utilize native plants andincorporate vertical structure(e.g., understory, shrub, and treespecies) to maximize habitatvalue for birds and other wildlife. Channel designs should usenatural streambed substrate andpermeable bank protection (e.g.,vegetated rock rather thanconcrete or grouted rock) topromote floodplain storage andfiltration.

Publicationsthat provide detaileddescriptions of slopestabilization and stream repairtechniques (completereferences areprovidedin the References section of thisdocument):

• Schueler and Brown. 2004. Urbansubwatershed restorationmanual 4: urban streamrepair practices. Available at:www.cwp.org/Store/usrm.htm#4/.

• Gray and Sotir. 1996. Biotechnical and soilbioengineering slopestabilization: a practicalguide for erosioncontrol.

• FISRWG 1998. Streamcorridor restoration: principles, processes,and practices. Availableat: www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/.

• NRCS. 2007. Nationalengineering handbookpart 654: streamrestoration design. Available at:policy.nrcs.usda.gov/viewerFS.aspx?hid=21433.

• McCullah and Gray. 2005. NCHRP report544: environmentallysensitive channel- andbank-protectionmeasures.




Bank ProtectionRetrofitting

In many areas of the City Creekriparian corridor, streambanksand slopes have been hardenedusing boulder rip rap or gabionbasket techniques that lackvegetation and aesthetic appeal. In many cases the rip rap orgabions extend beyond theactive bank zone to upper slopeareas that are not subject toerosive stream flows. Wherefeasible, these hardened bankareas should be modified toincorporate vegetation toenhance the riparian functions ofshading, aesthetics, habitat, andfiltration.

As a first step in designing aretrofit project, slope steepnessshould be measured and localstream hydraulics evaluated toaccurately determine the AHWL. Where possible withoutcompromising slope stability, theupper tiers of rock or gabionsabove the AHWL should beremoved and slopes revegetatedwith native plants, usingappropriate biotechnicalstabilization techniques asneeded. For banks protectedwith rip rap, the lower bank areaswithin the AHWL should then beretrofitted using live posts andplant stakes in the gaps betweenrocks to create vegetated rockrevetment (see example in Figure4.4). Similar methods can beused to establish woody plantswithin the lower tiers of gabionbaskets using smaller-diameter

plant stakes. Additional gabionbasket retrofit details areprovided in Appendix B, drawing10. Bank protection retrofitprojects will typically require site-specific design as well as relevantState, County, and City permits.

Wet Utility CrossingHazard Assessment

Numerous utility pipelines thatconvey water, sewage,petroleum, and natural gas crossthe City Creek riparian corridor. Spills from these pipelines couldhave significant negative impactson stream and riparianconditions. Pipeline crossingsshould be assessed to require aregular schedule to evaluate andreport on the condition of thepipes, identify potential hazardsor safety concerns, andrecommend improvements toremedy any concerns. Any newwet utility crossings proposedwithin the riparian corridorshould incorporate hazardreduction measures such asconcrete casings/collars and 4-foot minimum soil cover, or otherBMP measures as deemedappropriate by the Director ofDPU.

Reach-Scale Projects

Grade Controland Streambed StructuralProtection

A number of existing in-channelstreambed hardening structureswere observed within the City

Creek corridor. Most of theseconsist of poured concrete sillsand/or grouted concrete apronsthat have typically been installedto stabilize the streambed whereutility pipes cross underneath thechannel. Because flow velocitiesaccelerate over these smoothconcrete surfaces, some degreeof bed scour is commonimmediately below thesestructures. Where this scourcreates a significant verticalelevation drop, fish passage maybe impeded and bank stabilitymay be compromised. Toprevent these potential problems,replacement of concrete bedstructures with alternative gradecontrol structures such as vortexrock weirs and rock step-pools isrecommended. If completereplacement is not possible, arock-lined tailwater pool (FHWA2006) should be installedimmediately below the concretesill to dissipate energy andreduce vertical drops to heightsthat remain passable by fish. Detail drawings illustrating thesetechniques are provided inAppendix B, drawings 11–14.

Rock-based grade controlstructures such as vortex rockweirs and rock step-pools presentseveral advantages over concretestructures. These types ofstructures are hydraulically“rough,” which helps to dissipateerosive energy. They also createpool features that can enhanceaquatic habitat.

Because the horizontal spacingbetween the upper layer of rocks




Material suppliersfor improvement projects: a

• www.contech-cpi.com(bridge, drainage,stabilization, storm water)

• www.thebmpstore.com(erosion control, inletprotection, slopestabilization)

• www.maccaferri-northamerica.com (erosion control, retainingwalls, bioengineering)

• www.rolanka.com (erosion control,sediment control, soilbioengineering)

• www.geovireo.com(erosion control,sediment control, soilbioengineering)

• www.horizononline.com(erosion control andlandscaping)

• www.herculesmfg.com(modular retaining walls)

• www.skipgibbs.com(recycled railroad carbridges)

• www.americanexcelsior.com (erosion controlsolutions)

a This list is partial, providedfor reference only, and does notconstitute an endorsement bySalt Lake City.

is fairly wide, sediment beingtransported downstream is ableto pass through the weir withoutbecoming trapped. Vortex rockweirs are also relatively low-profile structures that do not alterflow hydraulics to the sameextent as other types of gradestructures that function more likesmall dams. Because large-sizeboulder materials are required,installation of streambedprotection structures willgenerally involve the use ofheavy equipment.

Because grade-control andstreambed protection structuresinfluence channel shape and flowhydraulics, they have thepotential to destabilize upstreamand downstream areas if they arenot implemented correctly. Areach-scale evaluation of existingnatural and installed gradecontrol features should becompleted prior to designing agrade control/ bed protectiondevice for a single location. Depending on the proximity andcondition of adjacent existingstructures, additional rock weirsor step pools may need to beinstalled upstream anddownstream from the location ofinterest to ensure adequate gradecontrol protection is achievedthroughout the entire reach.

Grade-control projects requiresite-specific professional designto determine required rock sizes,structure spacing, and weirdimensions. Relevant State,County, and City permits areneeded for grade-control

projects. Such projects alsorequire that precautions, such asflow diversion or temporarydewatering, be taken to limitdisturbance during constructionand reduce potential impacts towater quality and fish.

Bank Stabilization

In reaches where excessive bankerosion poses a risk to adjacentinfrastructure, comprehensivebank stabilization isrecommended as a reach-scaleimprovement project. In CityCreek, this situation is generallyrare because such a largeproportion of the banks havealready been hardened withgabion baskets. As discussedpreviously in this chapter,retrofitting these existinghardened bank areas to improveriparian vegetation conditions isrecommended. In some cases,there may be interest in fullyreplacing existing bankprotection structures. Thecomprehensive reach-scale bankstabilization techniques describedin this section are recommendedfor such efforts. Thesetechniques may also prove usefulin combination with reach-scaleaccess control measures whereexcessive foot traffic hasdestabilized streambanks to theextent that simple revegetationefforts will not prove adequate.

Reach-scale bank stabilizationefforts involve the installation oftreatment measures within theAHWL and affect the bank and




toe zones (Figure 4.3). Thesetypes of efforts affect the shapeand flow hydraulics of the activestream channel and have thepotential to destabilize upstreamand downstream areas if notimplemented correctly andcomprehensively. Therefore, tomaximize long-term effectivenessand minimize future maintenancecosts, bank-stabilization projectsshould be implemented at thereach scale.

As a general principle, banktreatments that protrude into theactive channel or floodplainshould be avoided wheneverpossible. To improve bankstability, channel width should bemaintained or expandedwherever possible to allow floodflows to spread out, reducedownstream velocities, anddissipate erosive energy. Insituations where infrastructureconstraints on a givenstreambank require thattreatment measures protrudebeyond the existing banklocation, concurrent measuresshould be taken to re-establishaccessible floodplain area on theopposite bank to maintain floodconveyance capacity and avoidincreasing downstream flowvelocities.

Bank stabilization projectsrequire site-specific professionaldesign to determine scour depth,required rock sizes, structurespacing, and dimensions. Relevant State, County, and Citypermits are needed for bank-stabilization projects. These

projects also require thatprecautions, such as flowdiversion or temporarydewatering, be taken to limitdisturbance during constructionand reduce potential impacts towater quality and fish. Somespecific bank-stabilizationtechniques are discussed below(detail drawings are provided inAppendix B, drawings 15–17).

Toe ProtectionBecause of the erosive flowvelocities associated with theurbanized condition of thedownstream-most reaches of theCity Creek corridor, bank-stabilization projects in this areashould incorporate the use ofhard treatments within the toezone (Figure 4.3) where theresistive strength of vegetationalone is typically not adequate. Above the toe zone, thetreatment emphasis should focuson the establishment ofvegetation using the revegetationand biotechnical stabilizationtechniques described above inthe General Projects section.

Toe protection using large,immobile rock installed to themaximum depth of scour isrecommended for areas whereheavy equipment access ispossible (see toe protectioncomponent of drawings 2–5 inAppendix B). In areas whereaccess is more limited, the use ofA-jacks® toe protection isrecommended as an alternativeto large rock. A-jacks® areconcrete, three-dimensional,cross-shaped devices that can be

assembled onsite to create astable “cage” to hold cobble-sized rock that would otherwisebe mobile (see Figure 4.6 andAppendix B, drawing 15). Aswith rock toe protection, A-jacks® toe protection should betrenched in below the channelbed to the depth of maximumscour. Toe protection can becombined with any of thebiotechnical slope stabilizationtechniques described previouslyto design a reach-appropriatecomprehensive bank stabilizationproject.

Redirective TechniquesRedirective techniques involveinstalling measures to redirectflow away from an eroding bank,typically at the outside of a bend. Because of the risk that theredirected flows could causeerosion on the opposite bank oradjacent channel areas, thesetechniques should always bedesigned by qualifiedprofessionals and special cautionmust be used to ensure that allsusceptible bank areas areadequately protected. Specifictypes of redirective techniquesinclude wing deflectors, log orrock vanes, root wads, and spurdikes (Schueler and Brown 2004,McCullah and Gray 2005, NRCS2007). Rock vanes with J-hooksare a recommended techniquefor appropriate locations in theCity Creek corridor (Appendix B,drawing 17). The specificrecommended design involveskeying-in the hook structure tothe bank opposite the vane




structure to reduce the risk oferosion.

Access Control and TrailStabilization

Implementation of measures tocontrol foot traffic and stabilizeaccess trails is recommended instream reaches that receiveheavy recreational use. Suchmeasures can reduce soilcompaction, enhance vegetationquality, and improve streamstability. Access needs should beassessed and planned at the

reach scale so that controlmeasures do not simply shifterosion and soil compactionproblems elsewhere. Specificrecommended measures includethe installation of split rail fencingto focus and direct foot trafficand installation of pervious stepsto provide stream access (Figure4.6 and Appendix B, drawing18).

In particularly high-use areas,installation of stabilized perviousaccess ramps (Appendix B,drawing 19) may be appropriate.

These ramps are alsorecommended for areas whereregular flood controlmaintenance access isanticipated.

At existing established picnicsites, multiple/redundant user-created access trails were oftenobserved leading to the creek. Inthese areas, reclamation andrevegetation of redundant trails isrecommended. Log “curbing”and/or split rail fencing should beinstalled around the perimeter ofthe established picnic site todirect foot traffic to a single,designated, stabilized creekaccess point.

Watershed-ScaleProjects

In urban stream channels wheredevelopment has degraded waterquality and altered watershedprocesses, ecological andbiological recovery may not bepossible through implementationof physical channelimprovements alone (Bernhardtand Palmer 2007). In the moreurbanized lower City Creekreaches, the value andeffectiveness of the local andreach-scale improvementmeasures previously discussedwill be greatly enhanced if suchmeasures are implemented inconjunction with watershed-scaleefforts to improve water qualityand restore connectivity andhydrologic processes (Roni et al.2008). Specific types ofwatershed-scale projects

Figure 4.6. Photographs of grade-control, bank-stabilization, and access-control techniques. Top left: construction of a vortex rock weir. Top right: A-jacks toe protection(image from Schueler and Brown 2004). Bottom left:downstream view of two vortex rock weir structures.Bottom right: steps that provide stabilized streamaccess.




recommended for City Creek aredescribed below.

Manage and ReduceImpervious Surfaces

This improvement measureinvolves taking steps to limit theadverse hydrologic and waterquality effects of increasedimpervious-surface associatedwith new construction andhistorical urban development. Although extensive newdevelopment is not anticipatedwithin the City Creek watershed,some areas within the lowersubwatershed could becomedeveloped or be re-developed. Also, if portions of the existingNorth Temple conduit(downstream from the RCS studyarea) are daylighted, the use oftechniques to reduce impervioussurface impacts would be highlyrelevant to those daylightedchannel sections. Retrofitmeasures could also beimplemented to reduce existingimpervious surface acreage andincrease storm water infiltration. Managing and reducingimpervious surfaces would helpreduce erosive storm-flowvelocities, improve water qualityand channel stability, andincrease summertime base flows. Reducing impervious surfaceswould also reduce the potentialfor direct transport of pollutantssuch as automotive fluids intoadjacent stream channels.

Specific techniques could includerunoff disconnection and

infiltration practices, green roofs,installation of bio-swales insteadof curb and gutter/raised mediansystems, and use of alternativepaving techniques. An in-depthdiscussion of specific techniquesis beyond the scope of thisdocument, but detailedinformation is readily available inexisting publications (Schuelerand Brown 2004, SLCO 2009)and at web sites identified in thesidebars in this documentsection. Coordination with theexisting Storm Water Coalitiongroup, a City-Countypartnership, is alsorecommended.

Increase Public Awareness

Improving conditions within theCity Creek riparian corridor willbe a long-term effort that willrequire continued awareness,interest, and support from stakeholders and the community

Internet resources for storm watermanagement:

• www.cwp.org

• www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/

• www.stormwatercoalition.org

• www.seattle.gov/UTIL/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/NaturalDrainage_Systems/NaturalDrainage_Overview/index.asp




at-large. To achieve this type ofsupport, public awareness of theCity Creek riparian corridor andits ecological functions will needto increase. Therefore, a publicawareness campaign should beimplemented. Elements of thiscampaign could includeinstallation of interpretive andeducational signs that describeriparian functions, identify nativeplant species, and explain theimportance of protectingstreambanks from excessive foottraffic. The presence ofBonneville cutthroat trout in CityCreek and their relationship toancient Lake Bonneville couldalso be highlighted. Theseinterpretive efforts could bedesigned to compliment existingsigns and displays in theFreedom Trail area of MemoryGrove and to coordinate with

watershed protection signage inthe upper portions of the RCSstudy area.

Other public awareness effortscould include sponsoring streamcleanups, storm drain stencilingprojects, weed pulls, field trips,and educational workshops. Such efforts could becoordinated with existingoutreach campaigns such as SaltLake City’s “Water Week” event,annual weed pull events in CityCreek Canyon, and the annualSalt Lake Countywide WatershedSymposium.

PermittingRequirements

Depending on the nature of aspecific improvement project,permits may be required prior to

initiating work in or near thestream channel. Information onthe jurisdictions and therequirements of relevantpermitting authorities is providedbelow. Permit requirements aresummarized by project type inTable 4.5. Where jurisdictionsoverlap, separate permits from allrelevant agencies are required.

State Stream Alteration

The State of Utah’s DWRTadministers a stream alterationprogram through the office of theState Engineer. Under Section73-3-29 of the Utah Code,authorization is required prior toinitiating alterations to the bed orbanks of a natural streamchannel. The intent of theprogram is to limit adverseimpacts to the natural streamenvironment and associatednatural resources. Statejurisdiction generally includes




Table 4.5. Summary of permit requirements for recommended types of improvement projects.

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

PERMITS REQUIRED a

StateStream

Alteration

County FloodControl

City Riparian Protection - Developed Lots

Area A (25 feet) b

Area B (50 feet)

Area C (100 feet)

GEN

ERA

L PR

OJEC

TS

Stream Cleanup (manual) N M N N N

Mechanized Trash Removal Y1 Y2 Y Y Y

Removal of Invasive Plants N Y2 M1 M1 M1

Revegetation (seed or plantings, no grading) N N N N N

Biotechnical Slope Stabilization Y1 Y2 Y Y3 N

Slope flattening or terracing Y1 Y2 Y Y3 N

Vegetated soil lifts Y1 Y2 Y Y3 N

Vegetated rock revetment Y1 Y2 Y Y3 N

Vegetated modular block retaining wall Y1 Y2 Y Y3 N

Vegetated crib retaining wall Y1 Y2 Y Y3 N

Vegetated gabion basket retaining wall Y1 Y2 Y Y3 N

LOCA

L PR

OJEC

TS

Storm Drain Outlet Protection Y1 Y2 Y Y Y

Outlet protection using vegetated rock Y1 Y2 Y Y Y

Vegetated rock-lined swale Y1 Y2 Y Y Y

Stream Crossings and Utility Culvert Replacement Y Y Y Y Y

Full-span bridge Y Y Y Y Y

Open-bottom box culvert Y Y Y Y Y

Streambed Structural Protection Y Y Y Y Y

Rock-lined tailwater pool Y Y Y Y Y

Rock step pool Y Y Y Y Y

Stream Daylighting Y Y Y Y Y

REA

CH-S

CALE

PRO

JECT

S

Grade Control Y Y Y Y Y

Vortex rock weirs Y Y Y Y Y

Bank Stabilization Y Y Y Y Y

Toe protection Y Y Y Y Y

Redirective techniques Y Y Y Y Y

Floodplain re-establishment Y Y Y Y Y

Access Control and Trail Stabilization N Y2 N N N

Split rail fence N Y2 N N N

Access steps N Y2 Y N N

a N = not required, M = may be required, Y = required, Y1 = required if work occurs within two times the bankfull width of the channel, Y2 = required if work occurs within20 feet of accessible top of channel bank, Y3 = required if work involves heavy equipment, M1 = removal of live, invasive trees greater than 2 inches caliper requires (1)approval by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities and (2) replacement with approved tree species.b On undeveloped land Area A extends to 100 feet.




those areas within a distance oftwo times the bankfull width ofthe channel, up to a maximum of30 feet beyond bankfull on eitherside of the channel. In mostcases for streams within the City,the bankfull channel width isroughly equivalent to the AHWL channel width used to establishsetback distances under theCity’s RCO ordinance. Therefore, State stream alterationjurisdiction typically includes thechannel itself, RCO Area A, andup to a 5-foot extent of RCOArea B (Figure 1.3). If a projectwill impact jurisdictionalwetlands, a Federal permit fromthe U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (ACOE) may berequired under Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act in additionto the State Stream Alterationpermit. Where this is the case,the DWRT would typicallyforward an application to theACOE and the two agencieswould issue separate permits.

County Flood Control

The County’s Public WorksDepartment, Engineering andFlood Control Divisionadministers a flood-controlpermit program under Title 17 ofthe County code. The focus ofthe County program is to ensurethat activities do not increaseflooding risk or restrict theCounty’s access to channels forflood-control purposes. Thecreeks within the City areconsidered county-wide flood-

control facilities and are subjectto the County requirementsunder Title 17. Jurisdictionincludes those areas within adistance of 20 feet of the top ofthe accessible channel bank. Theaccessible channel bank isdefined as the point beyondwhich slopes become too steepfor access by vehicles orequipment. Where a streamchannel is bordered by relativelyflat surfaces, the accessiblechannel bank location may besimilar to the AHWL, but wherethe channel is entrenchedbetween steep slopes Countyjurisdiction may extend wellbeyond RCO Area A and intoAreas B and/or C. Because ofthis variability, the extent ofCounty jurisdiction should bedetermined on a site-specificbasis.

City Riparian Protection

Salt Lake City’s RCO ordinance(Ordinance 62) establishesrestrictions and provisions foractivities occurring within setbackareas extending 25 feet (Area A),50 feet (Area B), and 100 feet(Area C) from the AHWL (Figure1.3) of above-ground streams. The intent of the RCO ordinanceis to protect and preserve theCity’s streambed corridors andassociated natural resources. The City requires that a RiparianProtection Permit (RPP) beobtained for certain activitiesoccurring within the relevantsetback area. The RPP program

Internet resources for more detailedpermittinginformation:

• State Stream Alteration:www.waterrights.utah.gov/strmalt/default.asp

• County Flood Control:www.pweng.slco.org/flood/html/permits/permits.html

• City Riparian Protection:www.slcgov.com/Utilities/Stream Study Website/ud_rcs_Ordinance.htm

Common items requiredin a permit applicationsubmittal:

• project location andresponsible partyinformation

• narrative project description

• site plan

• design drawings (crosssection, plan, profile views)

• hydrologic and hydrauliccalculations

• soils and slope steepnessdata

• channel size and slope data

• scour and rock sizingcalculations

• information on proposedBMPs to protect water




is administered through theDepartment of Public Utilities.

Relative Costs of ImprovementProjects

Estimated unit cost informationfor different types ofimprovement projects issummarized in Table 4.6. Thesecosts are approximate and wereobtained from various sourcesincluding price estimates frommanufacturers, referencedocuments (Schueler and Brown2004, SLCO 2009), previousimprovement projects designedby BIO-WEST, Utah Departmentof Transportation bid summariesfrom 2008 and 2009 (UDOT2008, UDOT 2009), and DPUengineering staff.

Total costs for implementation ofspecific projects will be variabledepending on project scale andthe specific treatment practicesinvolved. Many projects willinclude a combination oftechniques based on the needs ofa given site or reach. The unitcosts listed in Table 4.6 can beused as a basis from which todevelop more complete costestimates for specific efforts asfunding sources, lead entities,and detailed work scopes aredefined. It is important to bear inmind that many projects will alsoinvolve costs associated withpreconstruction planning taskssuch as detailed topographicsurveys, permit applications, andsite-specific design. In addition,

most projects will also requireexpenditures for postconstructionmaintenance and monitoring.

Although it is not possible toquantitatively distinguish totalcosts for the differentimprovement techniques in ageneral sense, relative costs canbe evaluated qualitatively (Table4.7). At one end of thespectrum, costs for stream-cleanup and -adoption efforts,which are typically done byvolunteers with donated supplies,will be very low. Publicawareness, invasive plantremoval, revegetation, andmechanized trash-removal effortscan also often incorporate theuse of volunteer labor anddonations. These types of effortswill typically fall in thelow-to-moderate range in termsof relative cost depending on thescale and complexity of thespecific effort. Projects involvingaccess control, trail stabilization,and storm drain outlet protectionwill typically fall in the moderaterange. These techniques requirepreconstruction planning andsite-specific design but materialscosts will typically be in themoderate range.

Costs for relatively small-scalebiotechnical slope-stabilizationefforts that are implemented onlyin areas above the AHWL willalso typically be in the moderaterange. Biotechnical stabilizationprojects that involve work withinthe AHWL will also require toeprotection, and possibly gradecontrol, as well as more involved

permitting and design work:These will be high-cost efforts. For the same reasons,comprehensive bank-stabilization, grade-control,culvert outlet-protection, andstream-daylighting projects willgenerally be high in cost. Coststo replace culvert crossings withbridges or box culverts willgenerally be high to very high,depending on the size of theculvert to be replaced, the size ofthe specific road or trail crossing,and traffic volume of the affectedroad or trail.

Different types of improvementpractices also vary in terms of therange of potential riparianfunction benefits they provide(Table 4.7). For example, effortsto increase public awareness andencourage stream adoption willhelp generate long-term support,commitment, and interest in theCity Creek riparian corridor. This support and commitment, inturn, have the potential to lead toimplementation of a variety ofimprovement measures thatcould potentially benefit all theidentified riparian functions. Other types of projects target amore specific subset of riparianfunctions. The informationprovided in Table 4.7 can beused to help guide decisionsabout the types of projects topursue based on stakeholders’priorities for different sites andstream reaches within the studyarea.




Table 4.6. Approximate unit cost information for improvement projects. TYPE OF PROJECT UNIT UNIT COST a SOURCE OF COST INFORMATION

GEN

ERA

L PR

OJEC

TS

Removal/control of invasive plants acre $600—900 BIO-WEST (2009)

Revegetation using custom seed mix acre $2,000—4,000 BIO-WEST (2009)

Erosion control blanket square yard $2—5 UDOT 2008 and 2009

Revegetation - live plant stakes per stake $2—5 supplier estimate, BIO-WEST (2009)

Revegetation - 1-gallon containerized plants per plant $9—17 UDOT 2009, BIO-WEST (2009)

Revegetation - 5-gallon containerized plants per plant $15—80 UDOT 2009, BIO-WEST (2009)

Revegetation - 2-inch caliper trees per plant $175—325 UDOT 2009, BIO-WEST (2009)

Slope flattening or terracing square yard $3—10 UDOT 2008 and 2009 b

Vegetated soil lifts linear foot $30—60 DPU (2009)

Vegetated rock revetment linear foot $50—80 DPU (2009)

Vegetated modular block retaining wall linear foot $120—160 supplier estimate, DPU (2009)

Vegetated crib retaining wall linear foot $250—300 Schueler and Brown 2004

Vegetated gabion basket retaining wall linear foot $70—110 DPU (2009)

LOCA

L PR

OJEC

TS

Outlet protection using vegetated rock square yard $70—120 DPU (2009)

Vegetated rock-lined swale linear foot $60—85 DPU (2009)

Railroad flatcar bridge(89 feet long x 8.5 feet wide)

each $50,000—90,000 supplier estimate, BIO-WEST (2009)

Pre-fabricated truss pedestrian bridge(30 feet long x 6 feet wide)

each $30,000—100,000 supplier estimate, BIO-WEST (2009)

Open-bottom box culvert(10—12 feet wide x 4—6 feet high)

linear foot $2,500—6,500 DPU (2009)

Rock-lined tailwater pool cubic yard $70—120 DPU (2009)

Rock step pool each $2,000—6,000 Schueler and Brown 2004

Stream daylighting linear foot $100—300 Schueler and Brown 2004

REA

CH P

ROJE

CTS

Vortex rock weirs each $1200—2100 Schueler and Brown 2004

A-jacks toe protection linear foot $65—85 Schueler and Brown 2004

Rock toe protection cubic yard $70—110 DPU (2009)

Rock vanes with J-hooks cubic yard $150—250 SLCO 2009

Floodplain re-establishment cubic yard $5—20 UDOT 2008 and 2009 c

Split rail fence(minimum 1,500 feet, 10 feet on center)

linear foot $8—15 supplier estimate, BIO-WEST (2009)

Access steps linear foot $25—75 BIO-WEST (2009)

a Unit costs will typically be on the low end of the indicated range for large-scale projects that involve large quantities and on the high end of the range for small-scaleprojects.b Cost reported for clearing/grubbing and landscape grading.c Cost reported for excavation.




Table 4.7 Summary of relative project costs and potential riparian function benefits.

IMPROVEMENT PROJECTAPPROXIMATE

RELATIVECOST

POTENTIAL RIPARIAN FUNCTION BENEFITS

Hab

itat

Sha

ding

and

Wat

er -

Tem

pera

ture

Con

trol

Aes

thet

ics

Recr

eati

on

Floo

dpla

in S

tora

ge

Conn

ecti

vity

Orga

nic

Mat

ter

Inpu

ts

Filt

rati

on o

f Sed

imen

tsan

d Po

lluta

nts

Str

eam

bank

Sta

bilit

y

Sto

rm W

ater

Con

veya

nce

Stream Cleanup (manual) very low x x

Mechanized Trash Removal low to moderate x x x x

Stream Adoption low x x x x x x x x x x

Removal of Invasive Plants low to moderate x x x

Revegetation with Native Plants low to moderate x x x x x x x

Establishment of No-Mow Buffers low x x x x x

Biotechnical Slope Stabilization moderate to high x x x x x x x

Storm Drain Outlet Protection moderate x x x x x

Culvert Replacement with Bridgeor Open-Bottom Box Culvert

high to very high x x x x x x

Stream Daylighting high x x x x x x x

Grade Control high x x x x x x x

Comprehensive Bank Stabilization high x x x x x x x

Access Control and TrailStabilization

moderate x x x x x

Manage and Reduce ImperviousSurfaces

variable x x x x x x

Increase Public Awareness low to moderate x x x x x x x x x x




Maintenanceand MonitoringConsiderations

Costs associated with long-termmaintenance and monitoring areimportant to consider whenplanning, designing, andimplementing riparian corridorimprovement projects. Maintenance and monitoringconsiderations for different typesof projects are summarized inTable 4.8.

For many of the recommendedimprovement measures,maintenance costs can bereduced by up-front investmentsto ensure that projects areinitially designed well,implemented at the appropriatescale, and installed correctly.

Some of the observed problemswithin the riparian corridor areassociated with stabilizationefforts that were installed withoutproper attention to toeprotection, grade control,reach-scale hydraulics, naturalchannel dimension, vegetationestablishment, or bed scour. Lack of attention to these itemscan result in projects that failafter only a few years—or,worse, projects that cause newstability problems in other nearbychannel locations.

For some types of projects suchas invasive plant control, accesscontrol, or stream-cleanupprojects, long-term monitoringand maintenance requirementsare inherently relatively high. Because litter, foot/dog traffic,and invasive plant problems are

chronic/ongoing by nature, theycannot be fixed through aone-time investment alone. Stream reaches affected by theseissues require vigilance andregular maintenance; withoutfollow-up, any benefits from a one-time effort will likely beshort-lived despite high initialinvestment. Invasive plantcontrol projects, in particular,should not be implementedunless plans are in place to insurethat funding and labor will beavailable for needed long-termmaintenance.

Follow-up monitoring is often arequirement for projects fundedby grants. As a general rule,post-project monitoring isrecommended as a way toevaluate the success of differenttechniques and inform adaptivemanagement to improve theeffectiveness of future projects.

Grant Resources for FundingImprovement Projects

Implementing the recommendedriparian corridor improvementprojects will require significantfinancial investment. A variety ofresources for financial assistancevia grants and loans are available from Federal, State, and privatesources. Information on specificrelevant funding programs issummarized in Table 4.9.




Table 4.8. Summary of maintenance and monitoring considerations for various improvement projects.IMPROVEMENTPROJECT

MONITORING MEASURES MAINTENANCE MEASURES NOTES

Stream Cleanup(manual)

Report any observed illegal dumping toauthorities Hold a cleanup event once a year Areas that receive heavy use may require

more frequent cleanups

MechanizedTrash Removal

Inspect once a year; note/photograph/reportlocations of any new over-sized items; reportdumping to authorities

Schedule removals as needed based onmonitoring observations

Monitoring could be completed inconjunction with annual stream cleanupevent

Removal/Controlof InvasivePlants

Inspect treated areas for control effectiveness1 month after each treatment; monitor/mapinvasive plants once every 3 years inconjunction with general riparian vegetationmonitoring

Three treatments during year 1; one tothree treatments per year during years2—5; one treatment every 2 years duringyears 6 and beyond

Invasive plant control cost isapproximately $250/acre/treatment

Revegetationwith NativePlants

Inspect revegetated areas monthly during first6 months; inspect twice per growing seasonduring years 2 and 3

If needed, irrigate during initialestablishment period; after first growingseason replace any dead plants andspot-apply new seed as needed

Based on typical plant mortality rates,budget for replacement of 25% of initialplantings

BiotechnicalSlopeStabilization

Monitor during construction to ensure correctinstallation; inspect during and after first highflow period following installation; monitorrevegetation success; inspect project aftermajor floods

If needed (following first high flow period),make adjustments/repairs to any “hard”elements (rock etc.) to ensure project isperforming as intended; replace dead ordying vegetation as needed

Long-term maintenance typically minimalonce vegetation becomes well established a

Storm DrainOutletProtection

Monitor during construction to ensure correctinstallation; inspect during/after first majorstorm event following installation; monitorrevegetation success

If needed (following post-storminspection), adjust/repair rock to ensurestructure is performing as intended;replace dead or dying vegetation/reseedas needed

Long-term maintenance typically minimalonce vegetation becomes well established;may need maintenance when storm drainpipe reaches end of life span and isreplaced

CulvertReplacementwith Bridgeor Open-BottomBox Culvert

Monitor during construction to ensure correctinstallation; inspect during/after first high flowperiod following installation; throughout life ofstructure inspect periodically and after majorfloods for channel stability and for signs ofstructural degradation

Repair channel stabilization treatments invicinity of structure as needed/relevant;replace the bridge or box culvert at theend of its life span (estimated atapproximately 35—65 years)

Because they are more efficient atpassing debris and sediment, thesewide-span crossing structures shouldrequire significantly less maintenanceduring high flow periods than existingsmaller-diameter culvert pipes

Grade Control

Monitor during construction to ensure correctinstallation; inspect during and after first highflow period following installation; inspect aftermajor floods

If needed (following first high flow period),adjust/repair to ensure structure isperforming as intended

No special long-term maintenance typicallyrequired a

ComprehensiveBankStabilization

Monitor during construction to ensure correctinstallation; inspect during and after first highflow period following installation; monitorrevegetation success; inspect project aftermajor floods

If needed (following first high flow period),make adjustments/repairs to any “hard”elements (rock etc.) to ensure project isperforming as intended; replace dead ordying vegetation as needed

Long-term maintenance typically minimalonce vegetation becomes well established a

Access ControlFencing

Monitor monthly for damage/vandalism duringfirst year following installation; inspect twice ayear during following years

Repair as needed based on monitoringobservations; add deterrents such asbrush barriers, signs, etc. as needed inchronic problem areas

Budget additional $1/linear foot/year forexpected repair costs; more in highest-useareas

a Major floods on the order of 100-year recurrence interval events may result in channel changes that may require maintenance or re-installation of stabilizationmeasures.




Table 4.9. Information on funding programs to support riparian corridor improvement projects.PROGRAMNAME

AWARDINGENTITY

DESCRIPTION AVAILABILITY DEADLINE AWARDAMOUNT

CFDA a

NUMBERCONTACT INFORMATION,

WEBSITE, AND NOTESFive StarRestorationGrant

EPA b grants for collaborativecommunity-based

riparian, coastal, orwetland restoration

projects

partnership ofgovernment,

nonprofit, academic,private, and

community interests

midFebruary

$5,000—$20,000

66.462 www.epa.gov/wetlands/restore/5star/

Emphasis on collaborative efforts witheducational, training, and scientificmerit.

State RevolvingFund/AmericanRecovery andReinvestmentAct

Utah DWQ c Federal stimulus fundsto address

demonstrated waterquality needs

open June 1 $4 milliontotal

available

N/A Shelly Andrews, Leah Ann Lamb, or EdMacauley: 801-538-6146

www.waterquality.utah.gov/stimulus/

Project must address demonstratedwater quality need in nonpoint sourcepollution, water or energy efficiency, orgreen infrastructure/environmentalinnovation.

FinancialAssistanceProgram

Utah DWQ c grants and 0% and low-interest loans for

projects to addresswater quality needs,

provide environmentaleducation, and improve

water resources

open none $20 milliontotal

available

N/A 801-538-6146

www.waterquality.utah.gov/FinAst/NPSFinAid.htm

Eligible projects include runoff reduction,water-resource conservation,groundwater quality, water quality,nonpoint source pollution prevention,and environmental education.

ProjectAssistanceProgram

Utah DWQ c collaboration and fundingfor water quality

improvement projectsthrough grants and low-

interest loans

community none variable N/A 801-538-6146

www.waterquality.utah.gov/FinAst/Comgd1.htm

Project must result in a water qualitybenefit. Stream bank restorationprojects are eligible.

ACORNFoundationGrant

ACORNFoundation

grants for community-based projects to

preserve and restorehabitats, advocate for

environmental justice, orprevent/remedy pollution

nonprofit grassrootsorganizations workingin low-to-moderate-income communities

January 15,June 15

$5,000—$10,000

N/A [email protected]

www.commoncounsel.org/Acorn%20Foundation

Letters of inquiry are accepted but fullapplications are by invitation only. Projects require a strong communityfocus, especially low-to-moderateincome and leadership development.

Blue WaterCommunityAction Grant

Royal Bank of Canada

grants for nonprofitgrassroots initiatives

(including municipalities)for watershed protection

and drinking wateraccess

nonprofit 501c(3)organizations

March 6(rolling)

$1,000—$5,000

N/A www.rbc.com/donations/blue-water.html

Project must be involved in watershedprotection or drinking water access. Online applications are available.




Table 4.9. Information on funding programs to support riparian corridor improvement projects (cont.).PROGRAMNAME

AWARDINGENTITY


CFDA a


WEBSITE, AND NOTESRiverwayEnhancementGrant

Utah DPR d grants for theenhancement of riverand stream corridors,

including recreation andflood control

cities, counties, andspecial-service

districts

May 1(annually)

$50,000—$100,000

(50%matching)

N/A Lyle Bennett: 801-538-7354

www.governor.state.ut.us/rplr/rdcc/2001webfolders/dnr/riverway-enhanc.pdf

While use of assistance may only includeriver and stream corridors prone toflooding, it may include a variety ofoutdoor recreation development.

Nonpoint SourceImplementation(Clear WaterAct Section319) Grant

Utah DWQ c funding to addressnonpoint source pollution

state and tribalagencies andmunicipalities

variable variable(typical range

$30,000—$50,000)

66.460 Michael Reichert: 801-538-6954

www.epa.gov/owow/funding.html

WatershedProtection and FloodPrevention/SmallWatershedProtectionProgram

NRCS e technical and financialassistance to help

communities protect,improve, and develop landand water resources in

watersheds

any entity with stateauthority to carryout, maintain, andoperate proposed

improvement,including nonprofit

groups

none $650,000average total

amountavailable per

state

10.904 Norm Evenstad: 801-524-4550

www.ut.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/pl566.html

Eligible projects include flood prevention,public recreation, groundwater recharge,and watershed protection.

Plant Materialsfor Conservation

NRCS e provision of (1) plantmaterials for use inrestoration and (2)

breeder stock and seedfor use by commercial

growers

cooperating stateand Federal agencies

and commercialgrowers

none plantmaterials

10.905 NRCS e office: 801-524-4550

Emphasis on field-testing and plant-material technology

WatershedSurveys and Planning

NRCS e technical and advisoryassistance for

watershed planning

open (includes nonprofit

organizations, privateentities may not be

eligible)

none technical andadvisory

assistance

10.906 NRCS e State Conservationist SylviaGillen: [email protected]

www.ut.nrcs.usda.gov

Wildlife HabitatIncentiveProgram

NRCS e assistance forprotection, restoration,

development, orenhancement of habitatfor wildlife, threatened

and endangered species,and fisheries, as well asother types of wildlife

landowners meetinghighly erodibleland/wetland

conservation andadjusted gross

income requirements

none 5—10 yearcost share

(NRCS e 75%)

10.914 www.ut.nrcs.usda.govTooele Service Center: 435-882-2276

Apply at a local USDA f service center orlocation found at www.sc.egov.usda.gov. (Form NRCS-CPA-1200). Applicantmust remain in control of land forduration of assistance contract.

Fish, Wildlife,and PlantConservationManagement

BLM g grants for fish, wildlife,and plant conservation

on BLM g lands andother public or private

lands

open 1 fiscal yearprior to

need

$1,000—$100,000(average

award lessthan

$10,000)

15.231 801-539-4001

www.blm.gov/ut/st/en.html

Cost match increases likelihood of anaward.





AWARDINGENTITY


CFDA a


WEBSITE, AND NOTESWildlifeRestoration

FWS h Federal aid for a broadrange of activities to

restore, conserve,manage, or enhance wild

bird and mammalpopulations and support

public use of theseresources

state agencies withlead fish and wildlife

managementresponsibilities

none (30-day

processing)

$2,750,000averageaward

15.611 wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/toolkitfiles/toolkit.pdf

Funds dispensed only to state wildlifeagencies; requires legislation prohibitinguse of hunting fees for nonhuntingagency purposes.

North AmericanWetlandsConservationFund

FWS h funding for acquisitionand management,enhancement, and

restoration of wetlands

public or privateorganizations with

wetland conservationprojects in Canada,

the United States ofAmerica, and Mexico

March andJuly

up to$75,000(small);

$75,000— $1 million

(standard)(requires 1:1non Federal

match)

15.623 www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA

WildlifeConservationand Restoration

FWS h aid to states for effortsto benefit wildlife and

habitat

state agencies withlead fish and wildlife

managementresponsibilities

none $904,000averageaward

15.625 wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/toolkitfiles/toolkit.pdf

Includes projects to benefit speciesthat are not hunted or fished.

Partners for Fish and Wildlife

FWS h assistance forrestoration and

improvement of habitat

private landowners,local government

entities, andnongovernmental

organizations

none $200—$25,000(average$5,400);

seeks 50%cost share

15.631 www.fws.gov/partners

Project must be located on private land,including lands held by individuals, localgovernments, nongovernmentalorganizations, and tribes.

Challenge CostShare

FWS h grants for projects thatencourage partnershipswith non-FWS h groups

for conservation,protection, and

enhancement of fish,wildlife, and plants

open variable byregion

$300—$25,000(average$7,800);

requires 50%non Federal

match

15.642 801-975-3330

Submit proposals to a cooperatingservice office.

NationalWetlandProgramDevelopmentGrant

EPA b grants to help buildprograms to protect,manage, and restore

wetlands

nongovernmentalorganizations,

interstate agencies,and intertribal

consortia

contact forinformation

$25,000—$225,000per fiscal

year

66.462 www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/initiative/#financial

Priority areas are monitoring/assessment, improving wetlandmitigation effectiveness, and refiningprotection of vulnerable wetlands andaquatic resources.

Water QualityCooperativeAgreement

EPA b grants for innovativeefforts related to

prevention, reduction,and elimination of water

pollution

open (may excludebusinesses, but open

to individuals)

proposalrequests

$15,000—$270,000

66.463 requests for proposals:https://www.grants.gov

Funding priorities include storm watercontrol for targeted watersheds andurban wet weather watershedprotection.





AWARDINGENTITY


CFDA a


WEBSITE, AND NOTESTargetedWatershedGrant

EPA b grants to supportinnovative community-

based watershedapproaches aimed at

reducing water pollution

excludes for-profitenterprises, Federal

agencies, and lobbyinggroups

variable(contactEPA b)

$100,000—$1,000,000;requires 25%non Federal

match

66.439 Eric Steinhaus: [email protected]

www.epa.gov/twg

Emphasis on monitoring, outreach/education, and demonstration oftangible environmental improvement.

PatagoniaEnvironmentalGrant

Patagonia grants to supportaction-oriented effortsto address root causes

of environmentalproblems and protect

local habitat

nonprofit 501c(3)organizations

contact forinformation

$3,000—$8,000(typical)

N/A www.patagonia.com/web/us/patagonia.go?slc=en_US&sct=US&assetid=2942

Contact local retail store. Emphasis onmeasurable goals and objectives.

CommunityForestryPartnershipGrant

Utah FFSL I funding to support urbanand community forestry

projects

open September14, 2009

$1,000—$5,000;

requires 1:1match

N/A Meredith Perkins: 801-538-5505

www.ffsl.utah.gov/grants/grants.php#urbangrants

Cities must achieve Tree City USAstatus to be eligible.

WatershedRestorationInitiative

UtahPartners

forConservation

andDevelopment

grants for efforts toconserve, restore, andmanage ecosystems in

priority areas across thestate to enhance Utah’s

wildlife and biologicaldiversity, water quality

and yield, andopportunities forsustainable uses

local, state, andFederal government

entities, andnongovernmental

organizations

October 31 variable N/A http://www.utahpcd.info/

http://wildilfe.utah.gov/watersheds/

a Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.c Division of Water Quality.d Division of Parks and Recreation.e Natural Resources Conservation Service.f U.S. Department of Agriculture.g U.S. Bureau of Land Management.h U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.I Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands.

4.0 recommended improvement projects study website... · presentation of projects has been...

Documents