LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Summary Report – Field Visits
RATT II team members Tom Pick, Karin Boyd, and Warren Kellogg revisited a selection of sites along the
length of the Musselshell River affected by the 2011 flood. Field visits took place during the period
September 23 thru 25, 2013 and September 30 and October 1, 2013 as directed under Agreement LMCD
2013-01 with the Lower Musselshell Conservation District: Development of Post-2011 Flood Best
Management Practices (BMPs). The visits were coordinated by conservation district and Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) staff.
The purpose of the field visits was to interview a selection of landowners who had participated in the
2011 post-flood RATT process. Through discussion and observation it was the goal to determine what
restoration practices have been completed; what practices have worked; what lessons have been
learned; and how lessons can be shared with current and future river users. The team was accompanied
by Doug Mann on September 23 and Scott Irvin on September 24, both from the DNRC-Regional Water
Rights Office in Lewistown, Montana.
This Summary Report provides a description of each field site visited, the nature of the flood-related
resource issue(s) encountered, solutions discussed or implemented, and the current status of the
situation. RATT priority ratings are provided for comparison. Sites were given treatment priority ratings
in 2011 ranging from 1 (High) to 9 (Low) based on five criteria (see report for details). Information and
observations obtained during the RATT and RATT II site visits will be used to develop draft BMPs for
review by the LMCD.
1
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Monday, September 23, 2013
Jim Barrows: RATT Ref. # 41; 310 Permit No. 11-028: Bank Erosion, Overland Flow, and HQ flooding.
Original visit on November 1, 2011. RATT priority ranking 2.
The Team met Mr. Barrows at his home near Ryegate. Mr. Barrows has not taken any action to date
other than rebuilding his west property line fence and seeding grass over most of the flood affected area
between his home and the river. Estimated construction costs of nearly $100,000 have prevented his
proposed installation of bank riprap and an earthen berm. The river doesn’t appear to have changed
much at this site since the post-flood visit in 2011. We again discussed removal of downed cottonwood
trees on the downstream left bank (LB) to reduce the potential for accelerated bank erosion. We also
suggested placement of a low elevation earth fill berm closer to his home to reduce impacts to the
floodplain while meeting his objective of flood protection. The dike’s orientation should direct overland
flow back into the wooded floodplain south of his property while minimizing the volume of
excavation/fill material required. Materials and construction techniques were discussed as well as
potential permits needed with these actions.
Figure 1. July 3, 2012 air photo of Barrows Site.
2
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Jim Ballard (Egge Dam): RATT Ref. # 31; 310 Permit No. 11-046: Breached Diversion Dam. Original visit
on October 18, 2011. RATT priority ranking 2. Also visited a damaged pump site on the Ballard Ranch
RATT Ref. #32. RATT priority ranking 4.
Met Laura (representing Ballard), Steve Tyrell (neighbor and LMCD), and Steve Stoican (contractor) at
the ranch and traveled to the sites. The pump site above the Egge Dam was left inoperable when the
flooding damaged the pump and moved the active low-water channel away from the pump/sump.
Flanking of the downstream Egge diversion dam also resulted in downcutting and loss of backwater for
the pump. A side channel fill above the pump experienced some toe slope erosion. Recommendations
in 2011 were to move the pump to a location upstream just below the fill. Protection of the toe fill
would also provide protection for the pump. The pump should be equipped with a movable boom rather
than a sump to provide more portability in case of future flooding. Estimated cost of reconstruction of
the pump is in the $15 to $20K range. Factors surrounding reestablishment of the pump provide
guidance for development of a BMP
addressing this issue. Water right
issues relative to moving the point of
diversion (POD) upstream were also
discussed by DNRC staff.
The Egge Diversion Dam has not
been rebuilt or modified since the
2011 flood. The new bypass channel
has not changed much although the
right bank continues to erode along
the field edge on the south side of
the diversion. FWP has some
interest in working with the owner
of the dam to provide fish passage if
it is restored. At present, it is no
longer a barrier to fish passage. It is
unknown if the owner will rebuild
Figure 2. July 3, 2012 air photo of Egge Dam.
the facility or if anyone is
responsible for removal if it is abandoned. Estimated costs of reconstruction are in the range of $75 to
$100K so it may not be financially feasible. Use of pumps rather than a direct diversion was suggested
but it is not known what the landowners will choose to do to restore irrigation. We discussed a number
of ideas relative to fish passage, removal, and eroding bank protection using materials present at the
site. Use of a transitional point of diversion was suggested if the POD is moved closer to the irrigated
fields. A number of ideas were noted that are important in fish passage, structure/debris removal, and
diversion dam BMPs. Several questions concerning 404 and 310 permits were raised and will be
addressed in response.
3
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Sylvan Anderson: RATT Ref. #5; 310 Permit No. 12-030-2. Bank Erosion/Threatened Irr. Field/Breached
RR fill. Original visit September 21, 2011. RATT priority ranking 9. Also RATT Ref. #6; 310 Permit 12030-2; Flanked Diversion Dam – put river back in old channel. Original visit on September 21, 2011.
RATT priority ranking 5.
Met Sylvan Anderson and his son at the site accompanied by Steve Tyrell (LMCD representative). Donna
Pedrazzi and Shirley Parrott of the LMCD met us at Andersons. No restoration actions have been taken
other than the pump station has been re-built. We first looked at the eroding bank and RR fill upstream
of the pump station. Sylvan has installed a center pivot irrigation system on the field adjacent to the
eroding RR fill/bank. He is worried about future lateral channel movement into the field. It appears that
the clay shelf that existed post-flood in 2011 has eroded out so the bank is now vertical. Sylvan planned
to move the gravel bar on the LB across the channel to armor the eroding right bank (RB). Those present
explained to Sylvan that to our
knowledge he doesn’t have a 310 or
404 permit (and others) which are
required to take such action.
Mitigation would likely be required
by USACE for this type and extent of
fill. He does have a 310 permit to
plant vegetation in this area. We
suggested instead that he consider
using rock barbs to protect key
points on the RB. Two to three
barbs would be likely needed as a
phased and less costly approach to
deflect water away from the
actively eroding bank. We agreed to
provide Sylvan with a plan view and
sketch of a typical barb structure,
although a formal site design will be
Figure 3. July 2012 air photo of Anderson Site.
needed to apply for needed
construction permits. The costs of
engineering and construction and uncertainty associated with tolerance for failure were discussed
relative to developing a BMP for channel realignment and bank protection.
No work has been done on the flanked and buried diversion dam so we didn’t discuss this site in detail.
Higher flows passively make it down the canal earlier in the summer, but low flows common during late
season irrigation do not. Sylvan has thus far been unable to secure permits for restoring the channel
and diversion dam.
A number of noxious weeds were observed in the flood affected areas which seems to argue the need
for inclusion of a weed plan in the 310 permitting process.
4
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Brad Kinsey: RATT Reference No. 9; 310 Permit No. 11-009-11. Bank Erosion/Slope Bank for Pivot.
Original visit on September 23, 2011. RATT priority rating 9.
Brad Kinsey met us at the site near the flanked Naderman Diversion Dam. Brad used a dozer to shape
and slope the scarp cut by the avulsion to allow the pivot to run the original tower length. The project
allowed recovery of about 12 to 13 acres of irrigated land. He has planted sudan /sorghum hybrid on the
field. He estimates that a total of about $20K (equipment and operator time) was spent to restore the
field which results in a salvage cost of a little over $1,500 per acre. A benefit of this practice is that the
full use of the field was restored and the function and integrity of the floodplain was maintained without
the cost and risk of using riprap to armor the bank.
Figure 4. July 2013 air photo of Kinsey site.
5
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Naderman Diversion Dam: RATT Ref. #1; 310 Permit No. 11-015. Breached Diversion Dam and Move
River Back to Original Channel. Original visit on September 22, 2011. RATT priority rating 4.
There are no plans to repair the Dam as the individual ditch members are now directly pumping from
the river downstream. Joe Vescovi was present and expressed displeasure at the fact that the change
(POD) process is taking too long. He is still not able to irrigate his entire property and feels like he is
losing part of his water right as a result since the sprinklers will use less water. DNRC indicated that they
are still several months out from completing the agency and public review/comment process on his
change application. Reba Ahlgren, NRCS Soil Conservation Technician and Ken Mosdahl, NRCS engineer
from the Roundup Field Office, gave an overview of the restoration efforts and accompanied us to a few
of the individual irrigators’ operations.
Figure 5. Naderman Diversion Dam, July 2012.
6
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Harper Ranch: (310 No. 11-024 – Stabilize Bank) a member of the Naderman Ditch, has installed a
pump and now irrigates in part with a 43-acre center pivot. The new pump unit is an electric powered,
trailer mounted unit anchored on a concrete pad on the upper terrace. Flexible lines connect to intake
and discharge ports. The small remainder of the field is now dryland hay. Wilbur Harper showed us the
pump station and pipeline and demonstrated the GPS-equipped pivot controller. The cost of the change
was about $120K total with USDA-NRCS’s EQIP covering approximately 50% of the total excusive of
running the power in. Power costs have been about $20 per acre per irrigation this year. They
previously had diesel fuel costs of $350 per day to run their Crisafulli pumps (entire operation).Water
use per irrigation was 24 ac-ft this summer compared to about 60 to 70 acre-feet under flood irrigation.
They are pleased with the flexibility, labor savings, and independence that they now have although they
also had some concerns with the time required for the water right change process and the financial
expense of making the change. They have also seen some increase in productivity in the single season
of operation. They are also pleased with the service they received from all those they worked with to get
their irrigated hay production back after the flood.
Figure 6. Harper Pump Site, 2012.
7
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Eliasson Ranch: No RATT visit in 2011 (310 No. 12-003 Replace Dike and Pump Site)
Gary Eliasson showed the Team his new pump station which utilizes rectangular precast concrete
sections and a concrete pad to situate two pumps; one propane operated and one diesel powered. The
propane motor runs a high volume pump that provides water for Gary’s flood and sprinkler system
north of the highway. About 100 acres are flood irrigated. Another smaller pump down the system
provides water for the sprinkler operation. The diesel fueled pump runs a wheel line sprinkler in the
leased field adjacent to the pump. Total cost was about $153K. Cost-share helped to offset some of the
cost for the pipeline and pumps (less so for the pumps). Irrigation operation costs have run about $10
per acre per irrigation this summer for the two irrigations made after completion. Savings through
consolidation of the pump sites into one, along with the aforementioned independence from the ditch
were noted as benefits of the change, although Gary was concerned about the total expense involved in
making the conversion to sprinklers.
Figure 7. Eliasson Pump Site, 2013.
8
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Willow/Soil Lift Demo Site at the County Fairgrounds: No RATT visit in 2011.
The Team visited this bioengineering demonstration site accompanied by Donna Pedrazzi, David Stout of
the LMCD and Krist Walstad, Reba Ahlgren, and Jennifer Paddock with NRCS. The project was installed
this spring through a DEQ Grant by David Stout to demonstrate the use of soil lifts in conjunction with
willows and other plant materials to stabilize an eroding bank at the County Fairgrounds . Rock riprap
had been used previously on the site with some rock still present up and downstream. The project
location is on the RB on an outside bend in a deeply entrenched reach of river. A city well is located
behind and above the project area. Length of slope treated is about 110 feet according to David. The toe
was installed using pine fascines. Several 6 to 8 inch soil lifts using coconut jute mesh were layered
above the pine fascine at the toe. Willow mattresses were incorporated in the lifts as the bank was
sloped back. The approach seems to have merit where tolerance for the risk of failure is high and stream
forces are low. Total cost was about $5,000. Some scouring has occurred at the toe. Growth of the
willows along with plantings of other shrubs is progressing. The CD will continue to monitor vegetative
growth and performance of the bioengineering project. Soils lifts and vegetative plantings may be a
viable alternative, where appropriate, as a BMP in stabilizing excessively eroding banks on the
Musselshell River.
Figure 8. Willow bank site, 2013.
9
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Pedrazzi Ranch/Newton Diversion Dam: RATT Ref. #2/310 Permit No. 11-026. Compromised diversion
dam and irrigation delivery canal. Original site visit on September 21, 2011. RATT priority rating 3.
Donna and Jim Pedrazzi accompanied the Team
to the dam site located on their ranch. No work
has been done on the dam since the irrigation
water canal (Brown Ditch) the dam served was
rendered inoperable due to breaching and
sedimentation. Two of the three water users
have now converted to direct pumping
downstream. It is unknown what the absentee
third owner will do since they have formally
abandoned the ditch and dam. Erosion
continues to occur on the upstream RB where
several trees have hung up. This feature may
cause issues over time as the river continues to
try to flank the dam. Until the fate of the dam is
Figure 9. Newton Dam, 2013.
decided, no action will likely be taken to address
the erosion. FWP and other organizations may be interested in providing fish passage at this dam. Since
the dam does serve as a control on channel grade, there may be a need to preserve the grade control
function over time. A cost/benefit analysis will likely need to be made to evaluate alternatives to
complete removal.
An irrigation pump (310 Permit No. 11-044)
located upstream that was damaged by the flood
has been rebuilt at the same location using
rectangular, precast concrete sections at a cost of
about $14K. No financial assistance was available
for the replacement. The pump was redesigned
to allow for less water depth in case the diversion
dam below isn’t available or adequate to provide
backwater to the pump. The system which serves
110 flood irrigated acres worked well the first
year but wasn’t as effective this year in pumping
an adequate rate of water. It was recommended
to check out the pump and impellers to see if that Figure 10. Irrigation Pump Site, 2013 image.
may be the source of the problem or to redesign
the pump lift rather than bear the expense and risk of creating an upper diversion (rock or otherwise) in
the channel to provide backwater. However, a properly designed and implemented rock check may be
the only viable alternative in providing the necessary water head to the pump, if the pump retrofit isn’t
successful and/or the downstream diversion dam is removed.
10
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
We viewed the new pump station (310 Permit No. 12-005) located below the Dam to serve the irrigated
land that was formerly served by the Newton Dam and Brown Ditch. It was placed at the head of a
bendway with good water depth and low velocity. Banks seem to be well vegetated and provide some
protection to rapid channel
movement although siltation could
be a maintenance issue at this
location. Precast concrete sections
were used with minimal rock placed
at the toe of the structure. Cost of
the retrofitted pump and pipeline to
serve the 30-acre flood irrigated field
was about $16K of which NRCS costshare contributed about $6K.
Irrigation use is for about one week,
two or three times a year. Flow rate
is about 3K gallons per minute. The
Pedrazzi’s are satisfied with the
system now that it is in place
because of the lack of ditch
maintenance and freedom to draw
water when needed. Use next year
Figure 11. Pedrazzi Pump Site downstream of Newton Dam, 2013.
will give them a better idea of any
adjustments needed to the new system. The abbreviated change in POD filing was not difficult and
proceeded well in their experience as they didn’t change the method of application or place of use.
They also allowed the Roundup Cemetery to co-locate a pump in the same structure which is beneficial
in helping share the expense as well as reduce multiple maintenance and function issues associated with
multiple pumping stations. The cemetery pump serves about 100 sprinkler heads.
We also viewed a previously unvisited site where the Pedrazzi’s had proposed to install a soil lift project
to protect a field that had formerly been irrigated using a portable Crisafulli pump. Bank migration
during the 2011 flood took out the ramp used to place the pump. We discussed various options for this
small field, one of which was water leasing and another to transfer the water rights to their downstream
fields. Scott will provide Donna with the appropriate statutes.
We also discussed inherent limitations and alternatives to using a purely bioengineered approach since
costs will be high at this actively eroding site due to the bank’s height and high erosive forces at work on
the outside bend. A third, least costly option is to just let the bank erode until any major adjustments in
channel curvature and sediment transport have occurred over time.
11
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Kilby Butte Colony: RATT Ref. # 3; 310 Permit No. 11-010-1 and 2; 11-035-10; and 11-036-3: Repair
Diversion Dam, Repair Historical River Crossing, Harvest Gravel Bar, Divert River to Original Channel
and Stabilize Bank. Original visit on September 21, 2011. RATT priority rating 5.
Met with Joe Stahl to visit various restoration sites. The concrete diversion dam (not visited in 2011) has
had some minor repairs to rock riprap protection on the downstream abutments. Joe is concerned that
future erosion to undermine the upstream, high vertical LB will result in a need for more bank
protection to hold the dam. Team members pointed out that the only economic approach at this time to
treatment would be to pull back the top of the high bank to reduce the weight and help to prolong any
movement. The dam’s check boards are pulled in the fall so the structure doesn’t create a year-long
barrier to fish passage.
We viewed the vehicle
crossing project. Rather
than install a crossing on
a low height dike fill
across the failed avulsion
channel as planned, Joe
used the upper clay shelf
which has resisted
downcutting to this
point. He graded
approaches on each end
and so far the crossing
has worked well. The
benefit is low cost and
less impact to the
Figure 12. Kilby Butte avulsion, July 2013.
floodplain. Elevation of
the crossing should allow
high flows to pass and take pressure off the main channel. Edges of the avulsion will be shaped and
seeded. The Team recommended that the downstream slope of the crossing be armored with rock to
help reduce headcutting in the event of high flows. We also looked at the cut excavated to direct the
flow back into the old channel. Sides of this cut could have been sloped back for more stability, but will
likely erode and lay back with succeeding high flows.
We also visited a pumping site restoration project on the Colony which was not viewed in 2011. The
pump station was rebuilt and the bank shaped. A limited amount of rock was mixed in with the soil fill
material. They are to plant grass and trees at the site as part of the 310 permit. Approximately 300 feet
of bank was treated at an estimated cost of $2 to 3K. The fill material appears to be pretty soft and the
toe vulnerable, however the site is on a straight reach and so may have a chance to stabilize before it is
tested.
12
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
T7 Bar Ranch: RATT Ref. #4; 310 Permit No. 11-016. Original visit on September 21, 2011. RATT priority
rating 7.
Met Curt Goffena at the ranch where we visited the failed avulsion which had cut off access and
irrigation to a 10 acre field in 2011. Curt placed a large fill at the mouth of the 4-acre avulsion and has
sloped the sides of the avulsion. The fill was pulled from the point bar across the channel to the south.
The fill provides access to the remaining 6-acre crop field although it is still without irrigation. Rock was
placed on the upstream face of the fill as well as on the LB above the fill. A cofferdam using the bed
gravel was placed in the river to help dewater the construction site. Curt also placed a fill at the lower
end of the avulsion. He said that the lower fill is retaining more water in the avulsion channel than he
expected and he regrets doing so at this time. He spent about three weeks in construction of the fill and
related rock work at an estimated cost of about $10K. Cottonwoods and willows not removed thru
construction are still growing in the failed avulsion. Lessons experienced by Curt will be incorporated
into an avulsion-related BMP.
Figure 13. T7Bar avulsion, 2013.
13
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Kite Cattle: RATT Ref. #35; 310 Permit No. 11-037. Bank Erosion/Damaged Pump Site. Original site visit
on October 19, 2011. RATT priority 1.
Ranch owner Henry Bedford and Rowdy took us to look at several locations with bank erosion and
pump site issues. At the first site, they have reset a pump in the original, pre-flood location on an
eroded outside bend using rectangular precast concrete sections with rock on the up and downstream
faces. The alternative recommended by the RATT was to move the pump site upstream to a deep pool
along a bedrock bluff. This alternative was not utilized as the power company dictated the location of
power. Near the pump site, the flood affected 65-acre field was planted to “Yellowstone” winter wheat
and hayed in preparation for re-leveling and planting alfalfa once irrigation was restored. A ~6-7 acre
area damaged by overland flow and a potential avulsion is being left to grow cottonwoods and willows
at this time. We also looked at another field in which the pump location was damaged. The estimated
expense of moving the power poles, now located in the field to facilitate a better pump location and
use of a sprinkler irrigation system on the field, is $47K which Kite Cattle is unwilling to pay. Henry was
very vocal regarding the reimbursements provided through the Emergency Conservation Program. He
did receive assistance through the NRCS’s EQIP.
Figure 14. Kite Cattle pump site, 2013 image.
14
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Delphia-Melstone North Canal Siphon: RATT Ref. # 34; 310 Permit No. 11-041-1. Repair Damage to
Siphon. Original site visit on October 11, 2011. RATT priority rating 5.
Lynn Rettig and Bill Bergin accompanied the Team to the North siphon location. The Delphia-Melstone
Canal Users’ Association repaired the siphon at a cost of about $100,000. 2011 RATT recommendations,
at least in part, were used in completing the repair work. Funding was obtained through a USDA Rural
Development loan. Expenses were primarily to purchase and haul rock to cover the exposed and broken
siphon pipe. About 10 to 12 feet
of material had to be filled as
well as the abutment aprons on
each end. “Dirty” rock riprap
was used as per the request of
the DEQ and USACE. Apparently,
the siphon was exposed and
repaired in 1994 with assistance
of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Rock was
also placed up and downstream
on grade over the fill to create a
protective barrier in the channel.
An evaluation will be made
annually to assess maintenance
Figure 15. Delphia-Melstone North Canal Siphon, 2013 image.
needs. The work demonstrates
effective protection without encroachment on the active channel or floodplain. Fish should be able to
easily navigate the rock fill placed over the pipe. Lynn said that one lesson learned was that it helps to
have an emergency plan in place for infrastructure works such as the siphon as the emergency is a poor
time for planning. Lynn experience good working relationships with all agencies and individuals involved.
They were eligible for Emergency Watershed Protection Program funding but the construction expenses
would have been much higher so they fixed the siphon on their own. They were not eligible for FEMA
funding as the program no longer recognizes irrigation as a public benefit.
The Association may also plant woody vegetation on the banks as time permits. There is a stranded
cottonwood tree near the RB above the siphon. It was suggested that it may be wise to move the tree
away from the bank and out of the active channel to the exposed bar on the LB.
We also viewed the Bergin/North Canal Dam and the Davis Dam where we discussed flood repair work
that was completed. Bill Bergin has decided that a floodplain dike above the Bergin Dam that was
damaged will not be replaced. Both projects appear to be working and in good repair at this time. FWP
is working with the irrigators to investigate fish passage at the Davis Dam.
15
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Harvey Road Bridge: RATT Ref. # 7; Avulsion/Road Washed Out. Original site visit on September 21,
2011. RATT priority rating 9.
Harvey Road was repaired with FEMA assistance to build a new bridge and approach over the avulsion
channel. The concrete bridge span appears to constrict the active channel somewhat however several
large culverts were installed in the new approach fill to provide floodplain relief during high flows.
Depending on bedload deposition in the future, floodwater access to the overflow culverts is
questionable. Some maintenance excavation and channel shaping may be needed for proper function of
the culverts. Significant amounts of salt cedar plants are growing in the avulsion channel that again
speak to the need for noxious weed control associated with flood restoration projects.
Figure 16. Harvey Road Bridge crossing, 2013.
16
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Ty Checketts: RATT Ref. # 38; 310 Permit No. 11-039-2. Washed Out Crossing. Original site visit on
November 1, 2011. RATT priority rating 5.
Checketts replaced a crossing several hundred yards above the original crossing using the recommended
location at a existing riffle. Local, native gravel was used to build and shape the approaches to the
shallow, right angle crossing. The tributary just above the crossing may help to contribute gravels to the
crossing. This appears to be a good installation on a straight section that does not negatively affect
stream or biologic functions (fish passage, sediment transport, and floodplain access) and will not
require extreme maintenance actions. Again, weed control activities are sorely needed in most of the
flood disturbed sites and especially following restoration activity. No information on the cost of
construction was available.
FLO
WFlo
w
Figure 17. Checketts river crossing site, 2013 image.
17
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Ty Checketts: RATT Ref. #37; 310 Permit No. 11-39-1. Bank Erosion, Threatened Buildings and Access
Road. Original visit on November 1, 2011. RATT priority rating 4.
Active bank erosion threatening a farm shed and access road has been eliminated by breaching a very
thin meander neck as recommended by the Team in 2011. The action completed a process which would
have likely progressed in the next few years in any case. Approximately a 30’ by 50’ opening was
excavated to allow the channel to bypass the actively widening meander adjacent to the building. The
opening will be further widened as appropriate by flows in succeeding years. Emergent vegetation is
beginning to fill the abandoned meander already. Succeeding high flows will bring additional sediment
to further create an emergent wetland. No effort was made to close off the abandoned meander thus
maintaining extra channel capacity during high water events and providing shallow wetland habitat.
While this solution is rarely suggested, it appears that in this case, it solved the problem with minimal
impacts to channel and riparian function at a relatively low cost compared to a bank stabilization
alternative. No information about construction costs was available.
Figure 18. Checketts avulsion/erosion site, 2013image. Neck Breach
Site
18
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
September 30, 2013
Cat Creek Cattle: RATT Ref. # 12. Bank Erosion and Threat to HQ area on Upper Terrace. Original site
visit on October 4, 2011. RATT priority rating 10.
B.G. FitzGerald (NRCS Soil Conservation Technician, Jordan F.O.) accompanied the Team to the CAT
Creek HQ area. Cat Creek has not attempted any treatment of this site since the 2011 flood event. The
lower river (below Flat Creek) experienced bankfull high water again this summer for a three week
period, primarily coming from flows out of the
Flat Willow Creek watershed. The USGS gaging
station on Flatwillow Creek recorded 4,770
cubic feet per second discharge on June 4, 2012
prior to failing. It appears that portions of the
high scarp on the LB upstream of the HQ area
have experienced significant bank retreat and
channel widening on the upper limb of the
meander bend. Large, active slumps were noted.
At this time, however, the erosion doesn’t
appear to be threatening the buildings or corrals.
Due to the expense and practicality to treat this
site adequately, it is still not recommended to
take any action.
Figure 19. Cat Creek Cattle site, 2013 image.
Cat Creek Cattle: RATT Ref. # 13 and 14. Floodplain Scour and Dike Erosion. Original site visit on
October 4, 2011. RATT priority rating 5.
Several fields were visited where floodplain scour and erosion has been treated. Sides of the scour holes
have been sloped and filled to bring elevations to near field level. Repairs allowed irrigation and
cropping to again be feasible on the fields. It also appears that the fields are being cropped to hay barley
or other annual grain crops prior to replanting to alfalfa/grass hay. Infestations of bindweed are
particularly heavy in the flood affected fields. Several years of chemical treatment may be needed to
control this plant. Heavier sediment deposits were pushed off the end of fields prior to cultivation and
shaping to re-level the border dikes.
A damaged pump station was restored and relocated using a portable, electric-powered pump tied into
the newly reorganized flood irrigation system. Placement of the new pump station on an outside bend
may experience problems in the future. A position located downstream of the bend may have been
more sustainable. Most ditches on these fields have been eliminated with use of low pressure PVC
underground delivery pipe and aboveground gated pipe. The power company provided new poles at no
cost.
19
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
The floodplain dike that was overtopped in the 2011 flood has been rebuilt to the original dimensions. It
is still recommended to provide some reduction in the dike elevation so as to allow more regular
floodplain function at a lower elevation. This would possibly reduce scour and erosion in the future.
Tim and Travis Browning: RATT Ref. 19, 20, and 21. Abandoned/Damaged Pump Sites, Avulsion,
Floodplain Scour and Sediment Deposition on Field. Original site visit on October 5, 2011. RATT
priority rating 2 and 5, respectively.
The Brownings have replaced several pumps on the river that were damaged during the 2011 flooding.
They continue to see significant changes to the channel and banks since flooding altered the length and
grade so drastically in the lower river. Like most irrigators in this area, they now use portable pumps that
are removed following the irrigation season. High water this spring again took out several of the new
pumping stations that they had established, so they have learned to adapt to changes in the river. The
use of diesel allows them to be somewhat flexible in their selection of pumping sites although access for
fuel is a consideration. They purchased two identical, trailer mounted units each with a 4,500 gpm
capacity. The purchase price was $18,000 each. They did get some technical and financial assistance
from NRCS and the ECP in
renovating their ranches after the
flood. While thankful for the
assistance, Travis Browning noted
that the funding did not come
quickly in some cases and the
reimbursement rates for some
practices such as re-leveling, were
too low to be of much real help.
They have begun to restore the
sediment affected fields beginning
with those least affected. Those
with less sediment have been
simply worked by disking and
cultivating prior to planting hay
Figure 20. Browning pump site, 2013 image.
barley, sudan/sorghum hybrid, or
millet for a year or two. Those with more sediment are graded or leveled with a laser level guided
scraper according to a leveling plan. Several headcuts in the fields were filled in. Once they field has
been re-leveled and has had a few annual crops grown, they plant back to alfalfa hay. Infestations of
bindweed seem worse in some fields and this may be due the lack of active management for a year or
two following the flooding. They noted that after several years of crop, the soil seems fine, growing
good hay crops under irrigation. The flood cost them about 300 tons of hay per year in lost production
each of the past three years. They are still having to buy hay as it will be a few more years before they
will be back in full production.
20
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
October 1, 2013
Rowton Brothers: RATT Ref. # 11. Bank Erosion and Damaged Irrigation System. Original site visit on
October 4, 2011. RATT priority rating 2.
Lloyd Rowton showed the Team his flood-related restoration projects. They have replaced buried
mainline that was washed out by the 2011 flood. They also installed a portable electric motor and pump
serving the mainline. The new pumping location was moved downstream as suggested by the Team in
2011. The pump is trailer mounted with a flexible intake and output hose. Irrigation on this field is made
with gated pipe. To date, they have not yet located a good, solid crossing to access their fields across the
river. According to Lloyd, it will take some time for the channel bottom to set up solid enough to allow
equipment to cross.
A washed out domestic/stock
water line from a well across the
river was rebuilt. The new line was
installed under the river bed using
a two-inch flexible boring machine
similar to that used for installing
fiber optic cables along and under
roads. The pipe was run 50 feet
past the channel on each side.
Installation cost was about $12 per
foot. This cost (quite a bit below
other bids) seems very reasonable
compared to trenching expense
along with the benefit of
avoidance of the detrimental
aspects of conventional trenching.
Figure 21. Rowton Brothers site, 2013 image.
They are also participating in the
three-year cottonwood conservation program. Riparian fencing and the water line described above was
cost-shared under this program. Lloyd indicated that the program may have not been required since he
is seeing a lot of trees with or without grazing, however, he is glad to have gotten the assistance and
funding through the program to complete the fence and water line as well as the avoidance of grazing
use payment. His neighbor across the river enrolled in the program and without adequate property
fences in place, he felt that he might as well enroll since he couldn’t control livestock otherwise. Most of
the weeds in the riparian conservation area are annual weeds such as kochia and cocklebur which will
diminish in abundance as perennial plants cover the freshly deposited soil. They have spot sprayed
saltcedar in this area which may have inadvertently also killed the tops of young cottonwood in their
vicinity. With luck, some of the saplings may resprout next spring.
21
LMCD 2013-01 Development of Post-2011 Flood Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Jay Woodford: RATT Ref. # 9. Multiple Avulsions, Loss of Access, and Pump Sites Abandoned. Original
visit on October 4, 2011. RATT priority rating 5.
Mr. Woodford was not available so we observed several of his flood-related activities from a distance.
He has not yet replaced an abandoned irrigation pump serving a large field which was rendered an
island by the multiple avulsions in this reach. He appears to have hayed the field this summer using a
new ford crossing site which was recommended during the earlier RATT visit. It doesn’t appear that
much work was required to establish the crossing as there are some shale bedrock shelves present at
the location. The channel below the mouth of Flat Willow Creek experienced significant change due to
this year’s flush of high water coming out of Flat Willow Creek. The channel widened significantly as
banks failed. Due to bank erosion and a shift in channel orientation the bridge crossing Flat Willow Creek
may require some maintenance in the near future to protect the integrity of the structure.
Figure 22. Woodford crossing site below Flatwillow Cr confluence, 2013.
22