Modifications to Diversion Dams on Hobble Creek
Jonathan F. Parry
A project submitted to the faculty of
Brigham Young University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Rollin H. Hotchkiss, Chair
E. James Nelson
A. Woodruff Miller
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Brigham Young University
April 2012
Copyright © 2012 Jonathan F. Parry
All Rights Reserved
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Modifications to Diversion Dams on Hobble Creek
Jonathan F. Parry
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, BYU
Master of Science
This paper represents the conclusions to a project initiated by the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District to propose and analyze the effects of modifications to six diversion dams on Hobble Creek for
the purpose of fish passage of the endangered June Sucker as well as water control for up to 12,000
acre-feet per year of supplemental flow to Hobble Creek. Benefits, disadvantages, and costs of the
preferred and secondary alternatives for each diversion are analyzed. The preferred alternatives for the
upper diversions, for which the objective is to allow supplemental flow to pass, include making no
alterations to the Island Dam or Sage Creek Dam and replacing the Swenson Dam with an overshot gate.
The preferred alternatives for the lower diversions, for which the objective is to allow supplemental flow
to pass and to provide fish passage for the endangered June Sucker, include removing the Temporary
Diversion and replacing the Packard Dam and 1000 North Dam with pump stations. Secondary
alternatives for the diversions include overshot gates for the Island and Sage Creek dams, an Obermeyer
Hydro gate for the Swenson Dam, doing nothing at the Temporary Diversion, a fish bypass channel at
Packard Dam, and a pipe at the 1000 North Diversion.
The project was split into two Master’s projects at Brigham Young University under Rollin H. Hotchkiss,
PhD, with Jonathan Parry analyzing the upper three diversions and Bradley R. Perkins analyzing the
lower three diversions. This report, therefore, contains the analysis and conclusions of both projects, but
is submitted by Jonathan F. Parry for completion of the Master of Science requirements.
Keywords: CUWCD, JSRIP, Bradley Perkins, Rollin H. Hotchkiss, Jonathan Parry, Hobble Creek, June
Sucker, Utah Lake, diversion dams, fish passage.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xi
1
Project Background .............................................................................................................. 1
2
Island and Sage Creek Dams ............................................................................................... 5
2.1
Description ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.2
Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Description .................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.2 Prototype Design Drawings ........................................................................................ 6
2.2.3 Estimated Cost ............................................................................................................ 7
2.3
Secondary Alternative..................................................................................................... 7
2.3.1 Description .................................................................................................................. 7
2.3.2 Prototype Design Drawings ........................................................................................ 7
2.3.3 Estimated Cost ............................................................................................................ 7
3
Swenson Dam ........................................................................................................................ 9
3.1
Description ...................................................................................................................... 9
3.2
Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................... 9
3.2.1 Description .................................................................................................................. 9
3.2.2 Prototype Design Drawings ...................................................................................... 15
3.2.3 Estimated Cost .......................................................................................................... 17
3.3
Secondary Alternative................................................................................................... 17
3.3.1 Description ................................................................................................................ 17
3.3.2 Prototype Design Drawings ...................................................................................... 18
3.3.3 Estimated Cost .......................................................................................................... 20
v
4
3.4
Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis.................................. 20
3.5
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 20
Temporary Diversion .......................................................................................................... 23
4.1
Description .................................................................................................................... 23
4.2
Preferred Alternative..................................................................................................... 23
4.2.1 Description ................................................................................................................ 23
4.2.2 Estimated Cost .......................................................................................................... 23
4.2.3 Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 23
4.2.4 Disadvantages ........................................................................................................... 24
5
Packard Dam ....................................................................................................................... 25
5.1
Description .................................................................................................................... 25
5.2
Preferred Alternative..................................................................................................... 26
5.2.1 Description ................................................................................................................ 26
5.2.2 Prototype Design Drawings ...................................................................................... 27
5.2.3 Estimated Cost .......................................................................................................... 28
5.2.4 Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 28
5.2.5 Disadvantages ........................................................................................................... 28
5.3
Secondary Alternative................................................................................................... 28
5.3.1 Description ................................................................................................................ 28
5.3.2 Prototype Design Drawings ...................................................................................... 30
5.3.3 Estimated Cost .......................................................................................................... 31
5.3.4 Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 31
5.3.5 Disadvantages ........................................................................................................... 31
5.4
Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis .................................. 31
5.4.1 Raised Streambed ...................................................................................................... 31
vi
5.4.2 Pipe ........................................................................................................................... 32
6
1000 North Dam .................................................................................................................. 33
6.1
Description .................................................................................................................... 33
6.2
Preferred Alternative..................................................................................................... 34
6.2.1 Description ................................................................................................................ 34
6.2.2 Prototype Design Drawings ...................................................................................... 35
6.2.3 Estimated Cost .......................................................................................................... 36
6.2.4 Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 36
6.2.5 Disadvantages ........................................................................................................... 36
6.3
Secondary Alternative................................................................................................... 36
6.3.1 Description ................................................................................................................ 36
6.3.2 Prototype Design Drawings ...................................................................................... 37
6.3.3 Estimated Cost .......................................................................................................... 38
6.3.4 Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 38
6.3.5 Disadvantages ........................................................................................................... 38
6.4
Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis.................................. 38
6.4.1 Raised Streambed ...................................................................................................... 38
6.4.2 Bypass Channel ......................................................................................................... 39
7
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 41
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 43
vii
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: C1 and C2 as a function of L/B........................................................................................ 12
Table 2: Summary of Alternatives for Upper Dams ..................................................................... 21
Table 3: Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................................ 41
ix
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Lower Hobble Creek Base-Flow Guidelines................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Diversion Dams on Hobble Creek................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Island Dam Diversion ...................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4: Sage Creek Diversion ...................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5: Swenson Dam Diversion ................................................................................................. 9
Figure 6: Overshot Gate Schematic .............................................................................................. 10
Figure 7: Correction Factor, Ca ..................................................................................................... 11
Figure 8: Correction Factor, Ce ..................................................................................................... 12
Figure 9: Value of L/B .................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 10: Two Gate Design Alternative ...................................................................................... 15
Figure 11: Two Gate Design Alternative Section View ............................................................... 16
Figure 12: Single Gate Design Alternative ................................................................................... 18
Figure 13: Single Gate Design Alternative Section View ............................................................ 19
Figure 14: Temporary Diversion .................................................................................................. 23
Figure 15: Packard Dam ............................................................................................................... 25
Figure 16: Packard Dam Preferred Alternative ............................................................................ 27
Figure 17: Packard Dam Secondary Alternative .......................................................................... 30
Figure 18: 1000 N Dam ................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 19: 1000 N Preferred Alternative ...................................................................................... 35
Figure 20: 1000 N Secondary Alternative .................................................................................... 37
xi
xii
1
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Modifications to Diversion Dams on Hobble Creek project was initiated by the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District (CUWCD) as part of its association with the June Sucker Recovery and
Implementation Program (JSRIP) as well as its vested interest in the Utah Lake System (ULS) as part of
the Central Utah Project (CUP).
Located east of Springville, Utah, Hobble Creek is a small stream that runs through Hobble Creek
Canyon. The headwaters of Hobble Creek originate at an elevation of approximately 9,000 feet in the
Wasatch Mountains. Hobble Creek is composed of two forks, Right and Left Fork Hobble Creek. These
two forks merge to form Hobble Creek proper approximately three miles east of Springville City. Hobble
Creek proper proceeds to flow west to northwest for approximately seven miles through the city
draining into Utah Lake.
The June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus) is an endangered fish endemic to Utah Lake. Causes of the decrease
in June Sucker population include introduction of nonnative species, over-fishing, and changes in habitat
such as alteration of flows, degraded water quality, and channelization of spawning tributaries (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1999). These occurrences have resulted in conditions that limited the recruitment of
June Sucker, causing the species to be threatened by extinction. One of the delisting requirements for
recovery is the establishment of a self-sustaining spawning run of June Sucker on a tributary other than
the Provo River, which has been established as critical habitat for June Sucker recruitment (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1999). The establishment of an independent spawning run is essential to maintaining
the wild June Sucker population in the case of a catastrophic event on the Provo River.
Before the development of Utah Valley, Hobble Creek, as well as many other large tributaries to Utah
Lake, provided suitable spawning habitat for June Sucker. Recently, Hobble Creek has been identified as
likely candidate for developing suitable June Sucker habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999). A
project in 2006 sponsored by Brigham Young University characterized the physical and biological
characteristics of Hobble Creek as it transitions from a free-flowing stream to Utah Lake (Brown 2007).
We learned that Hobble Creek substrates are coarser than expected and may present difficulties to
spawning June Suckers. Access to more of Hobble Creek would provide June Suckers with additional
potential spawning sites. A restoration project was undertaken on a portion of Hobble Creek west of I15 to provide access to Hobble Creek east of I-15 in Springville, UT. The restored section of Hobble Creek
west of I-15 has already shown promise as a new location for June Sucker entrance and passage.
However, diversion dams on Hobble Creek create barriers that prevent June Sucker from accessing
prime spawning habitat. In order to provide this access and thereby create a more suitable environment
for June Sucker spawning, it is necessary to provide adequate passage past these diversion dams.
When the Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System (ULS) is completed and operating at full
water delivery conditions it will deliver between 4,000 to approximately 12,000 acre-feet of water per
1|P a g e
year to lower Hobble Creek. This supplemental flow is intended to provide new flow in Hobble Creek to
protect the entire riverine ecosystem year round as well as to provide habitat for June Sucker spawning.
The Springville Irrigation Company currently operates diversion structures located along the Hobble
Creek in order to provide its users with their allotted water rights. The irrigation company is interested
in ensuring that they are able to continue to divert their allotted water rights while also allowing water
to bypass their structures in order to provide the supplemental flows intended to protect the riverine
ecosystem as well as to provide the water intended for June Sucker spawning. They are also concerned
about being able to operate these structures with the increased flow. The Central Utah Water
Conservancy District (CUWCD) wants to make sure water rights they have purchased are being honored
and being allowed to flow down Hobble Creek. This project analyzed alternatives for providing water
passage over the three diversion structures while measuring flows passing over the diversion structures.
The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission recently completed a report detailing
recommendations for year-round instream flows for the lower Hobble Creek (M. Stamp 2009).
According to the report the flow recommendations were based on flows that would protect the entire
riverine ecosystem year-round as well as to provide habitat for June Sucker spawning. In this report the
following guidelines were presented as the base-flow recommendations for the different months
throughout the year:
Figure 1: Lower Hobble Creek Base-Flow Guidelines (M. Stamp 2009)
The report also states that the majority of springtime runoff volume will typically come naturally from
the upstream watershed and its timing and volume will largely be dictated by the natural runoff patterns
in a given year; therefore, delivery of supplemental flows during the springtime will only be needed
during certain years.
The goals of this project are to identify and analyze several alternatives to allow June Sucker to swim
upstream past the first three diversion dams east of I-15: the 1000 North dam, the Packard Dam, and
2|P a g e
the Temporary Diversion Dam. Another primary goal is to allow water to pass through the upstream
diversion dams on Hobble Creek: the Island Dam, the Sage Creek Dam, and the Swenson Dam (Figure 2).
This report summarizes all of the data collected for the project and an interpretation thereof. The report
also includes recommendations for the most feasible solution for June Sucker passage (downstream
reach) and water passage (upstream reach) with a probable cost estimate and needed action items to
carry out the recommended alternatives. The dams will be described starting upstream and moving
downstream.
Figure 2 - Diversion Dams on Hobble Creek
3|P a g e
2
ISLAND AND SAGE CREEK DAMS
2.1
Description
The Island Dam diversion structure (Figure 3) is located on the Hobble Creek, approximately 6 miles east
of Utah Lake, south of 1250 South in Springville Utah. This structure is located near the point of the
proposed supplemental water inflow and is therefore the first structure that will pass additional water
flows.
Figure 3: Island Dam Diversion
The Sage Creek Dam diversion structure is located on the Hobble Creek, approximately 5.4 miles east of
Utah Lake, east of 1700 East and South of 1250 South in Springville Utah (Figure 4).
4|P a g e
Figure 4: Sage Creek Diversion
The structures located at Sage Creek and Island both consist of “kick-leg” dam structures, concrete
sidewalls and flat concrete sills that lay relatively flush with the bed of the stream. The downstream
side of the Sage Creek Dam has a significant gradient change and appears to have had significant
degradation in the past during high flows. Currently there are large boulders acting as rip rap in this
area. The kick-leg structure consists of hinged metal supports that are fitted with wooden boards placed
horizontally across the channel.
“Kick-leg” structures are often used for controlling water levels in open channels due to their ability to
handle flow surges with limited depth changes upstream. As with most canal control gates the main
purpose of these structures is to maintain a constant water level upstream for turnouts. With the ability
of kick-leg structures to handle flow surges with limited depth changes, a constant water level upstream
is more easily achieved even during high flow events. Thus turnouts are able to maintain a constant
flow rate regardless of the flow in the main channel.
2.2
Preferred Alternative
2.2.1
Description
It is our opinion that no modifications are necessary in order to allow additional water to flow over
these structures. This is due to the fact that they are kick-leg structures and are able to handle flow
surges without significantly affecting the upstream water level. Another factor that led to the
conclusion that no modifications to these structures are necessary is that the facility that will deliver
supplemental flows to Hobble Creek is being designed to have a 125 cfs maximum release rate (Chen
2003). This release rate is less than the estimated 2-year recurrence interval flood.
2.2.2
Prototype Design Drawings
N/A
5|P a g e
2.2.3
Estimated Cost
N/A
2.3
Secondary Alternative
2.3.1
Description
If modifications to these structures are requested or found to be necessary once actual supplemental
flows are determined, the preferred alternative consists of overshot gates constructed in a similar
manner to the Swenson preferred alternative. In these areas it is unnecessary to monitor the flow
passing over the structures and therefore no water level measurements should be needed.
The major advantage of these structures is the ability to adjust the gate angle in order to maintain a
constant upstream water level that is not substantially influenced by the flow in the channel. Another
advantage is the ability to use hoist mechanisms to place the structure as opposed to the current
scenario that requires the irrigation company to place and remove horizontal barriers (wooden planks)
across the channel as necessary to maintain the water level for the turnouts.
No automation of these structures should be required making a manually operated hoist mechanism
sufficient and thus reducing the costs associated with the installation. No stilling well structure will be
required in these areas as well due to the fact that no flow measurement should be needed.
2.3.2
Prototype Design Drawings
See Swenson prototype design drawings.
2.3.3
Estimated Cost
Costs for this alternative for the two dams should be comparable to the costs outlined in the Swenson
Dam section of this report detailing the same alternative with the difference being the elimination of the
need for a stilling well, and a mechanical hoist mechanism being utilized as opposed to an electric
actuator.
6|P a g e
7|P a g e
3
SWENSON DAM
3.1
Description
The Swenson Dam diversion structure is located on Hobble Creek, approximately 4 miles east of Utah
Lake, on Averett Avenue and east of Swenson Avenue in Springville, Utah.
The Swenson Dam diversion structure consists of concrete sidewalls and a flat concrete sill that lies
relatively flush with the bed of the stream. The diversion consists of flashboards that are fitted in slots
between metal supports. On the upstream side of the diversion the operators place plastic sheeting in
order to minimize leakage through and under the installed flashboards (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Swenson Dam Diversion
This structure is currently operated as a dry dam during the irrigation season. A structure that operates
as a dry dam diverts all or nearly all of the flow from the main channel into turnouts or canals causing
the channel to be dewatered for a distance downstream of the diversion structure. Once supplemental
flows are delivered to Hobble Creek this structure will no longer operate as a dry dam and flow
measurements will be required to determine if the proper amount of water is being delivered to the
downstream reach.
8|P a g e
3.2
Preferred Alternative
3.2.1
Description
The preferred design alternative for this structure consists of an overshot gate (also known as a lay flat
gate or leaf gate) with a hoist mechanism. Figure 6 details the basic components of an overshot gate.
p
Figure 6: Overshot Gate Schematic
Overshot gates are designed for use in open-channel flows where a minimum upstream water level is
required. The overshot gate can be operated by single or tandem cable hoists, designed to raise or
lower the gate to any position between 0 and 60 degrees. The hoist mechanism can be operated
manually, operated using an electric actuator, or operated hydraulically. As the gate is raised water
backs up behind the gate establishing upstream water level control. As the gate is lowered to 0 degrees
(completely open or flat) water is allowed to flow with no obstruction in a full waterway.
In order to determine the flow rate over the structure Wahlin and Replogle developed a calibration
approach known as the Kindsvater and Carter calibration equation for a sloping overshot gate. This
calibration approach modifies the basic Kindsvater-Carter equation by adding a coefficient that acts as a
correction factor for the angle of the gate, Ca. This modified Kindsvater-Carter equation is as follows:
Q=CaCeLehe1.5
(Equation 1)
where:
Q=discharge, (ft3/s)
Ca=correction factor for angle of the gate (ft1/2)
Ce=effective discharge coefficient for a vertical weir (ft1/2/s)
Le=effective crest length (ft)
he=effective measurement head (ft)
9|P a g e
Laboratory tests were performed by the Georgia Institute of Technology in order to determine an
empirical plot (Figure 7) for Ca. This empirical plot is valid for values of h/p less than 1.0 and for gate
angles between 16.2 degrees and 63.4 degrees (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2001).
Figure 7: Correction Factor, Ca
An equation detailing the computation of the correction factor for the angle of the gate as determined
by the laboratory tests is as follows:
Ca=1.0333+0.003848Θ-0.000045Θ2
(Equation 2)
where:
Ca= correction factor for angle of the gate
Θ=the angle, measured in the direction of the flow between the channel invert and the
underside of the gate in degrees.
The effective coefficient of discharge, Ce, accounts for effects of relative depth and relative width of the
approach channel. The Georgia Institute of Technology performed tests in order to determine the value
of the coefficient of discharge as a function of L/B and h/p (measured length of weir crest is defined as L
and channel width is defined as B). The test results are in Figure 8. In this figure the solid lines indicate
values that were obtained from experimental data, whereas, the dashed lines indicate interpolated
values.
10 | P a g e
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.0
h/p
Figure 8: Correction Factor, Ce
The lines shown on Figure 8 detailing the values of the effective coefficient of discharge can be defined
by the following equation:
Ce=C1(h/p)+C2
(Equation 3)
where:
Ce=effective coefficient of discharge
C1=equation coefficient
h=head on weir (ft)
p=height of crest above approach invert (ft)
C2=equation constant
The following Table (Table 1) has been generated for convenience in determining the values of C1 and
C2, that allow for simple interpolation.
Table 1 - C1 and C2 as a function of L/B
L/B
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
C1
-0.0087
0.0317
0.0612
0.0995
C2
3.1520
3.1640
3.1730
3.1780
11 | P a g e
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.1602
0.2376
0.3447
0.4000
3.1820
3.1890
3.2050
3.2200
The effective length of the weir crest accounts for abutment shapes that cause side contractions and is
defined as:
Le=L+kb
(Equation 4)
where:
Le=effective crest length (ft)
kb=a correction factor to obtain effective weir length (ft)
L=measured length of weir crest (ft)
The kb correction factor changes with different ratios of crest length to average width of approach
channel (channel width is defined as B). Values of kb for ratios of L/B from 0 to 1 are shown on the
following figure:
Figure 9: Value of L/B
The effective head on the weir, he, is determined using the following formula:
he=h+kh
(Equation 5)
where:
12 | P a g e
he=the effective head on the weir (ft)
h=measured head above the weir crest (ft)
kh=correction factor with a value of 0.003 ft
As indicated in the previous equation (Equation 1) in order to determine the flow rate passing the gate
an accurate upstream water level measurement is required. In order to obtain this measurement it is
recommended that a stilling well be constructed to one side of the channel. The stilling well should be
connected to the channel using a small pipe. This stilling well should be located a sufficient distance
upstream of the diversion structure in order to avoid water drawdown effects, but close enough so that
energy losses that occur between the stilling well and the approach are negligible.
In analyzing the design it is recommended that two smaller gates (approximately 14 feet in length) be
installed as opposed to a single gate (approximately 30 feet in length). A single overshot gate is
uneconomical for several reasons. The first reason being the need for a large front support beam in
order to keep the deflection less than 1/360th of an inch and the second being the need for a large cable
hoist in order to lift the required load (calculations indicate that the hoist lifting load for this gate with
four feet of head would be approximately 15,000 lbs). By installing two smaller gates the hoist lifting
load is significantly reduced (calculations indicate the hoist lifting load for the gates with four feet of
head would be approximately 8,000 lbs). Another benefit of installing two gates is the ability to have
much tighter control and if one of the gates becomes inoperable the second gate would still be able to
be used. Figures 10 and 11 on the next page detail the two gate design alternative.
Tests have shown that the flow rate of a properly ventilated free-flow leaf gate can be determined to
within approximately 6.4 percent using the modified Kindsvater-Carter equation (U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation 2001). This accuracy does not include errors associated with head measurement.
It is important to note that these equations were developed with rectangular approach flow and head
measurement sections. For differing scenarios (different flow section shapes) the average width of the
flow section for each h should be used as B to calculate discharges. The following conditions should also
apply in order for this equation to be applicable:

The crest length, L, should be at least 6 inches

The crest height, p, should be at least 4 inches

The head measured above the weir crest should be at least 0.2 ft

Values of h/p should be less than 2.4

The downstream water surface elevation should be at least 2 inches below the crest
13 | P a g e
3.2.2
Prototype Design Drawings
Figure 10: Two Gate Design Alternative
14 | P a g e
Figure 11: Two Gate Design Alternative Section View
15 | P a g e
3.2.3
Estimated Cost
In analyzing the costs associated with the installation of the overshot gate an estimate was obtained
from Instream Water Control Projects LTD. Cost Estimates for a single 30 foot overshot gate with an
electric powered operator (costs based on the use of a Rotork actuator, rotork.com) would be priced at
approximately $70,000.00.
The installation of two smaller gates would significantly reduce costs associated with the installation of
the overshot gate by enabling the use of smaller electric powered operators. A cost estimate obtained
by the same company as mentioned above places costs for this setup at approximately $30,000.00.
3.3
Secondary Alternative
3.3.1
Description
The secondary alternative can be described as a lay-flat gate which is supported on the downstream side
by inflatable bladders (Figures 12 and 13). This gate is patented by Obermeyer Hydro Inc of the United
States. By controlling the pressure in the bladders the gates can be lowered or raised as necessary. This
option provides the same benefits as those associated with the overshot gate alternative namely the
ability to lower the gate to 0 degrees and allow the full waterway channel for high flow events.
The air bladders used to control the gate level are designed and manufactured using methods similar to
those employed by tire companies in the manufacturing of automotive tires. By placing metal plates
(gates) over the inflatable bladder the bladder becomes better protected and less likely to be damaged
by flood debris, the gates also provide a more uniform flow profile over the crest eliminating vortexes
that are common problems associated with inflatable dams.
This alternative would utilize the same methods in determining flows over the structure as described in
the preferred alternative section (Kindsvater-Carter with angle correction coefficient).
16 | P a g e
3.3.2
Prototype Design Drawings
Figure 12: Single Gate Design Alternative
17 | P a g e
Figure 13: Single Gate Design Alternative Section View
18 | P a g e
3.3.3
Estimated Cost
In analyzing the costs associated with the installation of the Obermeyer gate an estimate was obtained
from Obermeyer Hydro Inc. Obermeyer Hydro Inc. estimates the costs for their system to be
approximately $60,000.00 as of November 2010.
3.4
Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis
In assessing design alternatives for this area an HEC-RAS hydraulic analysis was performed. It was
determined that if a permanent structure were to be installed it would not be feasible to pass a 100year storm (1052 cfs) while allowing for sufficient upstream water levels during lower flows. The
permanent structures that were considered were an ogee spillway type structure, a broad-crested weir
and a long-throated flume.
3.5
Summary
The preferred design alternative for the Swenson Dam Diversion consists of the installation of an
overshot gate (a two gate system) with the design alternative being the installation of an Obermeyer
gate system. It is our opinion that no modifications need to be made to the Island and Sage Creek
structures.
In analyzing design alternatives several different structures were investigated. The 100-year recurrence
interval flood for this area has been calculated to be 1052 cubic feet per second. With the installation of
a permanent structure designed to maintain upstream water levels sufficient to deliver the required
water for the upstream turnouts, the 100-year recurrence interval flood would not be able to pass
without overtopping the sidewalls. Thus no permanent structures were considered as plausible design
alternatives. The following table compares the advantages and disadvantages associated with the
design alternatives.
19 | P a g e
Table 2 - Summary of Alternatives for Upper Dams
Design
Alternative
Overshot Gate
(Single Gate)
Overshot Gate
(Two Gates)
Obermeyer
Hydro
Ogee Spillway
Advantages
Accurate Flow Measurements For Flows Less
Than 10cfs
Ability To Pass Accumulated
Sediment/Debris
Ability To Pass 100-Year Recurrence Interval
Flood
Precise Control Of Upstream Water
Elevation (0.25 Inches)
Vertical Abutments Provide Maximum
Discharge Capacity
Accurate Flow Measurements For Flows Less
Than 10cfs
Ability To Pass Accumulated
Sediment/Debris
Ability To Pass 100-Year Recurrence Interval
Flood
Smaller Electric Operator
Precise Control Of Upstream Water
Elevation (0.25 Inches)
Vertical Abutments Provide Maximum
Discharge Capacity
Ability To Replace Damaged Components
Without Whole System Replacement
Ability To Provide Precise Flow Data And
Flow Control
Added Degree Of Safety (If One Gate Is
Inoperable, Second Gate Remains Operable)
Ability to Pass Accumulated
Sediment/Debris
Ability to Pass 100-Year Recurrence Interval
Flood
Precise Control Of Upstream Water
Elevation
Steel Panels Provide Protection From Debris
Damage
Vertical Abutments Provide Maximum
Discharge Capacity
Ability To Replace Damaged Components
Without Whole System Replacement
Ability To Provide Precise Flow Data And
Flow Control
Near-Maximum Discharge Efficiency At
Design Head
Broad-Crested
Weir
Excellent For Measuring Large Flows
Long-Throated
Flume
Excellent For Measuring Large Flows
Disadvantages
Estimated
Cost
Less Accuracy When Measuring Flows
Greater Than 150cfs
Larger Electric Operator Necessary
Large Support Beam Necessary To Minimize
Gate Deflection
$70,000.00
Less Accuracy When Measuring Flows
Greater Than 150cfs
$30,000.00
Cost
Potential For Bladder Damage From
Vandalism
$60,000.00
Permanent Structure
Accumulation Of Sediment/Debris
Permanent Structure
Accumulation Of Sediment/Debris
Ability To Use Computer Software To
Generate Rating Curves
Permanent Structure
Accumulation Of Sediment/Debris
Sidewall Contractions
Ability To Use Computer Software To
Generate Rating Curves
Not
Determined
Not
Determined
Not
Determined
20 | P a g e
21 | P a g e
4
TEMPORARY DIVERSION
Figure 14 - Temporary Diversion
4.1
Description
The Temporary Diversion Dam is located just downstream of 950 W in Springville. It is owned by
Springville City and has historically provided irrigation water to the fields north of the dam; however, it
no longer diverts water. It consists of a concrete base and metal poles in which flash boards can be
placed for the purpose of damming Hobble Creek. The requirements at this location consist of allowing
upstream passage of June Sucker as well as downstream passage of all flows.
Springville City is currently constructing a park in the fields north of the dam. As part of the park design,
the ground elevation has been raised, effectively eliminating the ability to divert water from the dam.
Springville City has also indicated that use of the dam is no longer needed.
4.2
Preferred Alternative
4.2.1
Description
Under this alternative, the concrete base of the dam would remain in place while the bars would be
removed to prevent the use of flash boards to dam the creek and to prevent the accumulation of debris.
4.2.2
Estimated Cost
It is estimated that this alternative could be implemented for approximately $500.
22 | P a g e
4.2.3
Benefits
Such action would prevent the dam from being used in the future while maintaining the bed slope that
has developed in the creek as a result of the dam. A scour pool has formed directly downstream of the
dam that would be ideal for June Sucker refuge. Removal of the concrete base of the dam could cause
upstream degradation and allow the scour hole to be filled by bedload movement. Furthermore,
because the concrete base does not obstruct the upstream passage of June Sucker, removing the
concrete would incur cost to the project without providing any benefit.
4.2.4
Disadvantages
There are no perceived disadvantages to this alternative.
23 | P a g e
5
PACKARD DAM
Figure 15 - Packard Dam
5.1
Description
Packard Dam is located approximately 250 feet west of 1650 W in Springville, UT. The dam is owned by
Mill Pond Spring Irrigation Company. Historically, it was used to divert irrigation water for several users
both north and south of Hobble Creek. Development has eliminated most of the diversion needs, leaving
only one irrigator that diverts out of Packard Dam to flood irrigate 35 acres north of the dam. The
acreage served from this diversion is used for cattle pasture and can also be used to grow alfalfa.
Packard Dam consists of a concrete base and metal poles in which flash boards can be placed for the
purpose of damming Hobble Creek along with a tarp to prevent significant leaking through the boards.
At the dam, concrete abutments constrict the width of the river from 50 feet to 21 feet. The boards and
tarp are reinstalled each year at the tail end of the spring runoff, so as to not impede high flows, and are
taken down each year sometime after the irrigation season. The flash boards are typically installed to
the same elevation as the top of the 18-inch diversion pipe, which is controlled by a headgate on the
north bank of Hobble Creek approximately 45 feet upstream of the dam. At this elevation, the dam
raises the water level by as much as 6 feet, allowing for 1 foot of freeboard between the top of the dam
and the river banks. When in use, water in Hobble Creek is backed up for over 1250 feet, creating a
slow-moving marshy area east of 1650 W and the railroad tracks.
The diversion capacity of the 18” corrugated metal pipe at full flow is estimated to be 5.5 cfs, although
flow is not measured and neither the irrigator nor the irrigation company know the actual diversion
24 | P a g e
flows. Excessive flows overtop the boards of the dam and continue downstream. Typically, the dam
never diverts all the flow because water leaks through the dam and runoff from the field drains back
into Hobble Creek. A USGS stream gage downstream of the dam only measures the water that directly
passes the dam. Runoff that drains from the field back into Hobble Creek typically does so downstream
of the USGS gage and is therefore not measured.
The irrigator owns 32 shares from Mill Pond Spring Irrigation Company, which gives him the right to 5.44
acre-feet of water per share per year, or 174 acre-feet of water per year at Packard Dam. However,
because flow is not measured or monitored, the actual amount of water taken at the dam is unknown.
Packard Dam creates a barrier to the upstream passage of spawning June Sucker. The height of the dam
is impassable to all native fishes. However, fish, including June Sucker, have been observed passing the
dam when the boards have been removed. The primary concern with the dam is that it impedes June
Sucker from accessing prime spawning habitat upstream of the dam. Another existing concern is that
the boards could be installed during the June Sucker spawning period, preventing adult or larval June
Sucker from returning to Utah Lake after having accessed the upstream spawning habitat while the
boards were down. Furthermore, due to the lack of flow measurement and control, there exists concern
that supplemental ULS flows could be diverted at the dam instead of flowing to Utah Lake as is
intended.
5.2
Preferred Alternative
5.2.1
Description
Under the preferred alternative, the slats and bars used to hold the flash boards in the dam would be
removed so that it could not be used to dam the creek. Delivery of irrigation water would be
accomplished through a 900 gpm multi-stage centrifugal pump placed on the river banks near the
current Packard Dam location (see Figure 16). The hose of the pump would feed out of a small concrete
stilling well installed on the upstream face of the concrete abutments. The stilling well would have a
screened intake in the downstream direction in order to prevent debris and juvenile June Suckers from
being sucked into the pumping mechanisms. Electrical pumping costs and annual maintenance on the
pump would be financed through CUWCD and JSRIP for the life of the pump.
The pump capacity of 900 gpm was determined by finding the average flow for the given water right
over the irrigation season and multiplying it by a peak factor of 4. Further consultation with the irrigator
is required to check the proposed pump capacity.
25 | P a g e
5.2.2
Prototype Design Drawings
Figure 16 - Packard Dam Preferred Alternative
26 | P a g e
5.2.3
Estimated Cost
The estimated cost for this alternative includes capital costs including permitting fees, engineering costs
and contingency, and operation and maintenance costs over the life of the facility. Capital costs were
estimated to be $7,500 and O&M costs were estimated to be $8,500 over the 25 year O&M period, for
a total present value cost of $16,000. A 25 year O&M period was used for the facility based on the
assumption that future development will eliminate the diversion need within 25 years.
5.2.4
Benefits
The largest benefit of this alternative is that the dam will no longer impede June Sucker from accessing
prime spawning habitat. This will likely have a positive impact on the June Sucker recruitment and will
directly contribute to the delistment requirement of establishing a self-sustaining spawning run other
than the Provo River.
Another benefit will be the increased monitoring capabilities of Hobble Creek flows. Passage of
supplement ULS flows will be able to be verified at the existing USGS stream gage and the pump can
then be restricted as needed so the required ULS flows can pass.
This alternative provides a low cost solution to meeting the stated objectives. At $16,000, this option is
almost an order of magnitude less costly than other reasonable alternatives. Furthermore, the facilities
create a relatively small footprint that can easily be abandoned when the irrigation needs at this
location become obsolete in the future.
5.2.5
Disadvantages
Although pumping is a common irrigation practice, maintenance problems with the pump could delay
irrigation, causing frustration and lost opportunity to the irrigator. Also, this will change the way the
irrigator has historically taken water and it will also result in increased monitoring of the amount of
water that is taken. For these reasons and possibly others, it is very likely the irrigator will not be in favor
of this alternative.
The concrete abutments that will remain in place with this alternative could create a hydraulic deterrent
to some fish trying to pass upstream. However, June Sucker have been observed upstream of the dam
when the flash boards were not in, indicating that while it is not ideal, fish are still capable of passing the
dam. If needed, it would be possible to remove the abutments and restore that section of the creek for
an increased cost, but that alternative was not analyzed for this report.
The screened intake on for the stilling well will be designed to have as little impact on the fish as
possible. However, no design will completely eliminate the possibility of affecting June Sucker, especially
juveniles that can become trapped by the velocities passing through the screen.
5.3
Secondary Alternative
5.3.1
Description
This alternative provides a hydraulically structured fish bypass channel around Packard Dam without
making any alterations to the dam itself (see Figure 17). In order to maintain a gentle enough slope to
minimize water velocity in the bypass channel, the channel begins at a high point in the streambed
27 | P a g e
1,345 feet downstream of the dam that is 5 feet 9 inches lower than the invert elevation of the channel
at the dam. Also, in order to ensure the delivery of the irrigator’s water right, the invert of the channel
entrance is 6 inches higher than the invert of the headgate. This allows for a depth of at least 12 inches
in the bypass channel when the water level is at the same level as the top of the dam. When water is
overtopping the dam, the water level in the channel will increase to as much as 18 inches. The overall
flow capacity is small, such that a depth of 9 inches will be available for fish passage with as little as 1.5
cfs passing through the channel. The maximum capacity of the channel is 17 cfs, with excess flows
passing over the top of Packard Dam.
The bypass channel is gravel-lined and consists of alternating riffle and pool sections that combine to
form hydraulic diversity in the channel. The riffle sections are each 122 feet long and have velocities
ranging between 1.5 fps and 1.9 fps. Between each riffle there is a 25 foot pool section that is wider and
deeper to slow the water down and provide fish with adequate rest before swimming through another
riffle. Each riffle is controlled at its head with larger rocks set at specific elevations to control the grade.
A rock weir of larger boulders placed at the entrance of the bypass channel will maintain minimum
water surface elevation.
28 | P a g e
5.3.2
Prototype Design Drawings
Figure 17 - Packard Dam Secondary Alternative
29 | P a g e
5.3.3
Estimated Cost
The estimated cost for this alternative includes capital costs including permitting fees, engineering costs,
land acquisition and contingency, as well as operation and maintenance costs over the life of the facility.
Capital costs were estimated to be $127,000 and total O&M costs were estimated to be $8,000, for a
total present value cost of $135,000.
5.3.4
Benefits
This alternative satisfies the needed objectives by maintaining the irrigator’s diversion while providing a
reasonable method for June Sucker to access prime spawning habitat upstream of Packard Dam. This
eliminates potential controversy arising from the irrigator as it relates to modifying the method of
diversion. Packard Dam, which has been in place for many years, would remain in place.
Supplemental ULS flows will still be able to be monitored and controlled to verify delivery to Utah Lake.
5.3.5
Disadvantages
Although the hydraulics within the proposed channel should be passable by June Sucker based on
current understanding of June Sucker swimming capabilities, not enough research has been done to
understand how the June Suckers will respond to this type of channel. Therefore, it can only be
concluded that the hydraulics are adequate, but it cannot be guaranteed that the fish will actually use
the channel to bypass the dam.
This alternative will also produce a large footprint that will be difficult to abandon in the future. The land
could be costly to acquire and maintain over the life of the facility. Furthermore, the increased footprint
increases the risk and liability to the owner of the facility in the case that it is accessed improperly by the
public.
The cost of this alternative far outweighs the cost of the other alternative. However, it is included as a
secondary alternative because it accomplishes project objectives without removing the dam.
Because the outlet of the proposed channel will be downstream of the existing USGS gaging station and
flow will be allowed to pass over the dam as well as through the channel, the existing USGS gaging
station will not measure all of the discharge leading to Utah Lake. In order to continue to monitor flows
accurately, a new gaging station or some other flow measurement device will need to be needed.
5.4
Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis
5.4.1
Raised Streambed
This alternative would be similar to the Fort Field Diversion on the Provo River, which is an irrigation
diversion modified in 2008 for the purpose of allowing upstream passage for June Sucker. However, in
order to function similar to the Fort Field Diversion, Packard Dam would need to be removed and the
streambed would need to be built up to the same height, allowing the fish to pass on the streambed and
the headgate to maintain its current diversion capabilities.
30 | P a g e
This alternative was dismissed from further analysis because the necessary modifications of the
streambed would significantly reduce the cross-sectional area of Hobble Creek, which would result in a
higher flooding potential during high flows. Packard Dam does not increase flood risk because it is not in
place during peak runoff. The cross-sectional area could be increased by widening the channel, but it is
constricted on the south side by an existing facility and on the north side by the existing diversion.
5.4.2
Pipe
This alternative would allow fish passage by removing Packard Dam while delivering irrigation through a
pipe. This pipe could come from an upstream diversion, a newly-constructed pond, or a pressure
irrigation system. The pond would be built as part of the park being constructed by Springville City
approximately 1200 feet east of Packard Dam. The pressure irrigation system option would include an
additional service location to the system currently being planned by Springville City.
This alternative was dismissed because it would cost significantly more than the pumping alternative
while essentially producing the same effect. Furthermore, integration with a potential pond in the park
or with the pressure irrigation system would require further planning and negotiation with Springville
City as well as a water trade, both of which fall out of the scope of this report.
31 | P a g e
6
1000 NORTH DAM
Figure 18 - 1000 N Dam
6.1
Description
1000 North Dam is located approximately 150 feet west of the end of pavement on 1000 North in
Springville, UT. The dam is owned by Mill Pond Spring Irrigation Company. It is used to divert irrigation
water into a ditch that passes through a 24-inch culvert underneath I-15 to deliver water to
approximately 70 irrigable acres west of I-15. Development in the near future will likely eliminate most,
if not all, of the need for this diversion. While it is still necessary to deliver the water right at this time,
water delivery is not as critical at the 1000 North Dam as at the Packard Dam because most of the water
users are more concerned with maintaining the water right for the time being by showing beneficial use
than producing a lucrative crop.
1000 North Dam consists of a concrete base and metal poles in which flash boards can be placed for the
purpose of damming Hobble Creek. At the dam, concrete abutments constrict the width of the river
from 40 feet to 17.5 feet. The boards are reinstalled each year at the tail end of the spring runoff, so as
to not impede high flows, and are taken down each year sometime after the irrigation season.
The flows at 1000 North Dam are not measured and neither the irrigators nor the irrigation company
know the actual diversion flows. Excessive flows overtop the boards of the dam and continue
downstream. Typically, the dam never stops the entire river because of leakage through the dam. Also,
the boards are typically placed such that the 22-inch pipe does not flow full.
32 | P a g e
The water right of the irrigators consists of 68 shares from Mill Pond Spring Irrigation Company, which
delivers 5.44 acre-feet of water per share per year. This results in a diversion right of 370 acre-feet per
year at 1000 North Dam. However, because flow is not measured or monitored, the actual amount of
water taken at the dam is unknown.
1000 North Dam creates a barrier to the upstream passage of spawning June Sucker. The height of the
dam is impassable to all native fishes. However, fish, including June Sucker, have been observed passing
the dam when the boards are not present. The primary concern with the dam is that it impedes June
Sucker from accessing prime spawning habitat upstream of the dam. Another existing concern is that
the boards could be installed during the June Sucker spawning period, preventing adult or larval June
Sucker from returning to Utah Lake after having accessed the upstream spawning habitat while the
boards were down. Furthermore, due to the lack of flow measurement and control, there exists concern
that supplemental ULS flows could be diverted at the dam instead of flowing to Utah Lake, as is
intended.
6.2
Preferred Alternative
6.2.1
Description
Under this alternative, the slats and bars used to hold the flash boards in the dam would be removed so
that it could not be used to dam the creek. Delivery of irrigation water would be accomplished with a
900 gpm single-stage centrifugal pump placed on the river bank near the current location of the 1000
North Dam (see Figure 19). The hose of the pump would feed out of a small concrete stilling well to be
installed on the upstream face of the concrete abutments. The stilling well would have a screened intake
in the downstream direction in order to prevent debris and juvenile June Suckers from being sucked into
the pumping mechanisms. Electrical pumping costs and annual maintenance on the pump would be
financed through CUWCD and JSRIP for the life of the pump.
The pump would have a capacity of 900 gpm, which is approximately equal to 2 cfs. This number was
determined based on the average flow for the given water right over the irrigation season and the
assumption that flows will not need to vary significantly. Further consultation with the irrigator is
required to check the proposed pump capacity.
33 | P a g e
6.2.2
Prototype Design Drawings
Figure 19 - 1000 N Preferred Alternative
34 | P a g e
6.2.3
Estimated Cost
The estimated cost for this alternative includes capital costs including permitting fees, engineering costs
and contingency, as well as operation and maintenance costs over the life of the facility. Capital costs
were estimated to be $6,500 and O&M costs were estimated to be $8,000, for a total present value cost
of $14,500. A 25 year O&M period was used for the facility based on the assumption that future
development will eliminate the need within 25 years.
6.2.4
Benefits
The largest benefit of this alternative is that the dam will no longer impede June Sucker from accessing
prime spawning habitat. This will have a positive impact on the June Sucker recruitment and will directly
contribute to the delistment requirement of establishing a self-sustaining spawning run other than the
Provo River.
This alternative provides a low cost solution to meeting the stated objectives. At $14,500, this option is
much less costly than other alternatives. Furthermore, the facilities create a relatively small footprint
that can easily be abandoned when the irrigation needs at this location become obsolete in the future.
6.2.5
Disadvantages
Although pumping is a common irrigation practice, maintenance problems with the pump could delay
irrigation, causing frustration and lost opportunity to the irrigator. Also, this will change the way the
irrigator has historically taken water and it will also provide increased monitoring of the amount of
water that is taken. For these reasons and possibly others, it is possible the irrigator will not be in favor
of this alternative.
The concrete abutments that will remain in place with this alternative could create a hydraulic deterrent
to some fish trying to pass upstream. However, June Sucker have been observed upstream of the dam
when the flash boards were not in, indicating that while it is not ideal, fish are still capable of passing the
dam. If needed, it would be possible to remove the abutments and restore that section of the creek for
an increased cost, but that alternative was not analyzed for this report.
6.3
Secondary Alternative
6.3.1
Description
Under this alternative, the slats and bars used to hold the flash boards in the dam would be removed so
that it could not be used to dam the creek. Delivery of irrigation water would be accomplished through
an 18-inch corrugated HDPE pipe beginning at Packard Dam and ending near the inlet of the existing 24inch culvert under I-15. The alignment of the pipe would follow the edge of the existing fields south and
west of Hobble Creek (see Figure 20). The pipeline would be 2,700 feet long and drop a total of 3 feet.
Flow in the pipe would be controlled by a headgate set nearly level with the streambed at Packard Dam
so that it can function with or without Packard Dam in place. The pipe could carry as much as 6 cfs at
high stream flows and as little as 3.5 cfs at low stream flows.
35 | P a g e
6.3.2
Prototype Design Drawings
Figure 20 - 1000 N Secondary Alternative
36 | P a g e
6.3.3
Estimated Cost
The estimated cost for this alternative includes capital costs including permitting fees, engineering costs,
right-of-way acquisition and contingency, as well as operation and maintenance costs over the life of the
facility. Capital costs were estimated to be $77,500 and O&M costs were estimated to be $4,000 over a
25 year O&M period, for a total present value cost of $81,500.
6.3.4
Benefits
The largest benefit of this alternative is that the dam will no longer impede June Sucker from accessing
prime spawning habitat. This will have a positive impact on the June Sucker recruitment and will directly
contribute to the delistment requirement of establishing a self-sustaining spawning run other than the
Provo River.
Another benefit will be the increased monitoring capabilities of Hobble Creek flows. Passage of
supplemental ULS flows will be able to be verified at the existing USGS stream gage and the headgate
can be restricted as needed for the required flows to pass. Also, flows within the pipe can be easily
measured.
A pipeline has a design life of approximately 50 years as opposed a pump’s design life of approximately
20 years. Also, a pipeline requires less maintenance than a pump.
6.3.5
Disadvantages
This alternative will produce a large footprint that would be difficult to abandon in the future. It could
be costly to obtain the necessary right-of-way to build the pipeline. Also, the overall cost of this
alternative outweighs the cost of other alternatives.
The concrete abutments that will remain in place with this alternative could create a hydraulic deterrent
to some fish trying to pass upstream. However, June Sucker have been observed upstream of the dam
when the flash boards were not in, indicating that while it is not ideal, fish are still capable of passing the
dam. If needed, it would be possible to remove the abutments and restore that section of the creek for
an increased cost, but that alternative was not analyzed for this report.
The intake for the headgate will be designed to have as little impact on the fish as possible. However, no
design will completely eliminate the possibility of affecting June Sucker, especially juveniles that could
mistakenly be sucked into the pipeline.
6.4
Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis
6.4.1
Raised Streambed
This alternative would be similar to the Fort Field Diversion on the Provo River, which is an irrigation
diversion modified in 2008 for the purpose of allowing upstream passage for June Sucker. However, in
order to function similar to the Fort Field Diversion, 1000 North Dam would need to be removed and the
streambed would need to be built up to the same height, allowing the fish to pass on the stream bed
and the diversion pipe to maintain its current capabilities.
37 | P a g e
This alternative was dismissed from further analysis because the necessary modifications of the
streambed would significantly reduce the cross-sectional area of Hobble Creek, which would result in a
higher flooding potential during high flows. 1000 North Dam does not increase flood risk because it is
not in place during peak runoff. The cross-sectional area could be increased by widening the channel,
but is not recommended.
6.4.2
Bypass Channel
This alternative would allow fish passage through a separate channel adjacent to Hobble Creek
bypassing the dam at a steeper yet manageable gradient. The dam would not be altered, providing the
necessary irrigation flows at the dam.
This alternative was dismissed from further analysis because an alternative that leaves the dam in place
is likely not necessary. Irrigators have shown less resistance to a change in the method of water delivery
and will likely not oppose an alternative that causes the dam to be removed. Also, a bypass channel
would be much more costly and require the acquisition of more land, which would be highly impractical
in this location.
38 | P a g e
39 | P a g e
7
CONCLUSION
It is our recommendation that the alternatives and prototype designs presented in this report be
considered and implemented as deemed appropriate by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
and the June Sucker Recovery and Implementation Program.
Table 3 summarizes the project conclusions.
Table 3 - Summary of Alternatives
Preferred Alternative
Secondary Alternative
Diversion
Description
Estimated Cost
Description
Estimated Cost
Island Dam
Do Nothing
N/A
Overshot Gate
$30,000
Sage Creek Dam
Do Nothing
N/A
Overshot Gate
$30,000
Swenson Dam
Overshot Gate
$30,000
Obermeyer Hydro
$60,000
Temporary
Diversion
Remove
$500
None
N/A
Packard Dam
Pump
$16,000
Bypass Channel
$135,000
1000 North Dam
Pump
$14,500
Pipe
$81,500
40 | P a g e
41 | P a g e
REFERENCES
Brown, Jaron. Master of Science Thesis, Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2007.
Chen, Ping. Potential Hobble Creek Flow Augmentation for the June Sucker Recovery Implementation
Plan by Using ULS Supplemental Water. Memorandum, Montgomery Watson Harza, 2003.
M. Stamp, D. Olsen, T. Eddie. Lower Hobble Creek Ecosystem Flow Recommendations. Final Report, Salt
Lake City, UT: Bio-West, Inc., 2009.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Water Measurement Manual - A Guide to Effective Water Measurment
Practices for Better Water Management (Third Edition). Denver, CO: United States Department
of the Interior, 2001.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus) Recovery Plan. Denver, CO: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1999.
42 | P a g e