Middle Rattlesnake Canyon Assessment

General Information
Assessment Date: 
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Meadow Name: 
Middle Rattlesnake Canyon
Meadow Reference: 
Organization Affiliation: 
Assessment Completed: 
Yes
General Characteristics
Watershed: 
Elevation: 
2,895m
Land Ownership: 
Hydrogeomorphic Type: 
Physical Condition
Main Channel Bank Height: 
Moderately Impacted
Gullies: 
Moderately Impacted
Total Bank Stability: 
Natural Condition
Vegetation Cover: 
Natural Condition
Bare Ground: 
Natural Condition
Encroachment: 
Moderately Impacted
Assessment Points: 
10
Restoration Efforts
Restoration Efforts: 
Yes
Comments on Restoration: 
2 check dams, non-functional
Additional Observations
Headcut Present: 
Yes
Number of Headcuts: 
2
Aspen Trees Present: 
No
Beavers: 
No
Fish Observed: 
Yes
Grazing and Cattle
Grazing Trails: 
No
Stubble: 
No
Dung in Channel: 
Yes
Hoof Prints on Banks: 
Yes
Human Impacts
Trail: 
Yes
Evidence of OHV use: 
No
Road: 
No
Corral: 
No
Building: 
No
Vehical Access: 
No
Adjacent Land Use
Adjacent Culvert: 
Yes
Adjacent Bridge: 
Yes
Adjacent Road: 
Yes
Adjacent Building: 
Yes
Coverage
Gopher Disturbance: 
0%
Willow, Alder, and Aspen Coverage: 
0%
Comments
General Comments: 
No water in late August. Gullies: concentrated in lowest meadow section. Dully 2 has check dams. Sully 1 originates in meadow with sm swales. connects to main channel. Gully 2 originates near remnant trail. Looks actively eroding. chunks of bare soil and sediment in channel. Gully 3 originates in same area, runs parallel to gully 2. Headcut 2 is beginning of gully. Threatening half of lower meadow section Headcuts: 1 headcut starts gully 3, pother headcut in gully 2 Encroachment: historic photos indicate increased encroachment after 1996. Encroachment mainly in lower and upper meadow sections. Small ~1-25 ft tall conifers. See photo MG iphone@ 8:55. Middle meadow very moist end of august-peaty, mossy substrate with pooling water on surface. Seems like grazing here is a bad idea. Easily trampled by stock.

Images