Deschutes River Mile (RM) 21 Restoration Project › sw › swdocuments... · Deschutes River RM 21...

Deschutes River Mile (RM) 21 Restoration Project Preliminary Design Report June 2017

Prepared For South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group

Deschutes River RM 21 Restoration Project Preliminary Design Report

Cardno


June 2017

Prepared for

South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group 6700 Martin Way East, Suite 112 Olympia, WA 98516 Prepared by Cardno 801 Second Ave., Suite 700, Seattle, WA Tel (206) 269 0104 Fax (206) 269 0098 Toll-free 800 368 7511 www.cardno.com

http://www.cardno.com/


Cardno

This page intentionally left blank for printing purposes.


Cardno

CERTIFICATE OF ENGINEER The technical material and data contained in this report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal as a registered professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of Washington is affixed below.

Jack C. Bjork, Project Manager, Cardno


Cardno



June 2017 Cardno Table of Contents i

Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................... 1-2

1.2 Opportunities and Constraints ............................................................................ 1-2

Chapter 2 Preliminary Design Studies ......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Hydrology ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Hydraulic Modeling ............................................................................................ 2-2

2.3 Site Conditions .................................................................................................... 2-4

2.4 Topographic Data and Survey ............................................................................ 2-5

2.5 Permit Requirements........................................................................................... 2-6

Chapter 3 Conceptual Design Alternatives ................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Technical and Stakeholder Review ..................................................................... 3-1

Chapter 4 Preferred Preliminary Design ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Floodplain Grading ............................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Large Wood Material Placement ........................................................................ 4-1

4.3 Planting ............................................................................................................... 4-1

4.4 Construction Cost Estimate ................................................................................ 4-2

4.5 Public Use and Safety ......................................................................................... 4-2

Chapter 5 References .................................................................................................................................... 5-1

Appendices Appendix A Conceptual Design Alternatives

Appendix B December 1, 2016, Design Team Meeting Notes

Appendix C Preliminary Design Drawings

Appendix D Planting Design Memorandum

Appendix E Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

Appendix F WDNR Public Safety Checklist for LWD Projects

Tables Table 1-1: Opportunities and Constraints for the Project ............................................................ 1-2

Table 2-1: Flood Flows at the Project Site................................................................................... 2-1

Table 2-2: Average Monthly Flow at the Project Site (1949–2016) (cubic feet per second) ...... 2-2

Table 2-3: Existing and Proposed Water Surface Elevations. Project Site is located between Cross-Sections 107387.2 CE and 106486.5 CD .................................... 2-4


June 2017 Cardno Table of Contents ii

Table 2-4: Potential Permits Needed for the Project ................................................................... 2-6

Figures Figure 1-1 Deschutes River RM 21 Restoration Project Regional Map. .............................. 1-1

Figure 2-1 Model Cross-Section Showing Existing (EC) and Proposed (PC) Water Surface Elevations at Upstream End of Project Site. ........................................... 2-3

Figure 2-2 Model Cross-Section Showing Existing (EC) and Proposed (PC) Water Surface Elevations at Downstream End of Project Site. ...................................... 2-3

Figure 2-3 Modeled Existing (EC) and Proposed (PC) Water Surface Profiles. Project Site is located between Cross-Sections 107387.2 CE and 106486.5 CD ............ 2-4


June 2017 Cardno Introduction 1-1

Chapter 1 Introduction The South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group (SPSSEG) engaged Cardno for science and engineering services in support of the Deschutes River Restoration Project at River Mile (RM) 21 of the Deschutes River. The project site includes 300 linear feet of river bank and 700 linear feet of a spring-fed side channel located in Thurston County near Rainer, Washington (Figure 1-1). The project site is on property newly acquired by the Center for Natural Lands Management. A conceptual design report was completed for a 1-mile-long section of the river in June 2012, which includes the project site. The project site is located 1,300 feet downstream from the State Route (SR) 507 crossing and consists of an elevated floodplain terrace on the right bank and spring-fed side channel. The purpose of this report is to provide a basic description of the project site, its geomorphic characteristics, and their impacts to salmonid habitat, and to recommend restoration actions to improve salmonid habitat within the reach.

Figure 1-1 Deschutes River RM 21 Restoration Project Regional Map.

Project Area


June 2017 Cardno Introduction 1-2

1.1 Project Objectives To rehabilitate aquatic habitat, the project objectives were selected based on the results of the site assessment, discussions with project stakeholders, and the key limiting factors for salmon population recovery for the Deschutes River identified in previous studies (Anchor Environmental 2008; Cramer 1997; Haring and Konovsky 1999; Pacific Groundwater Group 1995; Schlenger et al. 2015; Taylor 1999; Washington State Department of Ecology [WDOE] 2015; Watershed Sciences 2003). These objectives are as follows:

1. Increase quantity of stable large wood material (LWM) and related aquatic habitat.

2. Decrease mobilization of fine sediments to the Deschutes River, which interfere with salmonid spawning and respiration and can bury redds.

3. Improve off-channel habitat conditions in the spring-fed side channel.

4. Create cold-water refugia habitat.

1.2 Opportunities and Constraints The conditions found in the project site present opportunities for restoration of ecological functions within the constraints of the natural and human environment. Preliminary opportunities and constraints have been identified and are summarized below in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Opportunities and Constraints for the Project Opportunities Constraints

Wide alluvial valley provides space for floodplain function and off-channel habitat.

Restoration actions cannot increase risk of flooding or erosion to privately owned neighboring parcels.

Glacial outwash gravel ensures supply of appropriate spawning substrate materials.

Natural sediment regime supports a dynamic channel with high rates of fine sediment input without protective LWM and vegetation.

Existing native riparian vegetation upstream and downstream can provide long-term sources of plant propagules and other organic inputs.

Highly unstable banks can threaten new native plantings with erosion.

Presence of off-channel habitat and spring-fed side channel is beneficial for salmonids.

Historical agriculture land use creates a challenging environment for establishment of riparian vegetation.

Cardno performed a series of existing conditions studies to further refine opportunities and constraints, and develop preliminary design plans. Hydrologic, hydraulic, geomorphic, and habitat investigations were performed in addition to a site survey and stakeholder meetings. These studies are summarized in the following sections.


June 2017 Cardno Preliminary Design Studies 2-1

Chapter 2 Preliminary Design Studies 2.1 Hydrology The Deschutes River watershed is made up of 143 streams totaling 256 linear miles. The basin begins at an elevation of 3,870 feet on Cougar Mountain and encompasses approximately 170 square miles of the Cascade foothills, draining to the north and west and ending at sea level at Capitol Lake in Olympia, Thurston County, Washington. The Deschutes River flows 52 miles before reaching Capitol Lake and eventually the Budd Inlet of the Puget Sound.

The climate in the basin is characterized by cool, dry summers and mild, wet winters. Due to the varied relief within the watershed, temperature and precipitation vary with elevation, but overall temperatures average 60 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer and 30 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter. Precipitation within the basin falls primarily as rainfall with some snow at high elevations, resulting in peak flows during the winter months when heavier precipitation occurs. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the average annual precipitation within the Deschutes River watershed is approximately 60.5 inches.

Hydrology within the Deschutes River has been recently studied as part of a revision of the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Thurston County conducted in 2013 by Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR). The hydrology report developed as part of the revised FIS investigation was based on analysis of USGS gage data and was used to determine design recurrence interval flows at the project site (STARR 2014). These flows are different than those used in the previously published FIS report. The hydrology report included estimates of discharges for the 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year recurrence intervals. For lower recurrence flows, such as the 2-year, gage data from the USGS gages near Rainer (Gage #12079000) and at the E Street Bridge in Tumwater (Gage #12080010) were used to scale recurrence flows to the basin area of the project site. The resulting recurrence interval flows are shown in Table 2-1 below.

Table 2-1: Flood Flows at the Project Site Recurrence Interval (years) Peak Flow (cubic feet per second) Source

2 4,035 This study

10 6,525 STARR 2013

25 7,756 STARR 2013

50 8,702 STARR 2013

100 9,580 STARR 2013

500 11,890 STARR 2013

Average monthly flows within the Deschutes River based on the USGS gage near Rainer are presented in Table 2-2. Very low stream flows and high water temperatures in the reach create poor habitat conditions for salmonids.



Table 2-2: Average Monthly Flow at the Project Site (1949–2016) (cubic feet per second) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

564 483 417 303 167 104 54 39 44 99 346 510

2.2 Hydraulic Modeling To simulate the existing and proposed conditions for the project, Cardno used an existing one-dimensional (1-D) Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) model that was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and created for the 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Draft Flood Insurance Study for Thurston County, Washington and Incorporated Areas (FEMA 2012). The FEMA model includes six reaches of the Deschutes River, beginning upstream at the headwaters of the river near Deschutes Falls Park and ending downstream at the mouth of the river at Capitol Lake, covering approximately 42 miles of the Deschutes River. The project area is located within Reach 4 and is represented by two cross-sections in the FEMA model. Recurrence flows developed in Table 2-1 above were applied to the steady-state flows in the HEC-RAS model to determine existing hydraulic conditions at the project site.

To evaluate the hydraulic effect of the project design, the two relevant cross-sections in the existing conditions model were modified to represent the floodplain grading, LWM placement, and engineered logjam (ELJ) structure. Both LWM placement and the ELJ structures were modeled as an increase in hydraulic roughness along a portion of the channel cross-section.

The results of the existing and proposed condition modeling show the hydraulic conditions at the project site, including water surface elevation, depth, and flow velocity. At the 2-year flow event, low areas of the project site become inundated. At the 25-year flow event, the majority of the site is inundated and during the 100-year flow event the entire site is inundated up to the valley walls. Figures 2-1 through 2-3 below show the 2- and 100-year water surface elevations at the upstream and downstream ends of the project site under both existing and proposed conditions. Additionally, the average month flow in August (39 cubic feet per second) was modeled and low water level determined to ensure that the proposed LWM structures would be engaged at this flow.

The proposed conditions model shows a slight localized rise in the 2- and 100-year water surface elevations, but this rise is limited to the immediate vicinity of the project and does not extend in the upstream or downstream directions. Table 2-3 below shows the existing and proposed 2- and 100-year water surfaces elevations and the change in water surface elevation between the existing and proposed conditions for the model cross-sections within the project reach. The modeling and regulatory issues related to this should be further investigated during the future design process.



Figure 2-1 Model Cross-Section Showing Existing (EC) and Proposed (PC) Water Surface Elevations at Upstream End of Project Site.

Figure 2-2 Model Cross-Section Showing Existing (EC) and Proposed (PC) Water Surface Elevations at Downstream End of Project Site.

Proposed Floodplain And Bank Grading

Proposed LWM placement modeled as increased roughness

Proposed ELJ placement modeled as increased roughness



Figure 2-3 Modeled Existing (EC) and Proposed (PC) Water Surface Profiles. Project Site is located between Cross-Sections 107387.2 CE and 106486.5 CD

Table 2-3: Existing and Proposed Water Surface Elevations. Project Site is located between Cross-Sections 107387.2 CE and 106486.5 CD

River Station Existing 2-Year WSEL (ft)

Proposed 2-Year WSEL (ft)

Change in 2-Year WSEL (ft)

Existing 100-Year WSEL (ft)

Proposed 100-Year WSEL (ft)

Change in 100-Year WSEL (ft)

109248.8 CF 315.79 315.83 0.04 319.87 319.85 -0.02

108656 314.71 314.77 0.06 318.24 318.19 -0.05

108571.2 State Hwy 507 Bridge

108522.2 314.55 314.61 0.06 317.61 317.56 -0.05

108512.2 314.54 314.6 0.06 317.61 317.56 -0.05

108472.2 Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge

108407.8 314.5 314.56 0.06 317.5 317.44 -0.06

107979.2 312.72 313.13 0.41 316.4 316.25 -0.15

107387.2 CE 311.76 312.07 0.31 313.86 314.17 0.31

106486.5 CD 310.76 310.96 0.2 313.6 313.68 0.08

104312.3 307.68 307.68 0 311.46 311.46 0

103262.4 306.32 306.32 0 310.51 310.51 0

WSEL = water surface elevation

2.3 Site Conditions Geology, soils, and geomorphology of the section of the Deschutes River containing the project site was discussed in detail in the Deschutes River Restoration 60 Percent Design Report

Project site

Hwy 507 Bridge BNSF Bridge



(Cardno 2012). The following section contains site-specific information about the existing conditions of the project site.

Within the project site, the Deschutes River flows through gravel glacial outwash on the left bank, outwash sands on the right bank, and Holocene (modern) river alluvium consisting of gravel bedload deposits overlain by 3 to 6 feet of sand and silt. The banks in the project site almost entirely comprise river alluvium (Cardno 2012). The right overbank floodplain near-surface soils are mapped as Newberg loam (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2015). The typical profile for Newberg loam consists of loam underlain by a layer of fine sandy loam.

The primary land use within the basin is commercial forestry, with residential properties and agricultural land located in the middle region of the basin. The lower portion of the basin is mixed use urban to suburban development.

The project area is located in an area consisting of a mixture of forestry and agricultural uses. The right floodplain consists of pasture land and the left floodplain is a mixture of pasture and forested land. Riparian coverage along the channel banks is fairly consistent throughout the project reach. Areas of the bank that are not covered in riparian vegetation are more prone to bank erosion and are the sites of more rapid channel migration than other, more heavily vegetated areas.

A site visit was conducted by Cardno on June 17, 2016, to verify and assess wetland and riparian conditions. Cardno scientists observed the following conditions:

> Wetland areas at or below elevation 308 feet NAVD 88.

> Observed invasive grasses in the open prairie above elevation 308 feet.

− Festuca arundinacea, Phalaris arundinacea.

> Observed riparian plants along the bank.

− Salix lucida, Salix sitchensis, and Cornus sericea.

> Observed upland riparian plants.

− Fraxinus latifolia, Oemlaria cerasiformis, Prunus emarginata, Symphoricarpus alnus, Amalanchier alnifolia, Corylus cornuta, Abies grandis, and Acer macrophyllum.

2.4 Topographic Data and Survey Topographic data for the project site was based on 2011 light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data available from the Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium (PSLC). The LiDAR-based data was supplemented by a ground-based survey of the right bank side channel and the eroding right bank near the upstream project limits. The ground-based survey of the right bank side channel was completed on March 28, 2016, using a survey-grade global positioning system (GPS) unit. Supplemental bank geometry data of the eroding right bank near the upstream project limits was collected on April 1, 2016, using a laser level and rag tape. Data were reported in Horizontal Datum: Washington State Plane – South Zone NAD 83/91, and Vertical Datum: NAVD 88 – Geoid 09. The combined topographic data from the LiDAR and survey sources were compiled in



AutoCAD, and the data sets were merged to construct a high-resolution topographic surface of the project area reflective of the existing 2016 site conditions.

2.5 Permit Requirements Stream projects often require several permits that may be interrelated and require extensive coordination with multiple agencies and stakeholders. Several environmental permits may be required for implementation of the proposed project (Table 2-4).

Given the presence of jurisdictional waters and wetlands, a Section 404 permit from the USACE and a Hydraulic Project Approval permit from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) may be required for implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, the project would be subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, by which the USACE must determine whether the project involves any activities that may affect historic properties or artifacts. A certification of “No-Rise” may be required from Thurston County to obtain construction permits and document that the project will not increase base flood elevations within the regulated FEMA 100-year floodplain. This initial list of permits may evolve as design elements and/or potential impacts are added or subtracted during final design.

Table 2-4: Potential Permits Needed for the Project

Potential Permits Agency Notes

Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application

Hydraulic Project Approval WDFW Consult with regional WDFW biologist

Clean Water Act (CWA) 401 Water Quality Certification

WDOE 404 permit requires development of a Section 401 water quality certification and potentially a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

CWA Section 404 permit USACE Determine extent of wetland and/or water of the state affected within the project area. May be individual or nationwide permit.

Section 106 cultural resources assessment

USACE Required by National Historic Preservation Act. Required as part of Section 404.

Other Compliance:

National Environmental Policy Act/State Environmental Policy Act

All agency coordination Required depending on lead agency and/or funding sources

Biological Assessment U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

May be required if federally listed species are present

Critical Areas Ordinance Certificate of Compliance

Thurston County Required based on critical areas in project area, including frequently flooded areas, critical wildlife habitat, and critical aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, and geologically hazardous areas

No Rise Certification Thurston County Certification that the project does not increase the base flood 100-year elevation

In addition to regulatory entities, several stakeholder organizations and individuals hold interests in the project area and vicinity, including the landowner, the Center for Natural Lands Management. SPSSEG has coordinated with several stakeholders during problem identification



and grant funding steps, and has held project-specific meetings with stakeholders at the initiation and conceptual design steps to-date. These meetings provided an opportunity for regulators, funders, landowners, and other stakeholders to comment on the project design and approval requirements and to provide feedback on approach and design iterations. Stakeholders include:

> Squaxin Island Tribe

> USACOE

> WDOE

> WDFW

> Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)

> Trout Unlimited

> State of Washington Recreation and Conservation Office

> Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 13 Salmon Habitat Recovery Committee





June 2017 Cardno Conceptual Design Alternatives 3-1

Chapter 3 Conceptual Design Alternatives As part of the design development for the project, two conceptual restoration design alternatives were developed to meet the project objectives while managing project constraints. These alternatives offered two different approaches for stabilizing the existing eroding right bank at the upstream end of the project site and installing a large LWM structure at the outlet of the right bank side channel. Conceptual design alternative figures are shown in Appendix A.

> Alternative 1: This option consists of setting back the existing eroding bank to create a more stable meander bend at the site of the current bank erosion. The setback bank would be stabilized with a combination of LWM at the toe of the bank and stabilized soil lifts along the face of the bank. Soil lifts would be revegetated with riparian plants to promote long-term stability of the bank. The top of the bank would be lowered by 2 to 3 feet to promote overbank flooding during a wide range of flows. This would promote sediment storage on the floodplain and increase engagement of the right bank side channel, which is currently disconnected at its upstream end. At the outlet of the right bank side channel near the downstream end of the project, an LWM structure will be placed to develop a deep scour hole within the area of cool water input from the side channel. The right bank floodplain area will be replanted with a mixture of riparian, conifer, and upland plant species to promote the development of a stable floodplain forest.

> Alternative 2: Alterative 2 is similar in scope to Alternative 1, but maintains the current bank alignment at the upstream eroding right bank. The right bank in this location will be stabilized in place with a larger number of more complex LWM structures compared to Alternative 1. These structures would function to roughen the bank and provide habitat benefits to salmonids through the development of scour pools with complex, woody cover. The placement of the LWM structures would stabilize the toe of the bank and allow for the establishment of riparian vegetation, which will further increase stability of the bank. Similar to Alternative 1, the right bank would be lowered by 2 to 3 feet to allow for more frequent overbank flooding on the right bank floodplain. Additionally, a large LWM structure would be placed in the outlet of the existing right bank side channel.

3.1 Technical and Stakeholder Review A technical review meeting was held on December 1, 2016, to discuss the conceptual design alternatives and select a preferred alternative to move forward to preliminary design. The meeting was attended by staff from SPSSEG, Cardno, WRIA 13 Lead Entity, WDNR, Center for Natural Land Management, and two local citizens. Based on the technical review, Alternative 2 was selected as the preferred alternative. Notes from the technical and stakeholder review meeting are provided in Appendix B.


June 2017 Cardno Conceptual Design Alternatives 3-2



June 2017 Cardno Preferred Preliminary Design 4-1

Chapter 4 Preferred Preliminary Design The preferred preliminary design was developed based on feedback obtained on Alternative 2 during the technical and public stakeholder review process. The preliminary design drawings are shown in Appendix C. Elements of the preliminary design and how they achieve project goals and objectives are discussed in the following sections.

4.1 Floodplain Grading The floodplain directly behind the existing eroding bank will be lowered and the bank slope regraded to reduce ongoing bank failures and increase overbank flows at the project site. As a result of the floodplain grading, the 2-year flow event will overtop the right bank and flow through the project site into the spring-fed oxbow channel. This increase in frequency of flood flows into the oxbow channel will promote geomorphic changes within the oxbow channel and improve off-channel habitat conditions for salmonids.

The eroding right bank is currently near vertical and experiences ongoing bank failure, which contributes sediment into the reach. Failures occur as the bank toe erodes, followed by collapse of the upper bank. The floodplain grading will lower this bank and decrease the slope of the bank, which will increase bank stability and reduce frequency of bank failures. The placement of LWM structures at the toe of this bank will also aid in increasing bank stability by deflecting flow away from the bank toe. The increase in bank stability along the eroding bank will result in a decrease of fine sediment input into the project reach.

4.2 Large Wood Material (LWM) Placement LWM placement consists of placing LWM structures along the eroding bank and placing a stand-alone ELJ structure at the outlet of the oxbow channel into the mainstem of the Deschutes River. The LWM structures located at the toe of the eroding bank will serve to reduce toe erosion at the bank, shift the river thalweg away from the bank, and increase aquatic habitat complexity and diversity in the project reach. The design intent of these structures is to engage the river during all flow conditions, including the low summer flows. Structure installation will include minor grading to create a small scour pool around the structure to increase engagement at low flows and improve habitat conditions.

The ELJ structure located at the oxbow outlet is designed to develop a large scour pool at the oxbow outlet, which will increase aquatic habitat complexity and cover and provide cool-water refugia in the deeper areas of the scour pool. The scour pool developed by this structure will also aid in maintaining the outlet of the oxbow channel so that it can be used as cool-water refugia by salmonids.

4.3 Planting Planting areas, species, and plant densities are shown on Sheet 6 of the preliminary design drawings in Appendix C. Further details regarding the planting design goals and objectives are provided in the Planting Design Memorandum found in Appendix D.


June 2017 Cardno Preferred Preliminary Design 4-2

4.4 Construction Cost Estimate Construction cost for the preliminary design was developed using material quantities taken from the design plans and unit costs estimated using data from similar projects constructed recently within the region. Based on these data, the estimated construction cost for the preliminary design including state sales tax and 20% contingency is $358,000. A detailed breakdown of the estimated construction cost is contained in Appendix E. Other costs for final design, permitting, and construction management are also presented.

4.5 Public Use and Safety Public use within the project reach and risks to public safety as a result of the proposed project are discussed in a memorandum to WDNR developed by SPSSEG, contained in Appendix F.


June 2017 Cardno References 5-1

Chapter 5 References Anchor Environmental, LLC. 2008. Final Deschutes Recovery Plan—Effects of Watershed

Habitat Conditions on Coho Salmon Production. Prepared for the Squaxin Indian Tribe.

Cardno. 2012. Deschutes River Restoration – 60% Design Report. Prepared for the South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group.

Cramer, D. 1997. Deschutes River Reach Scale Analysis and Habitat Survey. Thurston County, Washington.

Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). 2012. Draft Flood Insurance Study for Thurston County, Washington and Incorporated Areas. Effective October 16, 2012.

Haring, D., and J. Konovsky. 1999. Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors: Water Resources Inventory WRIA 13. Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission. Olympia, Washington.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture. 2015. Soils Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) for Thurston County. Available at: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov.

Pacific Groundwater Group. 1995. Initial Watershed Assessment Water Resources Inventory Area 13, Deschutes River Watershed. In association with Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Beak Consultants, Inc. and Marshall and Associates, Inc. Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology. Open-File Report 95-10.

Schlenger, P., C. Berger, L. Odle, and S. Cherry. 2015. Deschutes River Coho Salmon Biological Recovery Plan. Prepared for Squaxin Island Tribe Natural Resources Department. Confluence Environmental Company and Shane Cherry Consulting.

Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR). 2014. Hydraulics Report Deschutes Watershed, WA- PMR Detailed Analysis.

Taylor, K. 1999. Deschutes River Off-Channel Habitat Inventory. Squaxin Island Tribe Natural Resources Department under contract with Thurston County for the Deschutes River Erosion Hazard Analysis.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2015. Deschutes River, Percival Creek, and Budd Inlet Tributaries Temperature, Fecal Coliform Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, and Fine Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), Water Quality Improvement Report and Implementation Plan – FINAL. Washington State Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office, Olympia.


June 2016 Cardno References 5-2

Watershed Sciences, LLC. 2003. Aerial Survey of the Deschutes River, Washington Thermal Infrared and Color Videography. Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology.

Appendix A

Conceptual Design Alternatives

Appendix B

December 1, 2016, Design Team Meeting Notes

Deschutes River Mile 21 – Center for Natural Lands Management Preliminary Design Project (15-1228)

Design Team Meeting Notes December 1, 2016

In attendance: Jack Bjork (Cardno), Sanders Freed (CNLM), Allen Lebovitz (DNR), Theresa Nation (WDFW), Rick Hirshberg (Citizen), Ben Dennis (Citizen), John Ambrose (Cardno), Jerilyn Walley (SPSSEG)

Project Introduction: The goals of the project are to reduce fine floodplain sediments entering the river system, re-create native riparian forest conditions lost due to historic farming practices, address the lack of LWD to a .25-mile reach of the Deschutes River near River Mile 21 create self-maintaining in-stream complexity which provides in-channel holding and refugia from high flows, high temperatures and predators.

This location is one of the largest sediment sources in the system as identified in the main-stem Deschutes River Bank Erosion: 1991 to 2003 report by Mary Raines, NWIFC in December 2005. The Deschutes River, Percival Creek and Budd Inlet Tributaries TMDL Water Quality Improvement Report and Implementation plan prioritizes channel and riparian restoration actions in reach of State Route 507, which is just upstream of this project site.

Site Geology. The Project site consists of gravel glacial outwash on the left bank, outwash sands on the right bank, and Holocene (modern) river alluvium consisting of gravel bedload deposits overlain by 1 to 2 m of sand and silt. These fine sediments are easily susceptible to erosion if not stabilized by vegetative cover. The Project area consists of the Tumwater Sands and Holocene (modern) river alluvium consisting of gravel bedload deposits overlain by 1 to 2 m of sand and silt Eroding banks in this reach are almost all river alluvium. The extent of erosion is largely dependent on the presence of riparian vegetation which adds cohesion to the deposits, making them more resistant to erosion.

Hydrology: The Deschutes is the fastest rising (and falling) river in Thurston County, responding quickly to local rainfall and runoff. In the project reach, the river overtops its banks beginning at the 2-year peak flow events. Average peak flow velocities in the channel within the project area are 4,000 fps range for a flood stage event. Minor flooding occurs at a gage height of about 9.5 feet.

A spring fed channel occupies the northern extent of the floodplain valley wall and forms a 90-degree arc wrapping eastward and entering the mainstem at a large meander bend near the downstream end of the project reach. The spring channel is well vegetated with evidence of beaver activity.

Geomorphology: There is little impediment to channel migration in the Project site. Floodplain connection is not impeded geologically or from human modifications. The loss of riparian forest in the Project reach has led to a number of negative impacts to habitat quality in the Deschutes River. The loss of stream cover decreases shading, which leads to higher water temperatures and the opportunistic

colonization of non-native invasive vegetation that favors such conditions. The loss of forest also decreases bank strength from root cohesion and eliminates the sources of future LWM recruitment. As bank strength and boundary roughness decrease, increased bank erosion in the Project reach introduces fine sediment to the river. This reduces salmon spawning habitat quality and widens the channel, which further reduces the ability of the remaining riparian forest to provide stream cover. The lack of LWM in the river also has numerous negative effects to habitat forming processes, including decreased pool formation, sediment sorting, and loss of instream cover and refugia for salmonids. These related effects have worked in tandem to degrade habitat quality and quantity in the Deschutes River.

Restoration Recommendations: Efforts to restore habitat forming processes in the river should focus on re-establishment of the riparian forest through re-vegetation with long-lived native conifers and associated species. The installation of LWM in tandem with re-vegetation would immediately provide the benefits of natural wood in the river while protecting the newly planted native species from being eroded by the river. Plantings will require several years to become established and will not provide the optimal ecological function of a mature forest for decades. In addition, the segments in the Project reach most lacking in riparian forest are also generally the sites of high rates of erosion.

Following geologic, hydraulic and geomorphologic investigation of a one-mile reach centering on the intersection of the Deschutes with State Route 507, preliminary designs focused on the downstream 0.3-mile reach purchased by the Center for Natural Lands Management in 2014. Cardno engineers and geomorphologists developed a suite of design alternatives focusing on two distinct project areas:

1. The 300’ foot cut bank to reduce fine sediment from entering the system and provide habitat complexity and

2. Near the entrance to the spring fed channel to ensure connectivity during summer low flows to maintain the channel as thermal and predation refuge for juvenile salmonids. The project team determined the spring fed channel’s functioning condition was best left undisturbed by restoration actions.

CUT BANK AREA

Two treatments of the 300’ cut bank area are proposed:

Bank-set back treatment: Landscape geomorphological analysis examined the amplitude and wavelength of meander bends in the 1-mile reach and suggested the location of the cut bank is lacking meandered amplitude. This design alternative focuses on increasing the amplitude of the cut-bank by removing associated fine sediments in advance of the river occupying the created meander bend, installing rootwads, and advanced bio-engineering to provide bank roughness prior to the river occupying the created meander bend. The goal is to established a stable geomorphic planform.

Habitat complexity complex: Design focuses on adding large wood complexity to 300’ with the addition of 9-12 engineered log structures at OHW elevation, laying the cut bank back to a 2:1 slope and dense planting of the area.

Discussion of these two options focused on merits and drawbacks of each alternative. Specific comments regarding the Bank-Set Back alternative:

• effects on neighboring property – does project have the likelihood of re-directing force to the opposite bank? Would it be possible or desirable to do work on the west bank?

• ability of bioengineering to establish prior to hydraulic event destabilizing area

Specific comments regarding the Habitat complexity complex alternative:

• Ensure root-wad elevation engaged at summer flow • Ability of bioengineering to establish prior to hydraulic event destabilizing area

General Comments:

• Alternatives focused on bank stabilization rather than restoring ecosystem processes • No net rise requirements for aquatic projects • The property was purchased specifically for pocket gopher habitat restoration so designs should

support that goal as well as salmon habitat • Would it be possible to significantly raise the bed of the river to activate the floodplain?

o Concern was expressed regarding the rise in floodwaters since the project reach is a regulated floodplain.

SPRING CHANNEL/MAINSTREAM CONFLUENCE AREA

Treatment of the spring channel confluence: Currently, an abandoned beaver dam impounds the spring channel with an approximate 1’ elevation difference between the Deschutes River at low flow and the spring channel. To ensure year-round access to the spring channel, the design focuses on installation of an engineered log structure to create a scour pool for thermal refuge and for maintenance of the surface water connection from the river to the spring channel.

General Comments related to the spring channel outflow:

• Suggestion to look for current beaver activity

RIPARIAN RESTORATION

Current riparian restoration plan is to install a 50’ conifer buffer which will focus on historic native conifers and scrubs with a transition to oak prairie habitat (moving upslope away from the river) The plan also included lowering the surface of the floodplain from the 300’ cut bank area extending downstream toward the spring fed channel. The purpose would be to increase over bank flows to the spring channel and natural floodplain bench.

• Discussion of developing a wetland prairie planting plan • Suggestion to look into historic pictures to develop idea of historic species in the area • Suggested increasing the width of the floodplain flow path • The upland area outside the project is pocket gopher habitat, which is endangered. • Do not plant Douglas fir as it tends to colonize oak prairie communities.

Appendix C

Preliminary Design Drawings

5002500

FEET

DESCHUTES RIVER RM 21RESTORATION PROJECT

WASHINGTON

OLYMPIA

SEATTLE

SOUTH PUGET SOUND SALMON ENHANCEMENT GROUP

DESCHUTES RIVER

PROJECT SITE

DESCHUTES RIVER

FLOW

SR 507

PROJECT AREA

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE: AS SHOWN

CARDNO JOB NO.

SHEET NO.

801 SECOND AVE, SUITE 700SEATTLE, WA 98104

(206) 269-0104

DE

SC

HU

TES

RIV

ER

RE

STO

RA

TIO

N P

RO

JEC

T R

M 2

1TH

UR

STO

N C

OU

NTY

, WA

JS

JB

E316001500

1

TITL

E, V

ICIN

ITY

, AN

D S

HE

ET

IND

EX

File:

T:\G

eomo

rph\A

LL P

ROJE

CTS\

Desc

hutes

- RM

21\A

utoCA

D\Sh

eets\

30%

MAY

2017

\TIT

LE.dw

g Tab

: 1 T

ITLE

VIC

INIT

Y A

ND S

HEET

INDE

XPl

ot St

amp:

8/8/20

17 2:

37 P

M - J

oey S

mith

SHEET INDEX

Sheet Number Sheet Title

1 TITLE, VICINITY, AND SHEET INDEX

2 GENERAL NOTES AND LEGEND

3 SITE PLAN

4 LWM PLAN AND SECTION

5 ELJ PLAN AND SECTION

6 PLANTING PLAN

7 TESC PLANJUNE 2017

SITE ACCESS

FINISH SURFACE

FLARED END SECTION

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER

CENTERLINE

ASPHALT CONCRETE

CORRUGATED METAL PIPE

DRAINAGE INLET

ENGINEERED PROTECTION

FINISHED GRADE

CUBIC FEET OR CURB FACE

CONSTRUCTION LIMIT FENCE

FILTER FENCE

EXISTING GRADE

LF LINEAR FEET

FSFL

FESFFFG

FLOWLINE

GAS

CALCULATIONSCALC'S

EPEXF

ELEVELEC

EG

EXISTINGFIR

ELEVATIONELECTRIC

EEA

D/W

DETDI

EASTEACH

DRIVEWAY

DETAIL

CTCMP

COURT

CLRCLF

CONC

C

CF

L

CONCRETE

CLEAR

GENERAL NOTES

AC

APN

W

TYP

WEST OR WATER

TYPICAL

LEGEND

MAJOR CONTOUR

SHEET NUMBERDETAIL REF NUMBER

PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT

STSTA

SHTSF

ROW

SD

SHEET

SEDIMENT TRAP OR STREETSTATION

SQUARE FEET

RIGHT-OF-WAY

STORM DRAIN

PUEPROP

PPPL

OC

PROPOSED

POWER/UTILITY POLE

ON CENTER

PROPERTY LINE

NTS

ABBREVIATIONS

NOT TO SCALE

NORTHN

SOUTH OR SLOPES

PINEP

GRADE BREAKGB

MIN MINIMUM

RIGHTR

COUNTYCO.

DRIVEDR

EXISTING PROPOSED

PROPERTY LINE

G

DIAM OR Ø DIAMETER

REF REFERENCE

CONSTRUCTCONST

INST INSTALL

CUBIC YARDCY

1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED UNDER THE APPROVAL, INSPECTION, ANDTO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SOUTH PUGET SOUND SALMON ENHANCEMENT GROUP(SPSSEG). IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THESE PLANS AND THEWASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WSDOT) STANDARD PLANS,CURRENT EDITION. ALL REFERENCES TO THE "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS" SHALL MEANTHE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WSDOT) STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION, CURRENT EDITION.CONSTRUCTION NOT SPECIFIED ON THESE PLANS SHALL CONFORM TO THEREQUIREMENTS OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR IS OBLIGATEDTO BE FAMILIAR WITH APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS NOTDISCUSSED IN THE GENERAL NOTES. THE CONTRACT SPECIAL PROVISIONS SHALLSUPERSEDE THOSE OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS WHERE DISCREPANCIES OCCUR.

2. CONSTRUCTION HOURS SHALL BE WEEKDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 6:30 P.M. UNLESSPRIOR APPROVAL IS RECEIVED FROM THE SPSSEG.

3. THE LOCATIONS AND EXTENT OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE WORK AREAAS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE. A REASONABLEEFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO LOCATE AND DELINEATE EXISTING UTILITIES BASED UPONAVAILABLE RECORDS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE TYPE, LOCATION, SIZE,AND/OR DEPTH OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN THE WORK AREA BEFORECOMMENCING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR OR ANY SUBCONTRACTOR FOR THIS CONTRACTSHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BEOCCASIONED BY THE FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALLUNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UNDERGROUND SERVICEALERT AT (800) 642-2444 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. THECONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGED UTILITIES.

4. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE PLANS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLEFOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS AND OTHER SURVEYMARKERS DURING CONSTRUCTION.

5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE, PLACE, AND MAINTAIN ALL LIGHTS, SIGNS,BARRICADES, FLAG PERSONS, PILOT CAR, OR OTHER DEVICES NECESSARY TO CONTROLTRAFFIC THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION AREA AND FOR PUBLIC SAFETY IN ACCORDANCEWITH THESE PLANS, THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, FEDERAL HIGHWAYADMINISTRATION (FHWA) MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD) 2003EDITION.

6. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOBSITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDINGSAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY, AND FURTHER AGREES THAT THISREQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKINGHOURS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OUTLINED BY THE PROJECT CONTRACTAND STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.

7. AT NO TIME SHALL THE CONTRACTOR UNDERTAKE TO CLOSE OFF ANY EXISTING UTILITYLINES OR OPEN VALVES OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION WHICH WOULD AFFECT THEOPERATION OF EXISTING WATER OR SEWER SYSTEMS WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROMTHE UTILITY OWNER. APPROVAL SHALL BE REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCEOF THE TIME THAT THE INTERRUPTION OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM IS REQUIRED. ANYINTERRUPTION OF SERVICE TO ACTIVE WATER OR SEWER SERVICES, INCLUDING FIREHYDRANTS, WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT, MUST BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM TIME PERIOD.IF SERVICE TO BUILDINGS IS TO BE OFF FOR MORE THAN FOUR HOURS, THECONTRACTOR MUST ADVISE THE UTILITY OWNER.

8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING ALL TEMPORARYEROSION CONTROL MEASURES. THE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INACCORDANCE WITH THURSTON COUNTY AND STATE REGULATIONS. THE CONTRACTORSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND PERFORMANCE OF THETEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THEPROJECT.

9. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHOWN ON THE PLANS DELINEATE BOUNDARIES FOR THECONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS. CONSTRUCTION LIMIT FENCING SHALL BE ERECTED ALONGTHESE BOUNDARIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. WITHIN THECONSTRUCTION LIMITS, EXISTING VEGETATION SHALL BE PROTECTED TO THE EXTENTFEASIBLE. ALL EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PROTECTED UNLESS SHOWN ON THE PLANS TOBE REMOVED.

10. ALL EXTERNAL GREASE AND OIL SHALL BE PRESSURE-WASHED OFF THE EQUIPMENTPRIOR TO TRANSPORT TO THE SITE.

11. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND HIS SUBCONTRACTOR(S) TOEXAMINE THE PROJECT SITE PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF BID PROPOSALS. THECONTRACTOR SHALL BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE WORKIS TO BE PERFORMED, SUCH AS THE NATURE AND LOCATION OF THE WORK AND THEGENERAL AND LOCAL CONDITIONS, PARTICULARLY THOSE AFFECTING THE AVAILABILITYOF TRANSPORTATION, THE DISPOSAL, HANDLING, AND STORAGE OF MATERIALS,AVAILABILITY OF LABOR, WATER, ELECTRICITY, ROADS, THE UNCERTAINTIES OFWEATHER, THE CONDITIONS OF THE GROUND, SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE MATERIALS,THE EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES NEEDED PRIMARILY FOR AND DURING THEPERFORMANCE OF THE WORK, AND THE COSTS THEREOF. ANY FAILURE BY THECONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTOR(S) TO ACQUAINT HIMSELF WITH ALL THE AVAILABLEINFORMATION WILL NOT RELIEVE HIM FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROPERLY ESTIMATINGTHE DIFFICULTY AND COST OF SUCCESSFULLY PERFORMING THE WORK.

12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE AN EMERGENCY SPILL KIT ONSITE AT ALL TIMES.

13. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS FOR PIPE INVERTS, TOPS OF BANKS,THALWEGS,GRADE CONTROLS, ETC., ARE BASED UPON THE TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN ONTHE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL NECESSARY SURFACE ELEVATIONS INTHE FIELD AND NOTIFY SPSSEG OF ANY DISCREPANCIES, WHICH MIGHT AFFECT PROPEROPERATION OF THE NEW FACILITIES BEFORE BREAKING GROUND AND PRIOR TO FACILITYINSTALLATION. SPSSEG SHALL BE CONTACTED IN THE EVENT ELEVATIONS AREINCORRECT SO THAT THE PROPER ADJUSTMENTS CAN BE MADE PRIOR TO THEINSTALLATION OF THE FACILITIES, AS SET FORTH IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS.

14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AT HIS OWN EXPENSE ALL PERMITS, LICENSES,INSURANCE POLICIES, ETC., NOT ALREADY OBTAINED BY SPSSEG, AS MAY BENECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH STATE AND LOCAL LAWS ASSOCIATED WITH THEPERFORMANCE OF THE WORK.

15. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO REVIEW THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR ALLSUBMITTALS REQUIRED FOR SPSSEG REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE.

16. THE ENGINEER RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARATION OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONSWILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USESOF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BEAPPROVED BY THE OVERSEEING ENGINEER RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARATION OF THESEPLANS.

17. NO NATIVE TREES OR WETLAND VEGETATION SHALL BE REMOVED UNLESS THEY ARESHOWN AND NOTED TO BE REMOVED ON THE PLANS, OR AS DIRECTLY SPECIFIED ON-SITEBY THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT STAFF. ALL TREES CONFLICTING WITH GRADING SHALLBE TRIMMED. NO GRADING SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF TREES NOT TOBE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED.

18. IF, DURING CONSTRUCTION, ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS ARE ENCOUNTERED,CONSTRUCTION IN THE VICINITY SHALL BE HALTED, AND THE STATE OFFICE OF HISTORICPRESERVATION, SPSSEG AND A QUALIFIED ARCHEOLOGIST SHALL BE NOTIFIEDIMMEDIATELY.

19. PERMIT CONDITIONS MAY CONTAIN SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTROL OFOFF-SITE TURBIDITY FROM PROJECT OPERATIONS. TURBIDITY WILL BE MONITORED ON AFREQUENT BASIS BY THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION STAFF ON-SITE.TURBIDITY AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF THE PERMITTED AMOUNT AND/OR DURATIONS WILLCAUSE WORK TO BE STOPPED UNTIL IMPROVED PRACTICES ARE IN EFFECT AND THEPROBLEMS CONTROLLED. THE CONTRACTOR IS COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYPROJECT DELAYS THAT OCCUR BY NATURE OF THIS FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY CONTAINSEDIMENT ON-SITE.

20. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT NO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS,HYDRAULIC FLUID, SEDIMENTS, SEDIMENT-LADEN WATER, CHEMICALS, OR ANY OTHERTOXIC OR DELETERIOUS MATERIALS ARE ALLOWED TO ENTER OR LEACH INTO THE RIVER.

21. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE ALL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLEFEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AS WELL AS ALL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

22. BASE TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES.-LiDAR DATA FROM: PUGET SOUND LIDAR CONTSORTIUM (2011)-OXBOW AND BANK TOPOGRAPHY FROM: CARDNO (2016)

23. HAUL ROUTES AND STAGING AREAS ARE LIMITED TO THE AREAS DEPICTED ON THE PLANSUNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLDE-COMPACT AND REVEGETATE ALL HAUL ROADS AND STAGING AREAS PRIOR TODEMOBILIZING FROM THE SITE.

24. SENSITIVE AREAS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE PLANS. NO ACCESS OR DISTURBANCEOF THESE SITES SHALL BE ALLOWED

FIRE HYDRANTFH

BLVD BOULEVARD

CFS CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

RD ROAD

SEZ STREAM ENVIRONMENT ZONE

W/ WITHW/O WITHOUT

MISC MISCELLANEOUS

DISSIPATORDISS

L LEFT

SS SANITARY SEWER

HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL/PROJECTION

HORIZONTAL CONTROL: WA STATE PLANE, SOUTH ZONE, NAD 83 (US FEET).

VERTICAL CONTROL: NAVD 88

MINOR CONTOUR

A10

WFB WATER FILLED BERM

POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATUREPCC

PRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE

AVERAGE HIGH WATERAHW

BMP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

EROSION CONTROLEC

THALWEGTGTOP OF BANKTOB

APPROXIMATEAPPROX

HORIZONTALHORIZ

VERTICALVERT

BLDR BOULDER

NIT NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE

WA WASHINGTON

WSDOT WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SPSSEG SOUTH PUGET SOUND SALMON ENHANCEMENT GROUP

FO FIBER OPTIC CABLEB BURIED UTILITY LINE

EXISTING LOG

EXISTING WETLAND AREAS

MAJOR CONTOUR

MINOR CONTOUR

ACCESS ROUTE

SILT FENCE

315315

COFFER DAM

LWM STRUCTURE

ELJ

LWM LARGE WOODY MATERIAL

ELJ ENGINEERED LOG JAM

RE

VIS

ION

S

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE: AS SHOWN

CARDNO JOB NO.

SHEET NO.

DA

TEN

O.

SE

AL


(206) 269-0104

DE

SC

HU

TES

RIV

ER

RE

STO

RA

TIO

N P

RO

JEC

T R

M 2

1TH

UR

STO

N C

OU

NTY

, WA

JS

JB

E316001500

2

GE

NE

RA

L N

OTE

S A

ND

LE

GE

ND

File:

T:\G

eomo

rph\A

LL P

ROJE

CTS\

Desc

hutes

- RM

21\A

utoCA

D\Sh

eets\

30%

MAY

2017

\NOT

ES.dw

g Tab

: 2 G

ENER

AL N

OTES

AND

LEGE

NDPl

ot St

amp:

8/8/20

17 5:

07 P

M - J

oey S

mith

60% DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

308

RE

VIS

ION

S

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE: AS SHOWN

CARDNO JOB NO.

SHEET NO.

DA

TEN

O.

SE

AL


(206) 269-0104

DE

SC

HU

TES

RIV

ER

RE

STO

RA

TIO

N P

RO

JEC

T R

M 2

1TH

UR

STO

N C

OU

NTY

, WA

JS

JB

E316001500

3

SIT

E P

LAN

File:

T:\G

eomo

rph\A

LL P

ROJE

CTS\

Desc

hutes

- RM

21\A

utoCA

D\Sh

eets\

30%

MAY

2017

\ALT

2 PL

AN A

ND D

ETAI

LS.dw

g Tab

: 3 S

ITE

PLAN

Plot

Stam

p: 8/8

/2017

2:41

PM

- Joe

y Smi

th

INSTALL 8 LWM STRUCTURES,SEE TYPICAL DETAIL SHEET 4.

PROPOSED ELJSEE SHEET 5

PROTECT EXISTINGBEAVER DAM

DESCHUTES RIVERFLOW

PARCEL: 21618200200CENTER FOR NATURALLANDS MANAGEMENT


PARCEL: 21618320101HACKER, JOHN W

PARCEL: 21618320100COUTHRAN, EMMA J& NORMAN W

PARCEL: 11613140000NESLAND, RONALD R

0 60 120

HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 120'


EXISTING LARGELOG JAMS

EXCAVATE FLOOD PLAIN(~3,500 CY)

PLACE EXCAVATEDFLOODPLAIN MATERIAL(~3,500 CY)

EXISTINGAPPROXIMATEWETLAND AREAS(TYP. 3 PLACES)

GROUNDWATER FEDOXBOW CHANNEL

EXISTING LARGE WOOD

TOP OF BANK

TOE OF BANK

3'

EXCAVATE TRENCHES FORLOGS AND BACKFILL WITHNATIVE MATERIAL ANDCOMPACT TO 90%

EXISTING GRADE

PROPOSED LOWEREDFLOODPLAIN SURFACE

PLACE NATIVECOBBLE/BOULDER/GRAVELMIXTURE BEHIND LOGSTRUCTURE

EXCAVATE SCOUR POOL

LOW-FLOW

LAY BACK TOP 3' OFBANK AT 3:1 SLOPE

ZONE 1BANK PLANTING

ZONE 2OVERBANK / WETLAND

SHRUB PLANTING

PLACE 4-6 RACKING LOGSAND 2 CY OF SLASH

PLACE 4-6 RACKING LOGSAND 2 CY OF SLASH

10 - 20'

EXCAVATE SCOUR POOL

RE

VIS

ION

S

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE: AS SHOWN

CARDNO JOB NO.

SHEET NO.

DA

TEN

O.

SE

AL


(206) 269-0104

DE

SC

HU

TES

RIV

ER

RE

STO

RA

TIO

N P

RO

JEC

T R

M 2

1TH

UR

STO

N C

OU

NTY

, WA

JS

JB

E316001500

4

File:

T:\G

eomo

rph\A

LL P

ROJE

CTS\

Desc

hutes

- RM

21\A

utoCA

D\Sh

eets\

30%

MAY

2017

\ALT

2 PL

AN A

ND D

ETAI

LS.dw

g Tab

: 4 LW

M PL

AN A

ND S

ECTI

ONPl

ot St

amp:

8/8/20

17 2:

41 P

M - J

oey S

mith


SCALE:13

LWM STRUCTURE DETAIL1" = 10'

LWM

PLA

N A

ND

SE

CTI

ON

NOTES

1. LOGS (NUMBER IS ORDER OF INSTALLATION)

MIN 18" Ø, 20' LONG W/ ROOTWAD





2. MINIMUM 3' OF SOIL BACKFULL ABOVE TOP LOG IN STRUCTURE.

3. STRUCTURES WILL BE FIELD LOCATED BY ENGINEER.

SCALE:A-

LWM SECTION1" = 10'


50 10

RE

VIS

ION

S

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE: AS SHOWN

CARDNO JOB NO.

SHEET NO.

DA

TEN

O.

SE

AL


(206) 269-0104

DE

SC

HU

TES

RIV

ER

RE

STO

RA

TIO

N P

RO

JEC

T R

M 2

1TH

UR

STO

N C

OU

NTY

, WA


JS

JB

E316001500

5

ELJ

PLA

N A

ND

SE

CTI

ON

File:

T:\G

eomo

rph\A

LL P

ROJE

CTS\

Desc

hutes

- RM

21\A

utoCA

D\Sh

eets\

30%

MAY

2017

\ALT

2 PL

AN A

ND D

ETAI

LS.dw

g Tab

: 5 E

LJ P

LAN

AND

SECT

ION

Plot

Stam

p: 8/8

/2017

2:41

PM

- Joe

y Smi

th


100 20

SCALE:13

ELJ DETAIL1" = 20'

SCALE:A-

ELJ SECTION1" = 20'

35' X 35' ELJ

TOE OF BANK

TOP OF BANK

PROTECT EXISTINGBEAVER DAM

RE

VIS

ION

S

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE: AS SHOWN

CARDNO JOB NO.

SHEET NO.

DA

TEN

O.

SE

AL


(206) 269-0104

DE

SC

HU

TES

RIV

ER

RE

STO

RA

TIO

N P

RO

JEC

T R

M 2

1TH

UR

STO

N C

OU

NTY

, WA


JS

JB

E316001500

6

PLA

NTI

NG

PLA

N

File:

T:\G

eomo

rph\A

LL P

ROJE

CTS\

Desc

hutes

- RM

21\A

utoCA

D\Sh

eets\

30%

MAY

2017

\ALT

2 PL

AN A

ND D

ETAI

LS.dw

g Tab

: 6 P

LANT

ING

PLAN

Plot

Stam

p: 8/8

/2017

2:42

PM

- Joe

y Smi

th







ZONE 2 OVERBANK / WETLAND SHRUB: PLANT MINIUMUM 1.5" CALIPER 4' LONG LIVESTAKES OF SALIX ANDCORNUS SPP. INCLUDING SALIX HOOKERIANA, SALIX LUCIDA, SALIX SITCHENSIS AND CORNUS SERICEASPACED 3' APART. INTERMIX WITH ANSI CL#1 OF ACER CIRCINATUM, ROSA PHISOCARPA, SPIRAEADOUGLASII, RIBES LACUSTRE PLANTED 6' O.C.

ZONE 5 WETLAND PRAIRIE: DRILL SEED WITH A MIX OF NATIVE WETLAND PRAIRIE FORBS, BULBS ANDGRASSES INCLUDING DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA, CAMASSIA QUAMASH, CAREX SPP, ELEOCHARISPALUSTRIS AND ISOETES NUTTALLII. THEN LIVE MULCH WITH MYCORRHIZAL INOCULATED COVER OFHOREDEUM BRACYANTHERUM

ZONE 3 TRANSITIONAL: PLANT WITH A MIX OF SPP. FROM ZONES 2 AND 4. LIVESTAKES SPACED 3' APART,SHRUBS SPACED 6' O'C' AND TREES SPACED 15' O.C.

LEGEND

ZONE 4 UPLAND: PLANT WITH MATRIX OF THE FOLLOWING RIPARIAN TREES AND SHRUB SPP.PLANT ANSI CL#1 SHRUBS: SYMPHORICARPUS ALNUS, CRATAEGUS DOUGLASII, ROSA NOOTKANA,OEMLARIA CERASIFORMIS AND CORYLUS CORNUTA AT 6' O.C. PLANT ANSI CL#1 TREES FRAXINUSLATIFOLIA, AMALANCIER ALNIFOLIA AND PRUNUS EMARGINATA AT 15' O.C.

ZONE 1 BANK: PLANT MINIUMUM 1.5" CALIPER 4'LONG LIVESTAKES OF SALIX AND CORNUS SPP. INCLUDINGSALIX HOOKERIANA, SALIX LUCIDA, SALIX SITCHENSIS AND CORNUS SERICEA SPACED 1' APART.

EXTRAPOLATED LOCATION OF EXISTING RIVERINE WETLAND: DO NOT DISTURB

NOTES:1. PRIOR TO PLANTING CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE EXISTING INVASIVE

VEGETATION AND PREPARE SITE AS PER SPECIFICATION XX XX XX OF THESPECIAL PROVISIONS.

2. RETAIN EXISTING TREES EXCEPT AS DIRECTED.

0 12060

DESCHUTES RIVERFLOW

308

RE

VIS

ION

S

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE: AS SHOWN

CARDNO JOB NO.

SHEET NO.

DA

TEN

O.

SE

AL


(206) 269-0104

DE

SC

HU

TES

RIV

ER

RE

STO

RA

TIO

N P

RO

JEC

T R

M 2

1TH

UR

STO

N C

OU

NTY

, WA

0


JS

JB

E316001500

7

TES

C P

LAN

File:

T:\G

eomo

rph\A

LL P

ROJE

CTS\

Desc

hutes

- RM

21\A

utoCA

D\Sh

eets\

30%

MAY

2017

\ALT

2 PL

AN A

ND D

ETAI

LS.dw

g Tab

: 7 T

ESC

PLAN

Plot

Stam

p: 8/8

/2017

2:42

PM

- Joe

y Smi

th


DESCHUTES RIVERFLOW






INSTALL SILT FENCEAROUND FLOODPLAIN

GRADING AREAS

EXISTINGAPPROXIMATEWETLAND AREAS(TYP)

ACCESS ROUTE

60 120INSTALL TEMPORARY COFFER

DAM FOR FLOW DIVERSION

INSTALL SILT FENCE AROUNDEXISTING WETLAND AREAS ASNEEDED

INSTALL TEMPORARY COFFERDAM FOR FLOW DIVERSION

Appendix D

Planting Design Memorandum

Deschutes RM 21 Planting Plan Development Memo 1

Technical Memorandum

TO: Saunders Freed, CNLM & Jerilyn Walley, SPSSEG

FROM: Delia Lacson, Cardno and Dan Elefant, Cardno

RE: Deschutes RM 21 Planting Plan Development

DATE: December 2016

EXISTING CONDITIONS

On July 17, 2016, Cardno Scientists Dan Elefant and Delia Lacson visited the Deschutes RM 21 project site. We

observed the following conditions:

1. Wetland areas at or below elevation 308 feet navd88.

2. Observed invasive grasses in the open prairie above elevation 308 feet

Festuca arundinacea, Phalaris arundinacea

3. Observed Riparian Plants along the Bank

Salix lucida, Salix sitchensis and Cornus sericea

4. Observed Upland Riparian Plants

Fraxinus latifolia, Oemlaria cerasiformis, Prunus emarginata, Symphoricarpus alnus, Amalanchier

alnifolia, Corylus cornuta, Abies grandis, Acer macrophyllum

DESIGN CONTEXT

SPSSEG has contracted Cardno to provide engineering and design in support of Deschutes River Restoration (RM 21) Project. SPSSEG and CNLM have requested a revision of the preliminary planting plan to more effectively support CNLM’s Oak Woodland Restoration efforts upland from the project area. Based on Cardno’s field observations, preliminary design research, hydraulic model (see Figure 1) and upland restoration efforts managed my CNLM. We propose that a portion of the project site would be a good candidate for restoration of wet prairie landscape (see Figure 2 and subsequent description of proposed planting zones). The site falls within a historical area of wet prairie swales, refer to Figure 3. The wet prairies of South Puget Sound were once abundant throughout the basin of the South Cascades these unique ecotones were converted for agricultural use and are now critically endangered habitats covering less than 2 % of the matrix within South Puget Sound and the Willamette Valley. According to Salstrom and Chappell’s 2005 paper entitled “WET PRAIRIE SWALES OF THE SOUTH PUGET SOUND, WASHINGTON, “…functioning wet prairie swales in complexes with upland prairies, woodlands and wetlands may enhance wildlife resources available on the landscape, and their

management may be important to the long‐term conservation of some prairie species” (Salstrom and Chapelle,

2005).

Cardno 801 Second Avenue Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 USA Phone: +1 206 269 0104 Fax: +1 206 269 0098 www.cardno.com


Figure 1: Cardno hydraulic model of proposed conditions 2‐year inundation boundary.

Figure 2: Cardno sketch of proposed planting concept. Note that light transparent blue is carries over from Figure 1.


Figure 3: Project site shown approximately by yellow dot. This figure illustrates locations of prairie soils within South Puget

Sound, prepared by The Nature Conservancy, excerpted from Noland and Carver’s 2011 paper entitled “Prairie Landowner’s Guide for Western Washington”

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Restore Native Riparian Habitat

Support Upland Oak Woodland

Establish Native Wet Prairie Habitat

Idea: Seedbank for rare species:

o Upland/Oak Woodland: i.e, Castilleja levisecta

o Wet Prairie: i.e., Isoetes nuttallii, Physostegia parviflora


PROPOSED PLANTING ZONES (Shown in Figure 2)

Zone 1 – WETLAND PRAIRIE Diverse seed/bulb mix TBD. May include: Deschampsia cespitosa, Camassia quamash, Carex spp, Eleocharis palustris, Isoetes nuttallii,

Zone 2– WETLAND SHRUB

Salix lucida, Salix sitchensis, Cornus sericea, etc.

Zone 3 ‐ TRANSITION Mix of species from Zones 2 & 4

Zone 4 ‐ UPLAND RIPARIAN (WOODY RIPARIAN SHRUBS)

Symphoricarpus alnus, Crataegus douglasii, Rosa nootkana, Oemlaria cerasiformis, Corylus cornuta, Fraxinus latifolia, Amalancier alnifolia, Prunus emarginata

No planting of competitors to Quercus garryana (i.e. no Abies grandis, Acer macrophylla, Thuja plicata, Psedotsuga menziesii)

CONSIDERATIONS – CNLM LONGTERM MANAGEMENT PLAN

The process of restoring native wet prairie from agricultural grassland will require a long‐term management plan.

Due to the relative scarcity of wet prairies within South Puget Sound, there is less existing data available to inform

best practices for restoration, long term monitoring, and land management. Precedent sites for the restoration of

wet prairie exist along Muck Creek (tributary to the Black River) in Washington State and Willamette Valley

prairies. These sites may apply to the proposed wet prairie restoration at RM 21. The following proposal for wet

prairie establishment includes weed control and is adapted and improved by Cardno based on the plans set forth

for Muck Creek in the Salstrom and Chapelle 2005 document:

Remove existing native material to improve basic wetland hydrology to create seasonal wet conditions at

the proposed wet prairie site as shown in the proposed inundation map of Figure 1.

Till the wet prairie restoration site shown in Figure 2 to reduce potential for invasive reestablishment

Drill seed wet prairie species to retain maximum volume of seeds on site (i.e. Deschampsia cespitosa)

Live mulch with mycorrhizal inoculated cover of Horedeum bracyantherum to provide early successional

cover crop for slower growing prairie species.

Expect 2 ‐5 years for native grass to become established on the restored site

Appendix E

Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

6/30/2017

1 1-05 Construction Surveying LS 1 5,000$ 5,000$

2 1-09.7 Mobilization LS 1 25,000$ 25,000$

3 2-03 Excavation and On-Site Disposal - Floodplain Grading CY 3,500 12$ 42,000$

4 6-04 LWD Structures EA 8 4,000$ 32,000$

5 6-04 ELJ EA 1 25,000$ 25,000$

6 8-01 Erosion/Water Pollution Control(TESC, SWPPP with SPCCP, and CESCL) LS 1 7,500$ 7,500$

7 8-01.3(1)C1 Water Management LS 1 15,000$ 15,000$

8 9-14.6 Zone 1 Plants - Furnish Only Acre 0.17 43,500$ 7,395$

9 9-14.6 Zone 2 Plants- Furnish Only Acre 7.8 7,300$ 56,940$

10 9-14.6 Zone 3 Plants- Furnish Only Acre 1.2 7,050$ 8,460$



13 2-01 Vegetation Removal- Mowing and Mulching Acre 12.0 3,500$ 42,000$

Construction Subtotal 275,915$

Contingency (20%) 55,183$

Subtotal 331,098$

WA State Sales Tax (7.9%) 26,157$

Total Construction 357,255$

Final Design PS&E (8%) 30,000$

Permitting (5%) 20,000$

Construction Management (5%) 20,000$

Total 427,255$

Deschutes River RM 21 Restoration Project 60% Estimate

ITEM NO. SPEC. DESCRIPTION OF ITEM UNITESTIMATED QUANTITY

UNIT PRICE EXTENDED AMOUNT

Appendix F

WDNR Public Safety Checklist for LWD Projects

DNR Public Safety Checklist for LWD Projects Deschutes River Mile 21 LWD & Riparian

November 15, 2016

Page 1 of 10

Proposed Project: Deschutes River Mile 21 Channel Complexity and Riparian Habitat Restoration

Proponent: South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group

Date Submitted: June 7, 2017

Background:

The South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group has received planning grant funding through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to enhance aquatic habitat in the reach by increasing the amount of large woody debris (LWD) resulting in adding channel complexity and bank roughness to replace that lost due to loss of riparian habitat. Work conducted under this grant will also prepare a riparian restoration planting plan for the project area. Development of this restoration design project has been a collaborative effort between Center for Natural Lands Management, the Department of Natural Resources, South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group and Cardno.

Goals:

The goals of the project are to reduce fine floodplain sediments entering the river system, create pools for thermal refuge, add much needed LWD to a .25-mile reach of the Deschutes River near River Mile 21 and restore riparian conditions lost due to historic farming practices.

This location is one of the largest sediment sources in the system as identified in the main-stem Deschutes River Bank Erosion: 1991 to 2003 report by Mary Raines, NWIFC in December 2005. The Deschutes River, Percival Creek and Budd Inlet Tributaries TMDL Water Quality Improvement Report and Implementation plan prioritizes channel and riparian restoration actions at State Route 507, which is just upstream of this project site. In pursuit of these goals, a recreational assessment following the Department of Natural Resources Checklist for Large Woody Debris Projects follows.

Public Use:

A) What activities take place in the vicinity of the project? Describe the time of year, frequency, and popularity of the site for these uses. Document descriptions in guidebooks for canoeing, rafting or fishing or any internet sites. Note whether or not there is a history of accidents in the vicinity of the proposed project.

The Deschtues River, near and in the project reach, is primarily used for fishing and swimming. Fishing occurs primarily in the fall, winter and spring while swimming occurs primarily in the summer. A active


November 15, 2016

Page 2 of 10

swimming location exists .25 river miles upstream of the project site. The site, located on the Yelm-Tenino Bicycle Trail, is commonly used when air temperatures exceed 65 degrees F. Summer water levels are too low for boating, floating or rafting. However, the section between the Yelm-Tenino Bicycle Trail and Military Road is commonly used for floating in an inner-tube (see below floating route).

The Deschtues River is highlighted on the Home Waters website by Ron Eagle Elk at http://flyanglersonline.com/features/homewaters/part4.php. While he does not mention the project reach, he does say:

After fishing the Little D for several years, there is one aspect of the river that I, personally, both love and loathe. It's almost impossible to get this little river wired. This is a wild river. During the summer the water runs low, clear and cold, usually from April or May well into October and often November. Once the winter rains hit though, it becomes a raging torrent of brown, fast moving water, uprooting the trees that line the banks and moving rocks as large as watermelons around in the stream bed.

The website Fly Fishing Tips: select flied for select waters (http://selectflies.com/wp/selec-flies-for-select-waters-washington-state/region-vi-thurston-county/) contains the following:

This river produces 35 miles of fishing before dumping into Capitol Lake in Olympia. It contains Bows in the upper reaches along with Steelhead and Salmon. May and June are the premier months to fish this river. Old Hwy. 99 SE and Waldrick Rd SE roughly follow the river from the airport in Olympia southeast to WA 507. Vail Cut off Rd. and Gordon Rd. SE. follow it south of

http://flyanglersonline.com/features/homewaters/part4.php

http://selectflies.com/wp/selec-flies-for-select-waters-washington-state/region-vi-thurston-county/

http://selectflies.com/wp/selec-flies-for-select-waters-washington-state/region-vi-thurston-county/


November 15, 2016

Page 3 of 10

WA 507. There are various spur roads and streets along these roads that go to or closely follow the river. I was going to list them with directions, but found that it would be too much and to confusing.

Additionally, the site is recognized on a recently produced map titled “Washington’s Deschtues Lake and River Guide” as a put-in location, with a disclaimer: “Not Recommended: Poachers!” (unpublished data). A public records request of TComm911, Thurston County’s regional 911 dispatch center, indicated that emergency personnel have not been called to the project address or the intersection of the Deschutes with State Route 507 in the last 10 years.

B) What type of access to the area is available and at what distance from the project site?

The project site and additional parcels are held in conservation status by the Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM). Their holdings at this site consist of 250 acres, as outlined in red on the figure. Bisecting the property on the north is the Chehalis-Western Trail (going SE to NW), and to the south is the Yelm-Tenino Trail, owned by Thurston County Parks (going east to west on the north side of SR 507). These two “Rails to Trails” parks are used by pedestrians, horseback riders and bicyclists. The Yelm-Tenino Trail and State Route 507 both have bridges over the Deschutes River; this location is an access point to the river, although parking is limited.


November 15, 2016

Page 4 of 10

C) D) Have any public safety studies and/or risk assessment been completed? Provide.

To determine what activities take place in the vicinity of the project during the warm summer months, SPSSEG mounted two game cameras in the project reach at proposed installation sites. The cameras were mounted June 27, when temperatures rose above 70° F and removed August 19, as temperatures began to decrease and kids returned to school. Moultrie ® motion activated game cameras set to take 2 pictures each time movement was detected. The two cameras had 352 detections resulting in 704 pictures. The majority of the pictures were of animals with only 40 pictures containing people. A total of twenty individuals were photographed in the site reach. Of those, two were moving upstream in an inflatable raft, two were moving downstream carrying inflatable tubes and sixteen individuals were utilizing the shore line for walking, fishing and/or swimming.

E) Provide a narrative describing any community and river user-group consultations that have been carried out to address public safety.

SPSSEG spoke with neighbors, the property owner (Center for Natural Lands Management), the South Sound branch of Trout Unlimited, South Sound Fly Fishers and requested information from the whitewater rafting website RiverFacts.com. According to those sources, the majority of the summer recreational use in the area is focused at the State Route 507 Bridge over the Deschutes and consists of


November 15, 2016

Page 5 of 10

swimming and jumping off the bridge. The former property owner, Bill Turner, indicated people mostly wade through the reach as there is no enough water to float on an inner-tube and there are two natural log jams that have spanned the river in the area (pers comm).

Site Description:

A) General channel description: gradient, bedform, ordinary high water width and depth, adjacent banks (e.g. steep, flat, high, vegetated).

The central Deschutes watershed is dominated by relatively low-relief woodland and grass-covered prairies that formed on glacial terraces, outwash plains and other remnant features of the most recent continental glaciation. The project reach is comprised of late Pleistocene Vashon recessional outwash sand and silt (unit Qgog). This unit consists of gray-to-tan colored deposits of loose sand, gravel and cobbles that were laid down by melt-water streams as the Vashon Glacier retreated. The clasts are moderately-to-well rounded and are mostly of northern source plutonic and metamorphic rock types.

This unit is a productive and generally unconfined aquifer where saturated. In the project reach the channel is incised an average of 5’ below the floodplain bench which ranges between 310’ and 314’


November 15, 2016

Page 6 of 10

elevation extending over 300’ before raising sharply to above 330’ elevation. The floodplain bench is largely deforested due to historic agricultural practices.

B) Range of conditions, particularly during time of peak use: flow volume and velocity, maximum depth, channel width.

A USGS gage is located .2 river-miles upstream at the river’s intersection with State Route 507 and the Yelm-Tenino Rails to Trails. The figures to the right show the average and 2015 stream flows and gage heights.

The average channel width is 118’ with an ordinary high water width of 88’ at the project reach. The maximum bank height is 10’, located at the cut bank treatment site.

Peak recreational use of the Deschutes occurs during fall and spring for fishing and rafting; swimming, wadding and floating occurs in the summer when temperatures are above 70 degrees F. The maximum depth during these periods ranges from 4.3 to 2.8 feet at the gage located .25 river miles upstream of our project site.

C) Describe downstream structures such as bridges or docks.

There is a County bridge at Military road downstream approximately 1.3 river miles.

D) Identify relationship to towns, cities or other population centers.

The project site is two miles southwest of the town of Rainier, population 1, and 3 miles northeast Tenino, population 1,695 794 (2010, Rainier Comprehensive Plan 2016-2036).

http://cityofrainierwa.org/core/uploads/2016/08/2016-07-28-Draft-Rainier-Comp-Plan.pdf


November 15, 2016

Page 7 of 10

Project Description

A) Where is the project relative to the water body?

This SRFB Funded Design Only Project seeks to address lack of channel diversity and reduce sediment input into the Deschutes. The Design Team is evaluating in-water design options including a Bend Set-Back alternative and/or instream large wood structures at the location of an 8’ cut bank that extends approximately 300 linear feet. Also proposed is a downstream in-stream wood structure located near the outlet of a spring fed channel at the north-western extent of the project reach.

B) How are the project designs to interact with the channel and the flow?

The purpose of the Bend Set-Back option is to create a stable bend at this location. Evaluation of the existing channel pattern upstream and downstream showed that bank erosion at the proposed location is resulting from the natural process whereby the channel forms a preferred planform. In this case, the preferred planform is a more pronounced bend. Rather than allowing the river erode this material and further impact the downstream river, this option includes the excavation of this material and creation of a stable bank.

The ELJ option would essentially create a series of deflectors that moves the high velocity thread away from the bank, forming scour pools and tailout bars.

C) What is the minimum line of sight distance navigating up and down stream?

For the upstream most structure, the line of site upstream is 200’; the line of site distance navigating from downstream is 360’ and navigating from upstream is 80’. For the downstream structure, the line of site distance navigating from downstream is 30’ and navigating from upstream is 50’.

D) How long will it take floating users to reach the project during the most frequent or expected use (taking into account the most likely direction of travel)?

During the most frequent or expected use time periods, the water level is too low to float. However, there is an actively utilized swimming hold .25 river-mail upstream of the project location. Many people walk through the area while floating between the Yelm-Tenino Bicycle Trial and Military Road (Figure 1).

E) Is the project located in a position where people can readily avoid the structure and other nearby hazards?

The upstream most ELS is proposed for a location that can be easily avoided. The downstream structure has a more limited site distance and swifter water.


November 15, 2016

Page 8 of 10

F) Describe how the project will protect public safety.

Either option will be designed to protect public safety and not increase hazards for the public users we have identified. Either will be design to less hazardous than the existing large wood in the river.

G) Licensed engineers with fluvial geomorphological and/or hydraulic experience in safely designing large wood restoration projects are strongly encouraged as part of the restoration team. What is the experience of the designer?

The engineering team for this project consists of Jack Bjork, PE, Derek Booth, PhD, P.E., Geomorphologist and Eric Pruneda, P.E., from Cardno. The project lead is Jack Bjork, P.E., D.WRE. Jack Bjork has 39 years of experience specializing in water resource projects and his skills include feasibility studies, field evaluation, planning, modeling, plans and specifications for design, cost estimating, scheduling, stakeholder involvement, agency coordination, construction engineering and expert witness consultation. His water resource projects have involved engineered logs jams, stream geomorphology, stream restoration, creek erosion, flood studies, bank stabilization, fish facilities, fish ladders, culverts and bridge scour. He has completed nearly 50 restoration designs involving large woody debris (LWD). Mr. Bjork is a highly experienced, hands-on designer and project manager and has successfully planned, permitted, designed and implemented a wide variety of water resources projects. Mr. Bjork was the project manager for the Idylwood Creek Restoration Project, which won the Outstanding Water Resources project for 2002 from the Seattle Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers. He was design lead and just completed construction engineering on the Skagit River Bank Protection Project which won the 2013 WSDOT Excellence in Environmental Design Award. He managed the Kandoll Farm Wetland Restoration project which won third place as the 2013 Infrastructure Project of the Year in Oregon and Southwest Washington by the Daily Journal of Commerce. Mr. Bjork has also been an instructor in Northwest Environmental Technology Center’s course on the design of Engineered Log Jams and was elected to the American Academy of Water Resources Engineers (D.WRE.) in 2008. MS, Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1976 BS, Geology, Oregon State University, 1972 BS, General Science, Oregon State University, 1972

In addition to consulting with Cardno, Derek Booth is an adjust faculty at University of California’s Santa Barbara Bren School of Environmental Science and Management and University of Washington’s Earth and Space Science Program as project geologist and geomorphologist. His recent projects span the fields of watershed assessment and planning, stormwater management, and stream restoration. Previously, he was a research professor in the departments of Civil & Environmental Engineering and Earth & Space Sciences at the University of Washington; he retains an active position as affiliate professor in both departments. He is presently the Senior Editor of the international scientific journal Quaternary Research and was past president of Stillwater Sciences, Inc.

H) Specify what flood event the project is designed to withstand.


November 15, 2016

Page 9 of 10

The project is designs to withstand 100-year food events.

Anticipated Outcomes

A) Describe how the project is anticipated to affect geomorphic characteristics of the water body at, upstream and downstream of the proposed project as previously described in number 4 above. As applicable, describe how the project will interact with existing hazards or create new hazards by altering the channel/banks, water depths, currents, wood migration, or flooding.

The project is explicitly intended and designed to affect the geomorphology of the Deschutes River through the project reach. At the upstream site, the rate of ongoing natural bank erosion will be accelerated by excavating a meander bend of the size and at the location that the channel is already seeking to create. Thus, long-term, there is likely no difference between the with-project and without-project outcomes (but the project will substantially reduce downstream sediment loads). An existing, natural log jam at the project site will not be removed and is likely to further accumulate additional word and debris over time, with or without the project; potential augmentation of this jam to increase in-channel diversity is planned, but it will be designed to avoid any channel-spanning obstructions. The created meander bend will tend to draw boaters away from this jam, and the line-of-site is (and will continue to be) in excess of 150’.

At the downstream site, the planned ELJ is designed to improve the connectivity of the main river with the adjacent side channel. It will likely have the ancillary effect of slowing the rate of natural bank erosion immediately downstream, which in turn will reduce the rate at which mature riparian trees fall into and across the channel as water flows around the downstream bend. The planned ELJ will also be dwarfed by a larger, natural jam that has already formed about 350 feet upstream. The location of the planned ELJ, near the outside of a sharp bend in the river, could be problematic for boaters in the river during high flows, but the hazard that it poses is far less than the upstream mid-channel jam that already exists. It is also located at the end of a long straight reach, with line-of-site limited only by the upstream jam (i.e., >300 ft). That upstream jam is also likely to reduce the amount of uncontrolled wood moving downstream to collect on the constructed ELJ over time.

B) How will the project affect people’s ability to safely access and exit the water?

The project will make it easier for people to safely access and exit the water at the location of the ‘bend set-back’ location by decreasing the current cut bank by 2.5’.


November 15, 2016

Page 10 of 10

C) Does the project increase the relative risk to the typical user at this portion of the water body?

No.

D) What public safety and resource risks are associated with structural failure?

The features will be conservatively designed to minimize the risk of structural failure. A structural failure would not increase risk to public safety because the reach already contains very hazardous large wood spanning the channel. Structural failure would not increase the risk to the aquatic resources because only natural material will be used. A failure would add more needed large wood to the river.

Mitigation Measures

A) What structural or design elements were applied to this project to minimize public safety risks?

The wood structures will be designed with factors of safety for buoyancy, overturning, sliding, and rotation using standard engineering practice and methods. This approach will minimize the risk of failure. Although there are limited floating users, the large wood elements will be constructed to minimize strainers and other risky aspects. The ELJs will form additional scour pools which may be used by swimmers. These pools will be similar to other pools on the river and, at other similar sites, have not created unsafe conditions for swimmers.

B) What is the frequency and term of post-construction monitoring to assess structural integrity of the project and ease of avoidance by water users? What is the performance threshold for success or failure? How will this information be reported? What is the contingency plan if problems are detected or for failed performance?

The project sponsor will monitor structural integrity of the project yearly for a period of 5 years then bi-annually for the next 5 years.

C) Provide a narrative describing the public awareness/education strategy, if necessary, to address public safety. Identify proposed public safety notices.

No public awareness or education strategy was deemed necessary for the proposed treatments to this reach as recreational user use is generally walking and primarily occurs when water levels are too low and slow to provide a public safety risk.

D) How and where will safety signage be used to protect in-water users? This detail should be included on the plan view of the design.

Safety signage is not proposed for this project.

Toll-free 800 368 7511 www.cardno.com

Australia • Belgium • Canada • Ecuador • Indonesia • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea Peru • United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 70 countries

Down to Earth. Down to Business.™

Date post:	26-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Deschutes River Mile (RM) 21 Restoration Project › sw › swdocuments... · Deschutes River RM 21...

Documents