The URL can be used to link to this page

12-103441Jsaac Conlen From: Isaac Conlen Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:45 AM To: Rob Anderson Cc: 'la rry.fish er@dfw.wa.gov'; William Appleton Subject: RE: EarthCorps- Picket Fence project Hi Rob, In light of the below response from Mr. Fisher, we agree that your project is exempt from city permitting requirements. Feel free to proceed. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Isaac 253 835 2643 From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) [mailto: Larry. Fisher@dfw.wa.gov] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 8:31 AM To: Rob Anderson Cc: Isaac Conlen Subject: RE: EarthCorps- Picket Fence project Yes and yes Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 1775 12th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 FAX 425-427-0570 <'){{}}>< <'Affl>< From: Rob Anderson frna!Ito:Rob earthcor s.or Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:49 AM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) Cc: Isaac Conlen Subject: EarthCorps- Picket Fence project Hi Larry, I'm writing in regard to HPA 113086-2 which you helped me with a couple of months ago. Isaac Conlen (cc'd) with the city of Federal Way is in charge of the local permitting. My understanding is that the project was permitted through the streamlined process for "Fish Habitat Enhancement Projects" per RCW 77.55.181 and therefore was considered exempt from local permits. Would you be able to confirm whether this is the case, and whether this exemption still applies to the continuation of the project this year? Thanks very much for your help, Best, Senior Project Manager ph 206.322.9296 x206 cell 206.718.5720 email rob _ earthcorps.org 6310 NE 74`h Street, Suite 201 E, Seattle, WA 98115 :.„H I' iittigrtPS.£ftG I r is I TinliiiER I YOElTE1sE I DONATE EarthCorps is a 501c3 non-profit organization —Tax ID 91-1592071 From: Isaac Conlen rmailto:Isaac.Conlen-Ucityoffederalway,com] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 3:00 PM To: Rob Anderson Subject: RE: EarthCorps- Picket Fence project Hi Rob, I had a chance to look over the materials you sent us. It looks like it will be exempt from city permitting and fees. I didn't see anything in the HPA that expressly states the approval is issued subject to RCW 77.55.181 (it's implied, however, based on the type of work you are doing). Would you mind having the reviewer from WDF&W contact me (email is fine) to confirm that the project is permitted under 77.55.181? At that point I'll confirm that you're exempt and you can proceed. Thanks. Isaac From: Rob Anderson fmaiito:RobCaiearthcortas.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: Isaac Conlen Subject: EarthCorps- Picket Fence project Hi Isaac, Here's the information regarding the Picket Fence project for your review. Overview of the project: The Picket Fence project uses an inexpensive and low -tech means of slowing the transport rate of sand and gravel through a system in order to enhance the stability of the bed and bank and improve in -stream fish habitat. it consists of a series of wood stake 'fences" that trap debris and sediment at targeted locations to create pools and curves conducive to salmon, and reconnect the stream with adjacent flood plains. This idea won high acclaim in the 2006 Radical Salmon competition as an innovative solution to salmon restoration. This phase of the project uses an adaptive management strategy that integrates past years' monitoring data to adjust existing picket fences into more effective shapes. I have attached the project report which describes the existing project, constructed in 2008. Our intent is to monitor the existing structures and to use the information obtained to re -build or improve on the structures later this summer. My understanding is that the project was permitted through the streamlined process for "Fish Habitat Enhancement Projects", per RCW 77.55.181. htta s.le .wa. ov rcw default.as x?cite=77.55.181 As a result I believe it was considered exempt from local permits and fees. I have also attached the HPA and streamlined -process form. The HPA is valid through June 2013. Please let me know if you have questions or I can provide additional information. Thanks! ROB ANDERSON Senior Project Manager ph 206.322.9296 x206 tell206.718.5720 email rob()earthcornorp 6310 NE 74th Street, Suite 201E, Seattle, WA 98115 n r �s.. _.. i ��C So€� c i Twt r>= i �rot�rusE i DONATE. EarthCorps is a 501c3 non-profit organization —Tax ID 91-1592071 Isaac Conlen From: Rob Anderson <Rob@earthcorps.org> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: Isaac Conlen Subject: EarthCorps- Picket Fence project Attachments: Picket Fence Study Report - final - merged.pdf; HPA revised.pdf; JAR PA_supplement_fish_enhancement9_22_10 REVISED.doc Hi Isaac, Here's the information regarding the Picket Fence project for your review. Overview of the project: The Picket Fence project uses an inexpensive and low -tech means of slowing the transport rate of sand and gravel through a system in order to enhance the stability of the bed and bank and improve in -stream fish habitat. It consists of a series of wood stake 'fences" that trap debris and sediment at targeted locations to create pools and curves conducive to salmon, and reconnect the stream with adjacent flood plains. This idea won high acclaim in the 2006 Radical Salmon competition as an innovative solution to salmon restoration. This phase of the project uses an adaptive management strategy that integrates past years' monitoring data to adjust existing picket fences into more effective shapes. have attached the project report which describes the existing project, constructed in 2008. Our intent is to monitor the existing structures and to use the information obtained to re -build or improve on the structures later this summer. My understanding is that the project was permitted through the streamlined process for "Fish Habitat Enhancement Projects", per RCW 77.55.181. htt a s.le ,wa. ov rcw default,as x?cite=77.55.181 As a result I believe it was considered exempt from local permits and fees. I have also attached the HPA and streamlined -process form. The HPA is valid through June 2013. Please let me know if you have questions or I can provide additional information. Thanks! AN M _, . , Senior Project Manager ph 206.322.9296 x206 cell 206.718.5720 email robaearthcor�s.or_C3 6310 NE 74M Street, Suite 201E, Seattle, WA 98115 I :SC',. _ I` i 177EP_ I YOUTUsE I DONATE EarthCorps is a 501c3 non-profit organization —Tax ID 91-1592071 pa-ceA # Zvi zi ot4 Lt l 54 Washington Department of FISH and WILDLIFE h - DRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 77 55 181 - See appeal process at end of HPA Issue Date: May 22, 2012 Project Expiration Date: June 01, 2013 PERMITTEE EarthCorps ATTENTION: Rob Anderson 6310 NE 74th St., Suite 201 E 'Seattle, WA 98115 206-322-9296(206) L_ Control Number: FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 113086-2 N/A FHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR Project Name: E. Hylebos Creek Picket Fence Instream Structure Project Description: Wooden stakes driven into the bed of Hylebos Creek, resembling a picket fence, to catch sediment moving through the system, diversify streambed and stabilize stream banks. Wooden stakes will be 2" X 2" X 36" in size and a maximum of 6" will be exposed above streambed. PROVISIONS 1. Work below the ordinary high water line shall occur only between June 16 and September 15. 2. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) entitled, "PICKET FENCE", dated April 2, 2008, and "Radical Salmon Picket Fence In -stream Structure Monitoring", except as modified by this Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). A copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction. 3. Disturbance of the streambed and banks and their associated vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project. Affected streambed and bank areas shall be restored to preproject or improved habitat configuration. Prior to December 31 of the year of project installation, the disturbed areas of vegetation shall be revegetated with native or other woody species approved by the WDFW Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below. Vegetative cuttings shall be planted at a maximum interval of three feet (on center). Plantings shall be maintained as necessary for three years to ensure 80 percent or greater survival of each species or a contingency species approved by the AHB. 4. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), immediate notification shall be made to the Washington Emergency Management Division at 1-800-258-5990, and to the AHB. 5. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be deposited above the limits of floodwater in an approved upland disposal site. 6. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow subsides. Page 1 of 4 J Washington Department of FISH and WILDLIFE H) RAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 77.55.181 - See appeal process at end of HPA Issue Date: May 22, 2012 Project Expiration Date: June 01, 2013 Control Number: FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 113086-2 N/A 7. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the stream or wetlands associated with the stream. NOTE This HPA is a modification of and supercedes the original HPA issued June 2, 2008 for this project. The permittee has changed due to the merger of Friends of the Hylebos with EarthCorps. PROJECT LOCATIONS Location #1 604 5th Ave. WORK START WRIA: 10.0016 May 22, 2012 Waterbody: Hylebos Creek East Fork 1/4 SEC: Section: 19-V Townsf All I VJ IY Location #1 Driving Directions Latitude: nC E !AI A77�'��C VJ L IIV Y! .GJ.J IJ K END: June 01, 2013 Tributary to: Hylebos Creek Longitude: County V 122.32676 Kit 1g APPLY TO ALL HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVALS This Hydraulic Project Approval pertains only to those requirements of the Washington State Hydraulic Code, specifically Chapter 77.55 RCW (formerly RCW 77 20). Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued is responsible for applying for and obtaining any additional authorization from other public agencies (local, state and/or federal) that may be necessary for this project. This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work. This Hydraulic Project Approval does not authorize trespass. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat that results from failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars per day and/or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued under RCW 77.55.021 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions, or revocation it the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that changed conditions require such action. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued has the right to appeal those decisions. Procedures for Page 2 of 4 Washington I?, L)RAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound Department of 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard FISH and RCW 77 55.181 - See appeal process at end of HPA Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 WILDLIFE (425) 775-1311 Issue Date: May 22, 2012 Control Number: 113086-2 Project Expiration Date: June 01, 2013 FPA/Public Notice #: N/A appeals are listed below. Requests for any change to an unexpired HPA must be made in writing. Requests for new HPAs must be made by submitting a new complete application. Send your requests to the department by: mail to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091; e-mail to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand -delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. APPEALS INFORMATION If you wish to appeal the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends that you first contact the department employee who issued or denied the HPA to discuss your concerns. Such a discussion may resolve your concerns without the need for further appeal action. If you proceed with an appeal, you may request an informal or formal appeal. WDFW encourages you to take advantage of the informal appeal process before initiating a formal appeal. The informal appeal process includes a review by department management of the HPA or denial and often resolves issues faster and with less legal complexity than the formal appeal process. If the informal appeal process does not resolve your concerns, you may advance your appeal to the formal process. You may contact the HPA Appeals Coordinator at (360) 902-2534 for more information. A. INFORMAL APPEALS: WAC 220-110-340 is the rule describing how to request an informal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete informal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule. A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an HPA may request an informal appeal of that action. You must send your request to WDFW by mail to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091; e-mail to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand -delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. WDFW must receive your request within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. If you agree, and you applied for the HPA, resolution of the appeal may be facilitated through an informal conference with the WDFW employee responsible for the decision and a supervisor. If a resolution is not reached through the informal conference, or you are not the person who applied for the HPA, the HPA Appeals Coordinator or designee will conduct an informal hearing and recommend a decision to the Director or designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of the informal appeal, you may file a request for a formal appeal. B. FORMAL APPEALS: WAC 220-110-350 is the rule describing how to request a formal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete formal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule. A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an HPA may request a formal appeal of that action. You must send your request for a formal appeal to the clerk of the Pollution Control Hearings Boards and serve a copy on WDFW within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. You may serve WDFW by mail to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091; e-mail to HPAapplications@dfw.wa.gov; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand -delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, you may request a formal appeal within 30 days from the date you receive the Director's or designee's written decision in response to the informal appeal. C. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS: If there is no timely request for an appeal, the WDFW action shall be final and unappealable. Page 3 of 4 Washington Department of FISH and WILDLIFE Hl . ,RAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL RCW 77.55.181 - See appeal process at end of HPA Issue Date: May 22, 2012 Project Expiration Date: June 01, 2013 ENFORCEMENT: Sergeant Chandler (34) P2 Habitat Biologist Larry Fisher CC: 425-313-5683 Control Number: FPA/Public Notice #: North Puget Sound 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 113086-2 N/A � �--- for Director WDFW Page 4 of 4 Application for Streamlined Processing of FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS Addition to the Joint Aquatic Permit Application (DARPA) Under RCW 77.55.181 you may qualify for a streamlined permit process with no fees if your project is designed to enhance fish habitat. If your project meets the requirements below, you are entitled to the streamlined Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) process, exemption from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and exemption from all local government permits and fees. To apply for the exemption process, you must provide, on the same day, a complete application package to: the Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and all applicable local government planning and permitting departments. Local governments have 15 days to provide comments to WDFW to aid it in deciding whether your project qualifies (see below for details). To QUALIFYfor the fish habitat enhancement exemption you must check at least one each from A and B and provide a letter of approval from one of the agencies listed in B. It is highly recommended you discuss your proposal with the local Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) prior to submitting your application. A) My project (check all that apply): ❑Removes a human -made fish passage barrier ❑Restores an eroded or unstable stream bank using bioengineering techniques ❑Places woody debris or other in -stream structures that benefit naturally reproducing fish stocks B) My project is approved by (check all that apply): ❑WDFW's Salmon Enhancement, or Volunteer Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Programs []The sponsor of a watershed restoration plan as provided in chapter 89.08RCW ❑ WDFW, as a department -sponsored fish enhancement or restoration project ❑Conservation District, where the project complies with design standards established by theConservation Commission through interagency agreement with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Nattral Resource Conservation Service ❑A formal grant program established by the legislature or the Department of Fish and Wildlife for fish habitat enhancement or restoration. To APPLYfor the Exemption, submit a complete application package consisting of the following documents to the local government planning department and WDFW and indicate below which local government agency you are sending your application to and when you are sending it. Required application materials: + This addition to the JARPA • A completed JARPA 2010 • Plan drawings (no larger than 11 x 17 format) • Letter of approval of your specific project from one of the agencies listed in A above I am sending ►►ry application to the following local government plannin department. rx/xx120,xx --- f on: ' (Date) PLEASE NOTE: • In addition to applying for this streamlined processing. Ivou need to apply for all other applicable Federal and State permits identified in the JARPA. • If WDFW determines that your project meets the fish habitat enhancement exemption criteria, SEPA and all local government permits and fees are waived. WDFW will process your HPA within 45 days of receiving your complete applicaton. • If significant concerns are raised during the 15-day comment period regarding adverse impacts from your project that cannot be addressed through HPA conditions, WDFW may determine that the project does not qualify for the exemption process. if WDFW makes that decision, you may re -apply to VA'DFW, the applicable local government, and any other applicable permitting agency for approval under the full permitting process. If WDFW determines that your project does NOT qualify forthe exemption, or if your application is incomplete. you and the local government planning departmentwill be notified. Applicant Name: JARPM2879R>rni.doc. (,III . par I of I '-� Strexm& R4mhao Resource Management RADICAL SALMON — Friends of the Hylebos Picket Fence Instream Structure Monitoring Study Background Goals of the project The purpose of the Picket Fence project was to establish an inexpensive and low -tech means of slowing the transport rate of small sediments (sand and small gravels) through a stream system, and thus, enhancing bed/bank stability and instream habitat. This was to be achieved through the creation of a series of small bed control steps built of conventional wood stakes and augmented with various natural materials. Construction methods Four general structure shapes were tested in this study: arc, straight, barb, and bank (Fig. 1). Various materials (coir, rope, brush, and/or rock) were used to fill the gaps between stakes while others were left empty to test their ability to naturally recruit material. The stakes, which were mainly oak and 2" x 2" x 3' in size, were pounded into the channel bed and bank at approximately one -foot centers. For more details on the installation methods and materials, refer to the initial project proposal in Appendix B. Y�� .GGRL f�ON 11fFj� xouamn fArc Figure 1 - Structure shape: x •r ® 1 AWAQW=H x0UH(—) Straight T. a� Bank - - Ft� Monitof*w Monitoring occurred on three separate occasions: 1) immediately post construction on August 8"', 2008; 2) approximately 8 months post construction on April 2 P, 2009; and 3) approximately one- year post construction on September 16`11, 2009. Field visitsin Aug '08 and Sep '09 were during summer base -flow when areas upstream of site 3 were dry and vegetation was dense. The site visit in Apr '09 was during winter base -flow and the entire creek was flowing in all site locations. No monitoring occurred during or immediately after a significant rain event. A Trimble GeoXT handheld GPS positioning device was used to mark locations in the field and record data from visual inspection. Total station survey equipment was used in site 11 to record profile and cross -sectional data. This report summarizes initial key findings and provides recommendations for future improvements and further investigation of the picket fence method. Raw data and photos are included for future evaluation. Key Findings The key findings in this report were based on observations and measurements taken after one full wet and dry season Longevity of Stakes - 84% of the hardwood stakes used for constriction of the picket fences have maintained the same "good" to "excellent" condition as noted in the initial monitoring inspection. Very few stakes were showing any significant signs of deterioration. Longevity of Materials - Only 38% of the extra material (coir, rope, brush, and/or rock) used within the picket fences maintained the same "good" to "excellent" condition noted in the initial inspection. The majority of the material deterioration was among the coir fabric and manila tie - down rope. The longevity of these two materials was expected to be comparatively shorter, but their function was still served in collecting debris and sediment when the strictures were most vulnerable during the first year high flows. Overall Performance -81% of the structures were considered successful in achieving their specific function. It was, however, difficult to control the direction and location of flows, aggradation, and scour. For example, while some structures were installed to create scour pools in specific locations, the pool, when it formed, was rarely in the location initially intended. Structure shape had little effect on directing flows. The main control factors were the cross-section in which it was installed, the geomorphic location (bend or riffle), and the consistency of hydraulic connection between the structure and the stream. Habitat - Good instream habitat was created by the structures that spanned the width of the creek and/or had significant hydraulic connection with the stream_ In 29 out of 43 locations, the structures either created downstream scour pools or captured upstream spawning gravel (Fig. 2). The recruitment of small woody debris creating cover and hydraulic complexity was observed in many of the structures. —Stream Structures 08-22-08 ---- 04-21-09 09-17-09 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 97 1 97 96 1 I i _ 96 95 - --- !! - 95 94 -I 94 0+50 0+40 0+30 0+20 0+10 0+00 Figure 2 - Profile of structures at site 11 from three monitoring sessions over one year Stream Downcutting - In several locations, the existing channel prior to the project was downcutting and disconnected from the surrounding floodplain, leaving a rectangular cross-section with steep banks on either side. Picket fence structures placed in these locations were some of the most successful of the entire project. In many of these areas, the bed aggraded more than &inches (Fig. 3). While further aggradation would be necessary to obtain true floodplain reconnection, the structures exhibited a consistent ability to arrest active downcutting, and in most places, have made initial gains in reestablishing a more stable geomorphic form. Frr STRUCTURE 11.8 UPSTREAM RGHT 1frT STRUCTURE 11.8 DOWNSTREAM NKiiT BANK BANK BANK BANK 101 101 101 101 100 100 100 100 99 ��.� 99 99 99 98 98 98 98 97 97 97 97 96 - r 96 96 96 95 �� 95 95 95 0+25 0+20 0+15 0+10 0+05 0+00 0+25 0+20 0+15 0+10 0+05 0+00 08-22-08 -- 04-21-09 09-17-09 Figure 3 -Cross sections of structure 11.8 from three monitoring sessions over one year Limitations - The structures used as pure bank protection were not as successful as those used for either habitat or channel stabilization. In locations where scour would typically occur (in a bend or around an existing insrream structure) this method of bank protection proved to be insignificant in stopping erosion. In locations where active sediment deposition was occurring, these structures, while working as intended, created results that were nor desired. For example, in the downstream deposition zone (site 12), the strictures aggraded the stream so much that flows were completely diverted into a new channel. This area was particularly %'ulnerable to channel jumping becauSr of low banks, high sediment input, and braided form. Overview Map The overview map below marks site and structure locations along the East Fork of Hylebos Creek. Sites were numbered 1-12 and generally increase from tpstream to downstream. Structures were numbered 1.43 and increase from downstream to upstream. For example, structure 25 was located within site 8 and was therefore labeled 8.25. This nomenclature was also used within the data table on page 6. I Al ail S 376th Fir J-: :S' s r NI Gary Gary �I 9 S 366th S 367th CZ 370th W s S 37tst Lo S 372nd `'s r� a ¢3 -.-\ ;y 1 N v }r''� j � N Alder Birch Fir. Finarald Gary 4 Monitoring Data - -- -T--- --- - --- - - - - - - The data table on page 6 contains both qualitative and quantitative values to assess the efficacy of the different forms, materials, and locations of the structures. Columns 1-5 address the structure location, shape, and material used. The different shapes are illustrated in Figure 1 and their locations are shown in the overview map on page 4. Materials used were a combination of stakes, coir fabric, manila rope, stream boulders, and native brush. In columns 6 and 9 the conditions of the stakes and material used were estimated by visual inspection. If no material was present, the data was left blank. Column 7 provides a visual guide to the average stake height above the channel bed for each structure at the time of monitoring. Column 8 is the numerical difference in stake heights between the first and last monitoring session. This represents the amount of scour or aggradation associated within the structure. Columns 10 and 11 mark whether scour was present downstream of the structure or if aggradation was present upstream of the stricture. Column 12 is a visual estimate as to the overall success of the structure in achieving the function intended in column 4. Column B shows all of comments compiled from the field during the three monitoring sessions. �.L Eo_ � � f �� 'a ��p - � •A n O O O • ■ ■ • • O • • • • • O • • O • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ■ • • • O • ■ 0 • • O O 0 • • • • • 0 • • • • • O • • O • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ■ O • • fQ • • O 0 • • • • O O O O • O 0 0 • 0 • • • • ■ O • • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • • • ! O • ■ O • O • • 0 O • • • • O O O 0 • O O 0 • 0 • ■ • • ■ O • • • ■ • • • ■ ■ ■ ■ • • • • • O O O f= m0 000 oao•• 0000. 0 00 000 0.000.0 ■•r •ooa•000 000 00 0 o o o O• O•• o o o o■ o o o 0 0 0 O■ 0 0 0 •■ !•■ ■ O•■ • 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 F o f. K R 71 71 r 71 71 F r, 71 71 'T 71 n K R AR R F 71 R IC 71 71 F o IC 71 IC IC IC F F F R F R F R 1c F 71 F F 1c R F FFFFFF FFF FFFFFF o f FFF FF F � F F F F F FF F F F F F F F FFFFFF FFF FFFFFFFF FFF FF F 0 N • � � � & N # ` � v C ■ ■ 0 0 FFF o FFFF F o FFF F F F F o F R Rf.T+r.KK FFF FFFFFF ° F FFF FF F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F K K K R R K R N R o F F F F F r F 0 FFF FFFFF FFFFF F F F F FF F FFFFF1c ICRF FFFFFr.FF r K < F1c F 75 m m m m m m m m m m m m S= 2=_ o=_ S m 2 m m m O m 2 S= m m m 1 U cj U U a u U t� u ci U u u mas m` m` m` q p ¢m P a m w P m o� H N m LL• m N Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions After one frill year of monitoring, initial data and observations show that this new simple and low - tech technology has the opportunity to be of great benefit to organizations looking for an inexpensive and easy to permit design for stream enhancement and stabilization. While there is still the need for technical consult on the location and spacing of each structure, the installation method, shape, and materials used appear to be less significant in the overall success. This provides for more flexibility in the design and installation of the structures, reducing material and consultant costs to organizations. Recommendations for future study There are three directions of recommended future research and project opportunities: 1. Further evaluation of the longevity of the stakes and materials to understand life expectancy of the structures and the ability to sustain beneficial function over time. 2. To further promote the success of these structures, investigate the specific geomorphic characteristics for identifying appropriate cross -sections, spacing, and sizing for various locations. 3. Am ulti-phase installation of the picket fence over 2-3 years to explore the possibility of producing greater aggradation. installing picket fence structures sequentially on an annual basis in the same location may provide a broader range of applications to improve severely incised stream channels. Appendix A — Site Photos August 2008 April 2009 September 2009 Photo 1 -Arc StructurK - The above photos were taken looking upstream from similar locations. After the first large storms, the channel migrated to the stream right (left in the photo) and mobilized many of the stakes. The Apr. and Sep. 2009 photos show the structure acting more as a barb, holding sediment as a point bar on the inside of the new bend and creating a scour pool on the outside of the bend. This is an example of a structure not directing flows in the initial intended manner while still providing habitat and channel stability. August 2008 April 2009 September 2009 Photo 2 - Barb Srrucm -The photos above, which were taken looking upstream, illustrate the sediment deposition created by a barb SMIC ure. In this structure a large amount of I'Me material had been recruited within and around the structure. These fines were only deposited at low velocities and show that the barb structure was both slowing sediment transport and creating instream refuge and slack water habitat during high flows. August 2008 April 2009 September 2009 Photo 3 - Straight Striensre - The photos above are taken looking downstream and show a series of straight strictures installed to create habitat pools and arrest downcutting. The small woody debris recruited by these structures further stabilizes the reach. Gravel aggradation on the upstream side and pool formation on the downstream side of each structure increased with each monitoring inspection. August April 2009 September Photo 4 - Bank Structure.- The bank structure in the photos above provided protection against high flows. The toe of the structure accumulated a large amount of gravels and fines from downstream Picket Fence structures installed to arrest downcutting. Over time, vegetation will continue to grow on these banks and further protect them from erosion. 9 Appendix B — Initial Proposal Initial Proposal begins on the following page. to RADICAL SALMON — Friends of The Hylebos Wetlands Submittal Picket Fence Instream Structure 9/15/06 1. Budget & Timeline Design Budget & Timeline: Amount Description Timeline $ 500 FOHW staff time - Administration 10/06 — 12/06 $ 2,000 Consultant field work to identify sites 10/06 $ 2,500 Consultant office work to finalize design drawings 11/06 $ 5,000 1 Total 2. Design Conceptual design attached, with Figures 1 — 4. 3. Picket Fence — Installation Instructions ite Assessment: The first step is to perform a site assessment of the reach to be enhanced with Picket Fence structures. We will gather the following information: Average Channel Width': ft Channel Length: ft Vertical drop over channel length: ft Predominant Channel Substratez: Notes: 1. Record channel width as distance between the OHVI'M, plus 4 ft 2. If the channel substrate is predominantly sand or small gravels this technique should work well. If the substrate is predominantly large gravels this technique may be difficult to implement Radical Salmon — Friends of the Hricbos Wetlands 1 of 11 Materials / Specifications: Materials consist of the following: - 2" X 2" X 36" dimensional lumber, fir or oak - coir fabric, 900 series. 8.5 ft roll width - twine, '/4" thick Material quantities are based on channel width and the number of structures required. Calculate number of structures needed. It is assumed that a minimum of three structures will be needed for every foot of vertical drop. Additional structures may be added in low -gradient reaches for increasing hydraulic diversity and/or for redundancy in incised sections. # structures = vertical drop X 3 = _ Additional structures for hydraulic diversity = Additional structures for redundancy = Total # structures = Materials for this project consist of dimensional lumber, 2"X2" sticks 3' long, made of fir or oak, sharpened to a point on one end. Material quantities for each structure are estimated based on the channel width. Each foot of structure requires 5 sticks. Total material quantities are estimated as follows: # sticks/structure = channel width (ft) X 5 sticks = _ total # sticks = # sticks/structure X # total structures = Coir fabric is interwoven between the sticks to increase the structure's efficiency in sandy substrate. Brush harvested locally can also be substituted for the coir fabric, taking care to tightly interweave the brush between the sticks. The coir fabric is to be held in place with twine wrapped around the tops of the sticks to hold the coir in place. Coir quantity is calculated assuming an 8' wide roll of coir fabric is cut into lengths approximating the width of each structure. The material estimate is as follows: Coir fabric length = # structures X average channel width = RadicalSalmon — Friends of the Hylehoe PP_tlands 2 of]] Installation Instructions: Tools: Sledgehammers - hand saw - loppers - knife - autolevel or other instrument to determine vertical height Step 1— Locate structures The first step is to locate where the structures are to be installed. Use an autolevel or other device to locate vertical increments of one foot of drop along the project area. Along the project area, locate structures to result in at least 3 structures installed for every vertical foot of drop, plus those additional structures to be installed in low -gradient reaches to increase hydraulic diversity and/or for redundancy in incised sections. Step 2 — Install sticks Use a sledgehammer to install the sticks into the bed of the creek, ensuring that approximately 2.5 ft of the stick is driven into the bed, leaving 0.5 ft of stick protruding into the current as shown in Figure 1. Angle the sticks slightly upstream to ensure their ability to collect incoming debris. Stagger the sticks +/- 4" while crossing the bed of the channel to provide room for installing coir fabric or woven brush Install sticks up the banks of the creek, angling them towards the center of the channel as shown on Figure 2. Be sure to install the sticks at least to the OHWM on both sides of the channel. Drive sufficient sticks into the bed of the creek to result in approximately 5 sticks per each foot of channel width. Step 3 — Weave coir• fabric and tie off Cut a section of coir fabric to the length equal to the width of the structure. Weave the coir fabric tightly between the sticks and hold in place with twine tied off regularly to the sticks as shown on Figure 3. Step 4 — Install remaining structures Install additional structures at a spacing of approximately 3 structures per each vertical foot of channel, plus the additional structures added for hydraulic diversity and/or redundancy as shown on Figure 4. Install each structure with an upstream -pointing configuration to ma-,imize hydraulic benefit. 4. Cost Estimate Radical Salmon - P}Ierr Y ofthe Hylebos Jfedands " nj' I / Amount Descri tion $ 7,500 FOHW staff time — field work, project management, monitoring reports $ 5,000 Design— — see l above $ 6,000 Materials $ 24,000 Contractor — hand crews $ 12,000 Consultant— construction su ervision $ 2,000 Perm ittin $ 10,000 Consultant — monitoring and reporting $ 3,500 Citizen's Guide $ 70,000 Total The cost estimate is based on the following assumptions: Materials & Contractor o Professional hand crews hired to prep site, transport & install materials, restore / replant banks and access paths as required. o Three reaches of stream to have structures installed, each approximately 500 ft long, all located upstream of the West Milton Site. ■ reach 1 — sandy substrate, very low gradient, high sand transport rate ■ reach 2 — sandy substrate, low gradient, incising — two sequential installations 6 months apart ■ reach 3 — small gravel substrate, low gradient o in -water work requires downstream cofferdam, no bypass or fish exclusion required. - Design o sole -source contractor selection to avoid costs of creating bid documents o creation of plan set that does not need professional engineer stamp - Permitting - JARPA prepared to obtain WDFW HPA. The project should be eligible for a streamlined process resulting in a waiver of SEPA and city permits and fees. FOHW will coordinate with the City on the project. - Construction Supervision - full-time on -site professional supervision during construction to install different variations of the structure - Monitoring and Reporting - monitoring includes a pre -construction site assessment and assessments of each of the 3 reaches at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months after construction. See 6(h) below for details. - Citizen's Guide to be produced by FOHW, illustrating different installation techniques and stepping through the project approach from site assessment through installation and monitoring 5. Permits The only anticipated permit for this project in King County will be a WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval. Radical Salmon -- F-icnds (jOhc Hrlebos Wetlands 4 Qf l l 6. Narrative a Purpose. The purpose of the structure is to increase the bed stability of creeks by slowing the transport rate of small sediments (sand or small gravels) through the system. This is achieved through creation of a series of small bed control steps built of small woody material, augmented with coir fabric, which can trap incoming sediment and reduce the mobilization of existing sand deposits present in the bed. Appendix A shows photos taken 6 months post -project of a small experimental installation of these structures on approximately 100' of Garrison Creek in Kent, Wa. A secondary benefit of these structures is the creation of minor drop scour pools as a result of the upstream -pointing structures increasing the hydraulic diversity of plane -bed reaches. A tertiary benefit of the structures is collecting small woody material and other organic materials to serve as a food source for invertebrates. This approach is novel in that it uses small woody material anchored in the bed using hand methods. This approach is low -tech, simple to permit and can be successfully utilized by citizen groups. b) Problem being addressed: The site selected for implementation is the East Fork of Hylebos Creek, upstream of the West Milton Nature Preserve, an ongoing salmon habitat restoration project. This creek has large sand deposits along the reach. with little in -stream wood or bed controls capable of slowing incoming sands. The West Milton site was constructed in 2005, and is being incrementally filled with sand washing in from upstream. This project would increase the bed stability of the upstream reach and slow the transport rate of sand into the West Milton Site, thereby increasing the long-term viability of the West Milton Site. Moreover, the proposed project would have similar benefits for other downstream areas that are receiving excess sediments from the upstream areas. Three sites will be selected upstream of the West Milton Site, with the project goals as follows: 1) low -gradient sand -based reach — in this section, the structures will be installed with the goal of reducing the sand transport rate through the reach and diversifying the in -stream hydraulics. Structures will be installed with different shapes across the stream to further investigate how structure shape influences the creation of downstream pools and/or affects flow direction 2) low -gradient sand based reach experiencing incision — in this section. the structures will be installed with the goal of halting incision of the existing channel and encouraging a0gradation. A second installation is anticipated to be required once the first set of structures have filled with sand and raised the bed approximately 1.5' over the reach. The second installation will raise the upstream bed level another 1.5' over the reach to fully stabilize the headcut. K.��clicnl Sulrno17 — Friends of the HvI hos IV.Ilands 5 of 11 3) low -gradient small gravel reach — in this section, the structures will be installed with the goal to determine how successfully the installation can be performed in small gravels. This will determine the realm of possible installation sites and illustrate how wide -spread the applicability of this technique may be at other sites. c) Traditional methods and drawbacks: Traditional bed control structures use rock or large woody material, typically installed by machine methods as bed controls. The construction of these structures is fairly expensive and requires machine access and extensive erosion control methods during construction. Due to excavation to install the bed controls, a US ACOE permit is typically required, which requires significant time and cost for professional services for impact evaluation and creation of stamped drawings. The permitting process for the traditional methods is complex and time-consuming. Appendix B summarizes a comparison between traditional methods and the Picket Fence structure. d Benefits of experimental approach: Inexpensive project — This low -tech approach uses inexpensive materials, simple installation methods with nominal erosion control requirements. With proper training materials, volunteer groups could install these structures. Easy to permit - The permitting requirements would likely include filing only a JARPA for a WDFW HPA, and not require a US ACOE permit. This will be a simple application process without need for a BE or wetland delineation. As a result, the process will be quick and straightforward. Appropriate for remote andlor sensitive sites - No access roads are required for this technique, as all materials can be brought in by hand. As a result, this technique can be used easily in remote or sensitive sites with no requirements for machine access. Radical Salmon -- Friends of the llvlebos Wetlands 6 of 1 ! Little need for professional services — The general design can be developed for implementation by a nontechnical audience. The permit drawings do not need a stamp of a professional civil engineer, and no professional services are required for any associated biological evaluations or wetland delineations. Widespread applicability for citizen groups - The technique is low -tech, can easily be utilized by citizen groups with little technical expertise. It is suitable for small tributaries, of which there are a large number in the Puget Sound Region that are experiencing incising and/or high sediment transport rates associated with deforestation and urbanization. e Typical types of installation in the field: l) sediment transport rate reduction & hydraulic diversity — the primary application is to install a small bed control structure in the channel bottom capable of collecting a sediment wedge and reducing the sediment transport in the reach by roughening the bed, allowing some of the entrained sediment to drop out. By focusing flow on the downstream end, the structure increases hydraulic diversity by creating a small drop scour pool, which is especially beneficial in plane -bed conditions typical of sand -bed systems. 2) head -cut stabilization — a secondary application is to stabilize a reach experiencing incision by incrementally stabilizing the stream bed over a long distance, encouraging incremental aggradation to build up the downstream end of a headcut. In this instance, additional installations are required as the stream aggrades to fully repair the headcut. Sticks longer than 2.5' with burial greater than 2' may be required in these applications. Limitations and exceptions of the design: The following design limitations are anticipated: Not appropriate for reaches with large gravels. Large gravels will prevent hand installation of small wood — the wood will shatter while being pounded in. Not appropriate for deep water installation —water deeper than 1.5' will prohibit effective driving of the wood with a sledgehammer or modified post pounder Repeat installations likely in incised channels — it is anticipated that as incised sections aggrade, one or more repeat installations may be required in following 2 years after the initial installation to continue the stabilization and aggradation of the channel. - Future possible installations — as the small woody material deteriorates (5-10 yrs), it may be necessary to augment the original installations with supplemental structures L) 1'ro i cssional stamp The final design will not require the stamp of a professional civil engineer or hydrologist. Kcuhc crl Satmon — Friends ofthc fh !c h, n 11•e11c1nds 7 of 11 h) Monitoring; Monitoring of the structures is proposed to identify the weaknesses and optimize the long-term performance of the structures. The monitoring is categorized into the following: 1) Pre -construction site assessment — The channel profile and cross-section of the existing channel will be mapped for representative segments of each of the three reaches to illustrate the "before" conditions. 2) Install variations of the design — Variations of the design will be installed to investigate the ability of these structures to achieve flow turning and maximize drop scour pool formation. Different stick sizes will be utilized in the incising section to investigate the value of different stick lengths and thicknesses in promoting aggradation. Each structure will be numbered, with the design goal of the structure recorded. 3) 6-month assessment — The structures will be assessed visually at 6 months to determine their structural stability after a winter storm season. Any structural instability will be recorded, with associated cause. The success of each structure to achieve its design goals for habitat creation and/or sediment transport reduction will be evaluated and recorded. 4) 12-month assessment - The structures will be assessed visually at 12 months to determine their structural stability after a full year. Any structural instability will be recorded. with associated cause. The success of each structure to achieve its design goals for habitat creation and/or sediment transport reduction will be evaluated and recorded. The channel profile and cross-section of the three reaches mapped under the pre - construction site assessment will be re -mapped to illustrate the "after" conditions. The "before" and "after" data will be compared to illustrate changes in channel Form resulting from installation of the structures. A memo report will be prepared summarizing the findings of the 6-month and 12-month assessments. Any weaknesses of the structures will be identified, with recommendations of how to maximize the success of the structures in providing long-term bed control and creating in -stream habitat and hydraulic diversity. 5) 24-month assessment - The structures will be assessed visually at 24 months to evaluate their long-term structural stability. Any structural instability will be recorded, with associated cause. The success of each structure to achieve its design goals for habitat creation and/or sediment transport reduction will be evaluated and recorded. Structural integrity of the wood will be noted, and an evaluation will be made as to how many years the structure may be viable under differing conditions. An update to the 12- month assessment will be prepared as needed to provide additional findings and/or recommendations. 7. Statement Radical ,salmon h'rietrcls of the H},lebos tVeticnrds R of 11 Friends of the Hylebos Wetlands will accept and abide by the terms and conditions of the Agreement with King County. Radicul Salmon Prucnds oflhe Hylebos Welland. Q of I • ..- .. � .page`,: i:n R �• . �*.` .� -! -N'�r.;,. 'r Am ■ _WN ■ -■ ■ �e�s: !' • i;,.�rl I :.i.: :j `� � '�.' .��'' - Yr.1k_•�f 4.'�`�r�•�i-�'-.r r n .•. „err(, - -1 ter•: �.,�'� �'` _ - �•y"v��•'•,,'-'.�•�L!y`:..f . �'.:,�•• c • 'T•"-'"' - - . :,}• Aid• _ - • • ' l� Imo"; ;��''�•.: - -.'�� •'�''- �- - '�" - .-;Ala,.. s `: „ fin,.. .+ • i � . .�_ .a�.r. `ir •i•v��p,t.". 1 ''r.. Ks�. riry'�'ir}M" �YL .^��ri�, .. Ei L C Z CL 0 Q. U p � " o O 0) y L i, rn � 3 U ❑ a 0 3 � •G Cd0 O U ++ L v U Ral cd to 0 a� p O El 'C3 I as •cd CIO U L. •3 � Fz. o U cd � yo b U R X E p y p 0 da 8 co v) U � Xi }' U C N c6 c � -0 N O O U O y CL O cd [C cd cd p O D U 0 bD cn o •O N >r N rn .N bq O y 'd f c cd U _ +, -p C c cd as .x O a' E > U O LTr -o O > �, r 3 A p 3 co g 'Q cd �+- 'O cl En cn cdO •\cd b9 O •� :Z bb 0 0 �r .E .E Ir m G') c m Ca C� O m D UD O Z w n a Q -n x Cm m !n �O rm D z= cn r U) C) m m a r D y 07 v) C) _0z m� mD Or Or OZ ' 0 W � o� OX �c C) c w m G� c �u m C0 z r cn O D z m 1 0G) xm u Z A :o Om �n X c -n �m m� -i Ai -1 OD Ili x � w z U) cn r r U) --t n m m 70 m D C) 2