Upper Quinault River Restoration

Bill Armstrong, Salmon Resources ScientistQuinault Department of Fisheries

Presentation Outline

Scientific Background Threats Fundamental Elements Alder Creek Demonstration Pilot Project

Questions?

SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND

>25,000 years ago

Upper Quinault River Floodplain 1850

Mature timber along the riverbanks…

E. F. Quinault River 2009

E. F. Quinault River 2009

(Abbe & Montgomery 1996)

Initiation and evolution of a natural logjam

A “Big” Guy

Scientific Foundation

Large wood is a structural component of forest rivers that directly influences river morphology, channel dynamics and forest structure:

Large snags in river

Large trees in floodplain = stability

Small snags in river

Small trees in floodplain = instability

Scientific Foundation

(Fetherston 2005)

THE QUINAULT RIVER TODAY

Upper Quinault River Floodplain

The Problem 1850 Today

Mature conifer floodplain, anabranching river channel and extensive lateral side channel network = stability and abundant functional salmon habitat

Immature red alder floodplain, shallow braided river channel and few lateral side channels remain = unstable, limited functional salmon habitat

Current pattern of floodplain forest development

Restore the natural pattern of floodplain forest development

Scientific Foundation

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Salmon population responseQuinault Blueback Runsize 1910-2010

Why it matters….

• Blueback are genetically distinct from other sockeye populations

• Run timing and spawning period are unique compared to other sockeye populations

• Evolutionary Significant Unit- a unique population under federal ESA designation

• In danger of “virtual extinction

THREATS

Side Channel Habitat -Only 5 miles remain

Private Property and Public Safety

NPS and the Counties have chronic maintenance issues with roads, bridges, and campgrounds from river erosion, flooding, and sediment deposition.

Graves Creek Road

Roads located in the floodplain and resulting emergency repairs have harmful cumulative impacts. Environmentally sensitive alternatives for access are needed to not only prevent further habitat degradation but to restore riverine-forest functions.

Floodplain Inundation (100 year flood)

Hopeless?

CHANGE

INTERVENTION

FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION

A CALL TO ACTION!

FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF THE RESTORATION PLAN

Upper Quinault River Watershed

The Upper Quinault River Valley Restoration Reach

Restoration will require…

Change from the Status Quo:"It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”— Franklin D. Roosevelt

Perseverance:"It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.” — Robert Strauss

Resolve to “stay the course”:"Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed, is more important than any other one thing.” — Abraham Lincoln

General Restoration Approach

• Natural processes based, landscape-scale ecosystem restoration

• Incremental actions over the next 20 years in order to achieve desired long term goals

• Cumulative benefits rather than cumulative impacts

The Plan provides the alternative for 1) activities that continue to impact habitat and 2) the current regulatory framework overseeing land use and infrastructure protection in the valley

Purpose of The Plan is to Provide Direction and Guidance for Restoration

1. Provide the scientific foundation for habitat restoration in the Quinault River Valley

2. Provide the general approach for restoration3. Provide methods and procedures for

restoration4. Provide the framework for prioritizing,

developing, and implementing projects

Restoration Strategy

“Promotes the preservation of natural resources and remaining habitat in the short-term while implementing a science based foundation that will support sustainable recovery of salmon and ecosystem function over the long-term.”

PROCESS AND PROCEDURE

Typical Site Plan

Typical ELJ Design

ELJs mimicnatural logjams

Opportunistic use of wood debris

Created by Herrera Environmental Consultants

Current condition

Short term Future Condition 100 years

Protective buffer

Mature forest patches develop on

ELJ hard-pointsInfrastructure

Long term Future Condition 200 years

ALDER CREEK SIDE CHANNELPILOT PROJECT

ELJ 6 (natural logjam)

ELJ 7

ELJ 12ELJ 11ELJ 10

ELJ 9

ELJ 8

ELJ 1

ELJ 2

Lattice tipped into river

Alder Creek Side Channel

Restoration Planting

QDNR Habitat Restoration Program

Quinault Department of Habitat Restoration consisting of a multi-disciplined team:

- Fisheries Scientists - Forest ecologist- Fluvial geomorphologist - Hydrologist- Professional engineer - Project coordinator- GIS specialist - Restoration technicians

ELJ Construction Only = $31,500 to $50,000 eachELJ Cost (all elements included) = $137,000 eachELJs Total (400) = $54,800,000Floodplain Restoration Planting = $ 980,000

ELJ and Restoration Planting = $57 million

Infrastructure and land acquisition = $63 million

GRAND TOTAL = $120 MILLION

Restoration Costs

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”— Niccolo MachiavelliThe Prince (1532)

“SUCCESS DOESN’T COME TO YOU…YOU GO TO IT!”

Quinault Climate Change –> End of century

• Similar climate to 5,000-6,000 years ago• Surface air temperature 2 degrees warmer by end of century• Winter precipitation as rain increases 4-35%• Increases in winter flooding to ratio and frequency of 20 year

floods• Reduced snowpack• Olympic glaciers will be gone• Summer base flows projected to decline 3 to 35%• Stressors to salmon and forests

(Littell & Mantua 2009)

Quinault River Restoration CoalitionGovernment – Congressman Norm Dicks, Senator Patty Murray, Senator Maria Cantwell

Federal Partners – Olympic National Forest, Olympic National Park, Army Corp of Engineers, US Geological Survey, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service

State Partners – Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology, Historical Preservation Office

Local Partners - Jefferson County, Grays Harbor County, Quinault Valley River Committee

NGOs – Wild Salmon Center, The Nature Conservancy, Mitsubishi Corporation, Olympic National Park Associates, Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Partnership, The Bullet Foundation, Pacific Coast Salmon Coalition

Federal Lead Agency Designation

• QIN soliciting the BIA, Army Corp or NRCS to act as lead federal agency for restoration

• Satisfies federal requirements for project sponsor and serves as a liaison between QIN and federal government

• “Streamlines” the bureaucratic federal process to increase efficiency

• QIN achieves additional priority for restoration in the valley since a federal action

Federal Lead Agency /

Quinault Indian Nation

Regulatory Agencies

(Federal, State, County)

Landowners

(Private, Federal, State, County)

Quinault Valley River Committee

Quinault Valley Community

Federal and State Designations

• Wild and Scenic River Designation (pending)• Wild Salmon Stronghold Designation

(Congressional 2010)

PROCESS & PROCEDURES

Project Prioritization

Flexibility: Other factors also influence timing of projects such as local community interests and opportunity to implement restoration plan elements during “emergency declarations”.

Project Development

Project Identification -> Landowner Agreement

Project Development -> Geomorphic Site Assessment -> Conceptual Design -> Hydraulic Modeling -> Risk Assessment and Benefit Analysis -> Landowner Agreement

Engineering Plans and Specifications -> Landowner Approval -> Federal, State, County Permitting

ESA Consultation & Permitting -> Corp-USFWS Programmatic BO/SPIF -> Corp Nationwide Permit -> Section 106 Cultural Resources -> State Historical Preservation Act -> Streamlined State HPA -> County Shoreline Exemption -> NMFS Essential Fish Habitat -> Section 404 CWA

Materials Procurement -> Permitting -> Project Management -> Monitoring

Materials Storage and Staging -> Landowner Agreement -> Project Management -> Permitting Construction -> Project Management -> Construction Oversight -> Final Inspection

Project Monitoring -> Landowner Agreement -> Project Management

Project Schedule (1 – 3 years)

10/31

Emergency Action Flow Chart

Post construction river velocity 2-D output (ELJs are red)

NEXT STEPS

Short term: The next 5 years• Educate the local community and other stakeholders• Formalize the QIN led coalition of restoration partners• Review and provide recommendations to existing management

plans, land-use, and emergency infrastructure repair/protection methods

• Develop the restoration program framework and program budget• Secure funding to implement the restoration program• Develop alternative land-use, access and infrastructure

management plans• Initiate restoration actions directed to protect existing side channel

habitat and reduce HCMZ expansion• Begin the reforestation process

• 35 project areas have been identified and preliminary budgets developed

• 2 of these project areas are at the permit level design and ready for final design, permitting and implementation as funding is secured

• We are also working with Jefferson County and Federal Highways on a road re-route for a segment of the South Shore Road

• Nature conservancy on large land purchase in JeffCo

Next Steps

Option 1: Continuous ELJ crib revetment = treats approximately 250-300’ feetOption 2: 5 flow deflector ELJs no less than 30’ x 30’ = treats approximately 700’

depending on required spacing and design needs

Both options: 200’ of riverbank width in treatment zone would be restored as riparian area using conifer and other plantings.

Economic BenefitsRestoration of the Quinault River can lead to the

recovery of sustainable natural resources and expansion of a tourism based economy

• Restoration related jobs• Improved fisheries opportunity• Tourism• Restoration science monitoring and research• “Trickle thru dollars” for the local economy

DISCUSSION

NEPA, ESA Consultation and Permitting Strategy

• Programmatic EA for restoration reach (10 year)• Programmatic Biological Opinion (Corp-USFWS) for

ESA consultation• Expedited Nationwide Permit (Army Corp)• Essential Fish Habitat (Salmon) Consultation• Streamlined HPA permitting and county shoreline

exemptions• Expedited Section 404 Consultation (Clean Water

Act)

Public Relations and Outreach Strategy

• Quinault Indian Nation• Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission• Wild Salmon Center• Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon

Partnership• Quinault Valley River Committee

Land Management & Conservation Strategy

• QIN and The Nature Conservancy working to develop a Land Conservation Strategy

• Conservation Areas and Easements• Private forest owner conversion (DNR program)• Riparian buffer zone reestablishment• Monetary compensation for conversion of

private lands for conservation purposes• Stewardship natural resource use protected

Wood Procurement Strategy

• Material source identification• Timber sales (BIA, QIN, state, county)• USFS “free use” program• Materials storage and staging• Materials inventory management

Restoration Monitoring Strategy

• Baseline ecological monitoring• Project effectiveness monitoring• Scientific and engineering design monitoring• Required to satisfy land access agreement

with State of Washington and funding sources• QIN and USGS investigating options for

monitoring program development

Funding Strategy

• QIN pursuing congressional appropriation• Requires General Investigation Study by Army

Corp (Land Resources Development Act)• A 3-5 year process culminating in the Army

Corp recommending congressional support for the QIN restoration program

• Estimated costs (current) for all restoration plan elements = $120 million

Economics

How do we “market restoration” of the Quinault River Valley?

THREATS

FISHERIES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Quinault River Fisheries

Conservation Area and Road Relocation Concept

Road Relocation

OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK BRIDGE

Conclusions(BOR 2005; UQRSHP 2005)

• Constructed in 1973• Reduced the river channel (EMZ)

width from 550 m to 100 m• Forced the river to lose its

meandering tendency over a 20 year period

• 200% increased hydraulic radius, 8x greater sediment transport capacity, and river bed incision and scour

• 300% increase in channel slope in the bridge reach

• May have resulted in 2.5 miles of side channel habitat loss in the reach

• Altered bank erosion and sediment transport processes from the crossing downriver for ~3.3 kilometers.

Channel Response

Alder Creek Side Channel 2002

Scientific Foundation

Scientific Foundation

Hard point

Mature conifers

Entrance to Alder Creek Side Channel

Bed Load accumulation (apex bar)

Hard point

Alder Creek Side Channel Complex 2008

QIN Gov = CPR

• Protect and preserve natural resources and functions of floodplains• Avoid the long- and short-term environmental effects associated with the

occupancy and modification of floodplains• Avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development and actions

that could adversely affect the natural resources and functions of floodplains or increase flood risks

• Restore natural floodplain values affected by land use activities within floodplains

The Quinault Indian Nation and Government Agencies have a common mandate to Conserve, Protect, and Restore natural resources

Project FundingTotal project cost = $1.12 million

Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund = $466,563Salmon Recovery Funding Board = $383,000Washington Department of Natural Resources = $20,000U.S. Forest Service Title 2 = $14,000Wild Salmon Center = $15,000Pacific Coast Salmon Coalition = $10,000Jefferson County mitigation funds = $14,000Quinault Indian Nation In-Kind = $ 181,437Olympic National Forest In-Kind = $16,000Olympic National Park Logs = $ Donation

Over the next 20 years

• Restore stable hardpoints inside and along the HCMZ boundary

• Reduce erosion and HCMZ expansion• Convert the wide, braided main channel to a deeper,

anabranching channel network separated by stable forested islands

• Restore side channel and tributary stability• Reestablish stands of mixed floodplain forests• Restore stable islands and wildlife refugia in the HCMZ• Complete restoration planting• Carry-out land management plans and land acquisition

Erosion of old, large timber (green squares) provides flow deflection and erosion control

along the river bank.

Queets RM32, 1985

Queets RM32, 1994

1993

1995new forest colonizing

jam

Restoration defined…

Merriam-Webster:

1 : an act of restoring or the condition of being restored: as a : a bringing back to a former position or condition : b : a restoring to an unimpaired or improved condition

2 : something that is restored; especially : a representation or reconstruction of the original form (as of a fossil or a building)

ELJ 7

ELJ 6

ELJ 5ELJ 3

ELJ 4

South Shore Road

ELJ 2

ELJ 5

ELJ 3ELJ 4

South Shore Road

OBJECTIVES MET

Alder Creek Side Channel

ELJ 1Log lattice

Deflection of river flow at ELJ 1

ELJ 2 January 2009