Engineered Log Jams in the North and South Fork Nooksack

Lone Tree Phases I, II, and IIA

Kalsbeek, Todd and Sygitowicz Creeks, and Van Zandt

Victor Insera, Watershed Restoration Coordinator

Why Engineered Log Jams?

Why Engineered Log Jams?1. The South Fork Chinook population is

considered to have the highest extinction risk of the 22 Puget Sound populations.

Why Engineered Log Jams?1. The South Fork Chinook population is

considered to have the highest extinction risk of the 22 Puget Sound populations.

2. Both Chinook populations have cultural importance and are essential for recovery.

Why Engineered Log Jams?

3. Degraded habitat through in-stream wood removal and other detrimental factors over past 100 years.

1. The South Fork Chinook population is considered to have the highest extinction risk of the 22 Puget Sound populations.

2. Both Chinook populations have cultural importance and are essential for recovery.

Why Engineered Log Jams?

3. Degraded habitat through in-stream wood removal and other detrimental factors over past 100 years.

4. Reduced wood recruitment from removal of large riparian trees throughout the watershed.

1. The South Fork Chinook population is considered to have the highest extinction risk of the 22 Puget Sound populations

2. Both Chinook populations have cultural importance and are essential for recovery.

Project Goals and Objectives

Project Goals and Objectives

1. Address the limiting factors affecting spawning and incubation in the North Fork and adult holding in the South Fork.

Project Goals and Objectives

1. Address the limiting factors affecting spawning and incubation in the North Fork and adult holding in the South Fork.

2. Protect existing channel islands (North Fork).

Project Goals and Objectives

1. Address the limiting factors affecting spawning and incubation in the North Fork and adult holding in the South Fork.

2. Protect existing channel islands (North Fork).

3. Enhance side channel habitat (North Fork).

Project Goals and Objectives

1. Address the limiting factors affecting spawning and incubation in the North Fork and adult holding in the South Fork.

2. Protect existing channel islands (North Fork).

3. Enhance side channel habitat (North Fork).

4. Create scour pools with cover for cold water refugia (South Fork).

Layout of Log Jams and Side Channel

Tim Abbe (Entrix) Overseeing Placement of Uprights for Four-Sided Structure

Construction of One-Sided Structure

October 2008 - Enhanced Side Channel

Phase I

Phase II

Phase IIA

Staging Area August 2008(Peak Flow of 500 CFS)

Staging Area November 2008(Peak Flow of 4000 CFS)

Staging Area February 2009(Peak Flow of 220 CFS)

Staging Area August 2009 Peak Flow (430 CFS)

South Fork Nooksack River Valley

Issues

• Pool frequency is low, and existing pools are generally rip-rap formed and lack complex woody cover.

• Summer water temperatures regularly approach lethal limits for chinook.

• Riparian corridor is predominantly private agricultural property.

Restoration Approach

• Create scour pools with complex cover for adult holding and juvenile rearing.

• Increase availability of temperature refuges by promoting pool formation in areas of cool water influence.

• Provide immediate benefit while habitat-forming processes recover.

Gus Kays (Herrera) & Treva Coe (NNR) Staking Pile Locations

Enhanced Natural Jam Along Right Bank

July 21, 2008

July 31, 2008

Nov 12, 2008Peak Flow 8,500 CFS

Temperature Measurements along surface and bottom of South Fork along backwater reach associated with ELJ’s, July 17, 2009

Sygitowicz Creek Reach

•Constructed 7 structures to promote pool development and increase wood cover near the confluence of Sygitowicz Creek.

•Removed over 100 feet of rip-rap.

Van Zandt Reach

Constructed 14 structures to promote pool development and add wood cover.

Kalsbeek Reach• Constructed 11 Structures to promote pool

development and increase wood cover while improving side channel connectivity

• Placed 14 3-log structures in side channel to improve instream habitat

Funding Provided By:

Salmon Recovery Funding Board

Pacific Salmon Commission

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Environmental Protection Agency

Lessons Learned

Lessons LearnedDesigns need to be constructible and within budget and equipment capabilities.

Lessons LearnedDesigns need to be constructible and within budget and equipment capabilities.

Important to have on site support from engineers to field fit designs.

Lessons Learned

Important to have on site support from engineers to field fit designs.

Designs need to be constructible and within budget and equipment capabilities.

Plan storage areas for salvaged vegetation.

Lessons LearnedDesigns need to be constructible and within budget and equipment capabilities.

Important to have on site support from engineers to field fit designs.

Plan storage areas for salvaged vegetation.

Be prepared with additional materials essential in construction process – slash, cable, logs.

Continuing Challenges

Zero rise constraint (FEMA flood).

Creating designs that satisfy the expectations of funding agencies.

Building structures that promote habitat benefits while not increasing risks to landowners.

Finding landowners willing to provide access and support for salmon habitat restoration projects.

Superstar Operator Harlan Harvey

Acknowledgements

Tim Abbe, Arthur Flemming, and the team from Entrix

Gus Kays, Michael Spillane, and the team from Herrera

Nooksack Tribal Works including Mike Watson, Roy Nicol, Mike Ivie, Leo Redfox, Harlan Harvey, Kraig Harvey, and Vincent Cisneros

Nooksack Natural Resources Department including Jim Bura, Sindick Bura, Tom Cline, Treva Coe, Ned Currence, Llyn Doremus, Tim Hyatt, Gary MacWilliams, Michael Maudlin, Jenni Pelc, Loren Roberts, Russ Roberts, and Roman Swanaset

Special Thanks to Erica Capuana

And many others…