Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Sandy - Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project (River Mile 37.3-38.4) Hydraulic Analysis and Design Alternative Assessment

BAIR L.L.C. and Associates For Sandy River Basin Watershed Council

Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

March 2018

Prepared by:

Brian Bair Principal BAIR L.L.C.

Hydraulic Analysis Amanda Jones P.E. Rowan Cooper-Caroselli Marjorie Wolfe P.E. Wolfe Water Resources

I Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Rehabilitation Design Approach ...... 4 Aerial Photo Analysis ...... 4 LIDAR Topographic and Bathymetric Mapping ...... 4 Flood Frequency Analysis ...... 5 Hydraulic Analysis ...... 5 Results, Discussion and Design Alternatives ...... 5 Geology and Geomorphology ...... 5 Aquatic Habitat Restoration Goals and Objectives ...... 5 Restoration Alternatives ...... 7 Project Action Goals ...... 10 Hydrology and Hydraulics ...... 11 Aerial Photo Analysis ...... 11 HEC-RAS Modeling ...... 11 Model Setup and Parameterization ...... 12 Results ...... 12 Preferred Design Alternative ...... 21 Project and Structure Risk and Durability Assessment ...... 23 Potential Failure Mechanisms ...... 26 Stream Bed Scour ...... 26 Increased Surface Area: Debris Loading ...... 27 Buoyancy ...... 27 Burial and Abandonment ...... 27 Stream Channel Capture – Channel Avulsion ...... 27 Water Elevation Response ...... 28 Structure Risk Summary ...... 28 Project Cost Estimates ...... 28 References ...... 31 Appendix A ...... 35 Appendix B ...... 37 Appendix C ...... 38

I Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

List of Figures Figure 1. Locator map for the Sandy River Basin, Clackamas County, Oregon...... 3 Figure 2. Locator map for the Sandy River Fish Habitat Restoration Project Area, river mile 35.6 to 36.5, Clackamas County, Oregon...... 4 Figure 3. Alternative D Proposed Restoration Actions, Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Area...... 8 Figure 4. Alternative E Proposed Actions, Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Project Area...... 9 Figure 5. Alternative F Proposed Actions, Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Project Area...... 10 Figure 6. Existing condition modeled 2-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4...... 13 Figure 7. Alternative D modeled 2-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4...... 13 Figure 8. Alternative E modeled 2-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4...... 14 Figure 9. Alternative F modeled 2-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4...... 14 Figure 10. Existing condition modeled 5-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4...... 15 Figure 11. Alternative D modeled 5-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4...... 15 Figure 12. Alternative E modeled 5-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4...... 16 Figure 13. Alternative F modeled 5-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4...... 16 Figure 14. Existing condition modeled 100-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4...... 17 Figure 15. Alternative D modeled 100-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4...... 17 Figure 16. Alternative E modeled 100-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4...... 18 Figure 17. Alternative F modeled 100-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4...... 18 Figure 18. Existing condition modeled 250-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4...... 19

II Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 19. Alternative D modeled 250-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4...... 19 Figure 20. Alternative E modeled 250-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4...... 20 Figure 21. Alternative F modeled 250-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4...... 20 Figure 22. Alternative F refined design elements. Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4...... 21 Figure 23. Refined Alternative F modeled 2-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4...... 22 Figure 24. Refined Alternative F modeled 25-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4...... 22 Figure 25. FEMA flood insurance map of the Middle Sandy River valley, Clackamas County, Oregon...... 35 Figure 26. FEMA flood insurance map of the Middle Sandy River valley and the project area, Clackamas County, Oregon...... 36

List of Tables Table 1. Long term objectives for riparian tree class densities per acre for Western Hemlock Climax seral stage...... 7 Table 2. Stream flow statistics for the Sandy River, Gage 14137000 near Marmot, Clackamas County, Oregon ...... 11 Table 3. Boundary Condition Hydrology for Sandy Salmon HEC-RAS 2D Modeling Exercise ...... 12 Table 4. Restoration design components and potential risks, causes and effects of failure...... 25 Table 5. Cost estimate for Alternative D - RM 37.3-38.4 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Restoration Project, Clackamas County, Oregon...... 29 Table 6. Cost estimate for Alternative E - RM 37.3-38.4 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Restoration Project, Clackamas County, Oregon...... 29 Table 7. Cost estimate for Alternative F - RM 37.3-38.4 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Restoration Project, Clackamas County, Oregon...... 30

III Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Introduction The Sandy River Subbasin is a key watershed west of the Portland metropolitan area. The Sandy River watershed supports popular sport fisheries, water recreation, dams and water storage facilities. Habitat preservation and restoration is a high-priority in the management of the fish and wildlife resources (Northwest Power Planning Council, 2002).

The Sandy Subbasin is in the Middle Columbia Ecological Province, within Multnomah and Clackamas Counties in Oregon (EPA Reach 17080001). The Sandy River drains an area of approximately 330,000 acres (508 mi2) with most tributaries originating on the southwest slopes of Mount Hood. The Sandy River flows about 56 miles in a northwesterly direction and confluences with the Columbia River east of Troutdale, Oregon at Columbia River mile 120.5.

The Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Restoration project area includes the section of the Upper Sandy River from approximately river mile 37.3 at East Barlow Trail Road Bridge upstream to the confluence with the Salmon River at river mile 38.4 (Figure 1). The project area is characterized by an alluvial reach with extensive levees greatly restricting flows into the historic floodplain surfaces and secondary channels. The underlying geology is volcanic and derived from a series of lahar flows. The hydrology of the Sandy River is characterized by low flows in late summer and high flows in the fall and winter generated from rainfall and rain-on-snow and snowmelt in the spring (USBR 2007). The project area is within the transient snow zone.

Before major anthropogenic channel modifications during the pre-European settlement era, the Middle Sandy River experienced periods of stability followed by periods of episodic sediment and hydrologic events causing significant channel and floodplain changes. These dynamic changes in the mainstem river and off-channel floodplain habitat were the drivers of native fish productivity (Inter-Fluve, 2012).

For the past 150 years anthropogenic modifications to the Sandy River stream channel and floodplains have been for the most part incremental except for 1965-1968. In December of 1965 a 200 to 250 return interval flood event caused significant damage private property and infrastructure. Post flood heavy equipment was used throughout the basin to channelize, straighten and realign the mainstem Sandy River. Berms and levees were also constructed to contain the flows and in most cases disconnected adjacent floodplains. In addition, boulders, log jams and LWD were removed from stream channels and floodplains.

The Sandy River and its tributaries support wild populations of fall-run Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, spring-run Chinook salmon, O. tshawytscha, coho salmon, O. kisutch, winter-run steelhead, O. mykiss, cutthroat trout, O. clarki clarki and Eulachon, Thaleichthys pacificus. The native salmon and steelhead populations of the Sandy River have declined 10-25 percent of historic levels in the past century due to multiple factors. The increase in human population and degradation of habitat are assessed to be the major contributors to this decline (SRBP, 2015). One of the most significant anthropogenic disturbances to aquatic habitat within the basin and project area occurred after the previously discussed 1965 floods. Boulders, log jams and large wood were removed from the stream channel and floodplains. In addition, many sections of river and tributaries were bulldozed, diked and stream banks were armored. These practices have resulted in channelization of the river, simplification of habitat

1 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

and extensive loss of large wood levels and recruitment. These actions had significant short and long-term impacts on aquatic habitat; narrowing of mainstem stream channel and increased velocities, loss of fish access to off-channel over wintering habitat, loss of LWD and hiding cover, significant loss of floodplain connectivity and restriction of channel migration corridor critical to juvenile salmon, coarsening of streambed and loss of spawning habitat. Due to the historical and recent river corridor alterations, aquatic habitat diversity and complexity within the Middle Sandy River has significantly decreased (Metro, 2012).

Due to the population declines and degradation of habitat, Chinook salmon and winter steelhead were both listed as threatened under the authority of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and included in the Middle Columbia River (LCR) Evolutionary Significant Unit. Chinook (both fall and spring races) were first listed in March 1999 with the ruling reaffirmed in June 2005. Both the fall and spring races of Chinook that utilize the Sandy and Bull Run rivers are listed threatened species. Sandy River winter run steelhead was first listed as a threatened species in March 1998, with the ruling reaffirmed in January 2006 (PWB, 2008).

Coho salmon were included as covered species because of both state and federal analyses and decisions. In 2000, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) listed LCR coho salmon as endangered under the state’s Endangered Species Act. LCR coho were listed as a federally threatened species in June 2005 (PWB, 2008).

Eulachon also known as smelt, historically immigrated into the Columbia River by the millions to spawn in the Middle mainstem and tributaries, including the Sandy River. Eulachon returns to the lower Sandy River are inconsistent, with large runs entering in some years and small to no runs of eulachon being observed in others. The Sandy River eulachon are included in the southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) which extends from southern British Columbia to northern California. On March 18, 2010, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed southern DPS Sandy River of Eulachon as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (NMFS, 2011).

Due to the decline in fish populations and federal ESA listings various groups developed to restore watersheds and populations of wild fish stocks. The Sandy River Basin Partners founded in 2000 is a group of public and private organizations working together to restore the native fish populations of the Sandy River Basin. In 2002 the Northwest power planning council sponsored the Sandy River Basin Characterization Report (SRBC) which provided the basis for understanding the losses and the factors contributing to fish population declines. In 2004-2005 an Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Modeling was applied to the Sandy River and tributaries and was included in the Sandy River Basin Characterization Report. EDT analyzes current habitat conditions and environmental constraints relative to aquatic species life stage. The output of the model provides survival responses of salmonid fishes in relation to various habitat restoration Report and EDT model results established restoration targets and priorities (SRBP 2004; 2005; 2007).

In 2010, SRBWC, the Bureau of Land Management and local landowners conducted a preliminary survey to evaluate restoration opportunities in the Middle Sandy River. In 2011 Inter-Fluve was hired by the SRBWC to build upon the preliminary findings and prioritize projects.

2 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

In 2012 Sandy River Basin Watershed Council (SRBWC) and Inter-Fluve evaluated and prioritized seven project areas to restore salmonid habitat on the Middle Sandy River. Project actions considered were intended to restore floodplain and off-channel habitat connectivity, spawning habitat for fall Chinook salmon and summer and winter rearing refugia for migrating juvenile coho, spring and fall Chinook salmon and steelhead. The Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Reach was ranked highest of the seven reaches for restoration in the 2012 Inter-Fluve report due to the number of target species (steelhead, spring Chinook, fall Chinook and coho salmon), acres of potential floodplain restored (43 acres), high aquatic productivity potential and low probability of river capture.

In 2017 SRBWC retained the services of BAIR L.L.C. and Associates to analyze and design floodplain and stream channel restoration measures within the Sandy-Salmon River confluence area. This document provides the hydraulic analysis and cost estimates for the refined design alternatives with the intent to restore floodplain connectivity and aquatic habitat for the before mentioned concerned species relative the geomorphology of the Middle Sandy River, SRBC limiting factors and aquatic restoration goals and objectives.

Figure 1. Locator map for the Sandy River Basin, Clackamas County, Oregon.

3 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 2. Locator map for the Sandy River Fish Habitat Restoration Project Area, river mile 35.6 to 36.5, Clackamas County, Oregon.

Rehabilitation Design Approach The following provides a summary of the methodologies employed to analyze, design, and develop a rehabilitation strategy for this project.

Restoration and Rehabilitation Philosophy. The goal of restoration is to accelerate the recovery of watershed processes in which the fish and other riparian-dependent species adapted. The goal of rehabilitation is to accelerate the recovery of watershed processes to the maximum extent practicable, to maintain or recover fisheries and riparian-dependent species.

Methodology. LiDAR, aerial photo, imagery, HEC-RAS 2D and stream flow patterns were used to analyze and develop rehabilitation design alternatives. Aerial Photo Analysis The 1939 through 2017 aerial photos and imagery were used to evaluate the historic and existing stream geometry, dominant flow paths and riparian conditions. LIDAR Topographic and Bathymetric Mapping Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR, BLM 2017) and bathymetric total station data has been used to generate detailed topography/bathymetry along the entire project reach, and provide details on channel conditions and features such as levees, relic meanders, side channels, gravel bars, vegetation extent, tributary fans, and river widths. The topographic data was used to model flows with HEC RAS 5.0.3 2D and to evaluate levee modifications, structure sites and their potential effect on stream channel dynamics.

4 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Flood Frequency Analysis Discharge estimates for the Middle Sandy River were derived from the USGS stream flow statistics report accessed 3/16/2017 (USGS (14137000) Sandy River Near Marmot, Oregon). Hydraulic Analysis Topographic/bathymetric data was used for the HEC-RAS analysis to model the extent of water surface profiles and flooding for a series of given flow rates. HEC-RAS is a computer program designed to perform one and two-dimensional hydraulic calculations to model the hydraulics of water flow through a full network of natural and constructed channels.

Results, Discussion and Design Alternatives Geology and Geomorphology Floodplains, riparian vegetation and large woody debris within the analysis area played a significant role in stream channel morphology and channel stability. Riparian vegetation provided roughness to the streambanks and floodplains, which instigated sediment deposition and protected them from erosion. Large woody debris also provided significant roughness to the stream channel and floodplains and protected riparian vegetation during peak flood flows. Large woody debris within the project area also played a key role in the creation and preservation of fish habitat.

The cumulative impacts of stream channel channelization, levees construction, riparian timber harvest, removal of boulders and large woody debris has significantly reduced the historic floodplain function and aquatic complexity and productivity. The project reach was historically a dynamic depositional flood prone area which produced high salmonid productivity that was driven by periodic sediment and hydrologic events. Currently the reach is a transportation reach due to the levees and stream channelization.

Removal or modification of the levee network, reactivation of relic side channels, wetland complexes, restoration and replacement of large woody debris within the project area will rehabilitate aquatic habitat and help to restore natural processes and increase aquatic organism productivity. Aquatic Habitat Restoration Goals and Objectives The following are preliminary aquatic restoration project goals and objectives intended to address the Sandy River Basin Characterization Report (SRBC) limiting factors. Tier actions and to assist with Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Restoration project development and refinement. The goals and objectives were developed by analysis of optimal biological productivity estimates, historical reference conditions and existing stream channel conditions within the Middle Sandy River and the project area. These goals and quantitative objectives are designed to guide restoration actions which will accelerate the recovery of naturally functioning floodplains, stream channels and riparian areas and maximize natural production of coho salmon, spring and fall Chinook salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout within the project reach. In addition, the goals and objectives are also the basis for monitoring project success and effectiveness.

5 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Goal 1. Restore and maximize natural production of, Chinook and coho salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout within Middle Sandy River. Restore and maximize salmonid productivity within the project area by restoring stream channels, floodplains and off-channel aquatic habitat complexity to exceed standards required for optimizing salmonid population production. The salmonid production goals for the Middle Sandy River project areas are based on resident fish and smolt capabilities of Pacific Northwest streams. The specific density goals by species are as follows:

Chinook Salmon 0.37 Smolts/m2 (Chapman 1981)

Coho Salmon 0.23 Smolts/m2 (Baranski 1989)

Steelhead 0.3 Smolts/m2 (Ward and Slaney, 1993)

Cutthroat Trout 0.39 Fish/m2 (Howell, 2006)

Goal 2. Restore Channel Hydrology and Reconnect Stream Channels to Associated Floodplains. Reconnect stream channels to floodplains to allow for natural and frequent inundation to reduce high flow energy impacts to stream channels and aquatic habitat. Use reference and historical data to develop strategies that will restore the hydrology of Middle Sandy River.

Objective 2A. Increase the three-year flow recurrence interval floodplain inundation acreages to greater than 30% above existing conditions (RM 37.3 – 38.4). Increasing inundation acreages will maximize off-channel aquatic habitat and increase salmonid productivity.

Objective 2B. Increase side channels within the Sandy-Salmon project areas (RM 37.3 – 38.4) to greater than 1.5 miles/river mile. Reactivating side channels will provide coho, Chinook fry and juveniles, steelhead fry and cutthroat trout with vital off-channel habitat and reduce mainstem stream channel and aquatic habitat impacts.

Goal 3. Restore, rehabilitate and Maximize Aquatic Habitat. Increase aquatic habitat complexity to exceed standards required for optimizing salmonid population production.

Objective 3A. Increase key in-stream LWM greater than 24 inches in diameter, greater than 50 feet in length to greater than 330 pieces/mile within the project area including Little Joe Creek. Restoring LWM levels will maintain natural channel processes by maintaining islands and protecting riparian vegetation, increasing pool frequency and average pool depths and maximizing main stem edge habitat, hiding cover and high flow refugia for fish.

Objective 3B. Increase number of pools within the project area by 100% by constructing log jams on islands, stream banks and terraces and constructed riffles and boulder placements within the Little Joe Creek and side channels. Increasing pool habitat will provide adult and juvenile salmonids with resting and rearing habitat (RM 37.3 – 38.4).

Objective 3C. Increase average residual pool depths to three feet or greater within Little Joe Creek. Increasing pools maximum depth provides adult and juvenile salmonids with hiding cover and promotes up-welling through the pool tail crest improving the quality of spawning habitat and increases salmon and steelhead egg to fry survival within Little Joe Creek and the mainstem Sandy River.

6 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Objective 3D. Restore and construct 1,200 feet of alcove, groundwater channel and groundwater meander scar habitat within the Sandy-Salmon River project area (RM 37.3 – 38.4). Restoring and maintaining alcove and groundwater habitat provides all species of salmonids with vital clear water habitat and thermal refugia.

Objective 3E. Increase spawning habitat by 30% or to minimum of 2,000 Yd2 per river mile within Little Joe Creek.

Goal 4. Restore native riparian vegetation age structure and species composition in both the over-story and the understory canopies (RM 37.3 – 38.4). Dominant tree species within the flood plains of the Middle Sandy River project areas have been converted from conifer to deciduous species through the past harvest methods.

Objective 4A. Restore species composition to approximate historic riparian proportions (cottonwood riparian gallery and western hemlock climax) by a combination of thinning and under-planting to achieve the following species composition and trees per acre by diameter class (Table 2): (Populus trichocarpa) black cottonwood, (Tsuga heterophylla) western hemlock, (Thuja plicata) western redcedar, (Alnus rubra) red alder, (Acer macrophyllum) bigleaf maple, (Pseudotsuga menziesii) Douglas-fir, (Taxus brevifolia) Pacific silver fir (Wind River Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest Old Growth Riparian Stand Exams 1996-1999). Table 2 gives the long-term objectives for riparian tree class densities per acre to emulate cottonwood riparian gallery and western hemlock climax seral stage.

Table 1. Long term objectives for riparian tree class densities per acre for Western Hemlock Climax seral stage. Trees/acre Diameter (DBH”) Snags/acre 20-55 >30 4-10 20-30 12.0-29.99 6-8 20-30 6.0-11.99 2-3 0-2 0-5.99 0 Total Downed Woody Debris 65-85 16-20 10-13

Goal 5. Restore and maximize adult and juvenile fish passage in Little Joe Creek past the East Barlow Trail Road stream crossing. Restore unimpeded aquatic organism passage.

Objective 5A. Replace the existing shotgun culverts on the Barlow Trail Road with an open bottom structure containing natural substrate and Q100 flow capacity. Restoration Alternatives A series of restoration actions for the Sandy/Salmon River Confluence project area were proposed by Iner-Fluve in 2012. Restoration alternatives based around these actions were developed by Sandy River Basin partners. BAIR L.L.C. and associates were retained by the SRBWC in 2017 to refine and analyze alternatives, develop cost estimates and designs for the Sandy/Salmon project area.

7 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Three action alternatives were refined and modeled for this report; Alternatives D, E and F. Alternatives D-F contain refined components from conceptual Alternatives A-C not included in this report. The actions common to all alternatives are levee removal, meander scar groundwater channel construction, large wood placement and structure construction, rehabilitation and enhancement of pools, riffles and spawning glides in Little Joe Creek. The three alternatives differ in levee removal quantities, fill areas and the number of log jams constructed (see figures 3-5). Alternative F also includes main-stem Sandy River meander rehabilitation and provides the greatest extent of levee removal and modification.

Figure 3. Alternative D Proposed Restoration Actions, Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Area.

Alternative D includes the following project actions:

• Breaches two sections of levee (total of 22,950 cubic yards) o The upstream levee is excavated down to the 3-5 year existing conditions flood elevation. o The second site breaches the levee at the mainstem thalweg elevation near the middle of the project area. • Adds a section of fill (5,800 cubic yards) in the relic side channel downstream of the downstream second levee breach. • Excavating 2,200 feet of groundwater and backwater channels; two upstream and one downstream of the downstream of the second levee breach. • Pool, Spawning Glide and Large Wood Rehabilitation (Lower Little Joe Creek). • Log jam construction (three locations).

8 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

• Large wood complex construction and single tree placements throughout the groundwater channels, reactivated floodplains and Little Joe Creek. • Replaces the existing shotgun culverts on the East Barlow Trail Road with an aquatic organism passage structure.

Figure 4. Alternative E Proposed Actions, Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Project Area.

Alternative E: This alternative includes all the restoration actions included in Alternative D however does not add fill in the relic side channel downstream of the thalweg depth breach. Alternative E also includes an additional large wood structure near the outlet of the relic side channel and Little Joe Creek to provide additional habitat and protection of the stream bank and terrace.

9 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 5. Alternative F Proposed Actions, Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Project Area.

Alternative F: Alternative F includes all actions proposed in Alternative E plus two additional sections of levee removal (total of 53,300 cubic yards) and rehabilitates meander geometry and gravel bars. In association with the meander and gravel bar rehabilitation five additional log jams would be constructed. Alternative F also excavates three additional ground water channels (total of 3,850 feet) and incorporates three groin-grade controls.

Project Action Goals The goals of the project actions are as follows:

Ground Water Channel Rehabilitation and Construction: The design goals are to provide off- channel, clear water habitat, hiding cover and high flow/turbidity refugia for juvenile and adult fish.

Levee Removal: The design goals are to restore floodplain function and provide aquatic organisms with perennial off-channel habitat and access to over-wintering habitat. Other benefits are to provide hiding cover and high flow refugia for juvenile and adult fish.

Groin Grade Controls: The design goals for the groin grade controls are prevent main-stem channel capture and protect the East Barlow Trail Road from erosion during major flood events.

10 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Main-Stem Sandy River Meander Rehabilitation: Main-stem meander rehabilitation (Alternative F only) includes extensive levee removal, main-stem pool excavation and gravel bar construction. The design goals are to maximize floodplain restoration and provide additional resting pool habitat for migrating adults and juvenile fish.

Log Jam Construction and Large Wood Rehabiliitation: The design goals are to provide increase pool volume, hiding cover and high flow refugia for juvenile and adult fish. Additionally, constructed log jams and LWD structures will be designed to increase floodplain stability and resiliance and to protect the East Barlow Trail Road in a fish friendly manner. Boulders and fill material removed from the levees would be used to ballast the structure and provide additional protection for the road during peak flow flood events.

Pool, Spawning Glide and Large Wood Rehabilitation (Lower Little Joe Creek): The design goals are to excavate and enhance pools, create and augment spawning habitat and provide resting, rearing clear water habitat, hiding cover for juvenile and adult fish within lower Little Joe Creek.

East Barlow Trail Road Culvert Replacement: The design goals are to provide unimpeded access to aquatic organisms past the road crossing. Hydrology and Hydraulics Discharge estimates for the Sandy River were derived from the USGS stream flow statistics report accessed 3/1/2016 (USGS Gage 14137000 Sandy River Near Marmot, Oregon). The following table displays the peak flow estimates.

Table 2. Stream flow statistics for the Sandy River, Gage 14137000 near Marmot, Clackamas County, Oregon Streamflow Statistics Gage 12061500 (ft3/sec)

Q2 14,340

Q5 22,470

Q10 28,390

Q50 42,750

Q100 49,390

Q250 71,615

Aerial Photo Analysis Aerial photos and imagery were evaluated to assess channel geometry and the frequency and distribution of dominant stream flow channels and pattern.

HEC-RAS Modeling

The purpose of the HEC-RAS modeling exercise was to evaluate the hydraulic behavior in the project reach during different flooding scenarios. The results provided graphical and numerical information necessary to focus the design of levee manipulation and placement of large woody debris structures within the reach.

11 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Model Setup and Parameterization

Existing and proposed conditions were developed in HEC-RAS 2D (USACE, 2016) using bathymetric LiDAR (LiDAR source, BLM 2017) and augmented ground surfaces built in AutoCAD Civil 3D. Two proposed condition alternatives were evaluated.

Hydraulic behavior on site under existing and proposed conditions was assessed under four hydrologic conditions (Table 3). Flows from the nearby downstream USGS gage near Marmot (USGS, 12061500) were used as the upstream boundary condition in the mainstem of the river and USGS stream stats output (USGS, 2017) was used for flows in Little Joe Creek. There are several small tributaries between the project site and the USGS gage station, but no substantial confluences, making the use of the gage flow for simulation in the project site reasonable and slightly conservative. The downstream boundary condition was assumed to be normal depth with a water surface slope equal to the channel slope.

Table 3. Boundary Condition Hydrology for Sandy Salmon HEC-RAS 2D Modeling Exercise Return Flow at USGS Gage near Flow in Little Joe Creek, from USGS Period Marmot (CFS) StreamStats (CFS) (years) 2 14,340 126 5 22,470 180 100 49,390 329 250 71,615 407

Results

Examination of the model results for the 100-year hydrologic event showed Alternative D caused a rise between 0.06-0.15 feet at the property boundaries on the south side of the river. This is due to fill placed in the side channel near the levee excavation causing a reduction in flood conveyance capacity.

Alternative E and F reduced the water surface elevations in some places at the 100-year return interval, and showed no net rise. The incremental decrease is a result of improving conveyance in the side channel by breaching the levee and not restricting flow conveyance by filling the adjacent section of the side channel.

Changes in inundation extents for each alternative can be used to evaluate habitat value for the project at the simulated flood levels. Figures 7-22 show inundation extents under existing conditions and for alternatives D, E and F for return intervals Q2, Q5, Q100, Q250.

12 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 6. Existing condition modeled 2-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

Figure 7. Alternative D modeled 2-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4.

13 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 8. Alternative E modeled 2-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4.

Figure 9. Alternative F modeled 2-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4.

14 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 10. Existing condition modeled 5-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

Figure 11. Alternative D modeled 5-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4.

15 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 12. Alternative E modeled 5-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4.

Figure 13. Alternative F modeled 5-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3- 38.4.

16 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 14. Existing condition modeled 100-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

Figure 15. Alternative D modeled 100-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

17 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 16. Alternative E modeled 100-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

Figure 17. Alternative F modeled 100-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

18 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 18. Existing condition modeled 250-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

Figure 19. Alternative D modeled 250-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

19 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 20. Alternative E modeled 250-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

Figure 21. Alternative F modeled 250-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

20 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Preferred Design Alternative Alternative F was further analyzed and determined to provide the greatest benefits to aquatic resources and was the most cost effective. Alternative F provides the highest frequency of floodplain connectivity and the highest area and volume of off-channel habitat. In addition, alternative F provides the most habitat diversity which includes rehabilitation of the main-stem Sandy River.

From a cost benefit perspective Alternative F utilizes excavated levee material for main-stem Sandy River rehabilitation and on-site contouring to reduce cost.

Figures 22-25 presents the refined designs and HEC 2-D analysis.

Figure 22. Alternative F refined design elements. Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

21 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 23. Refined Alternative F modeled 2-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

Figure 24. Refined Alternative F modeled 25-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

22 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 25. Refined Alternative F modeled 100-year recurrence interval discharge overlain on LIDAR imagery show the extent of area occupied by flowing water Sandy River, Clackamas County, Oregon, river mile 37.3-38.4.

Project and Structure Risk and Durability Assessment The risks of failure, the failure mode, and potential consequences and effects to the system and lives and property associated with each component of the design are considered in Table 4, adapted from Niezgoda and Johnson (2007).

Restoration failure mechanisms are evaluated for relative risk of occurrence. Higher numbers indicate higher risk of occurrence with the present design. For higher risk priority numbers, recommended actions will be identified to address potential failure modes and remedies. Recommended actions may include new design elements, inspections, monitoring procedures, and design modifications.

Several treatments will take place as part of this project. For each treatment, there is a potential for failure, and a range of effects that may occur because of the failure. Treatment failures for this project are not expected to result in risks to lives or property; anticipated effects are quantified in Table 4. Most structure failures are the result of improper design, placement of structures, or design specifications. For instance, tress and logs keyed into the stream bank or bed need to be deep enough or buried far enough into the stream bank or terrace to resist bed shear forces generated from higher flow events. The frequency and effects of large flow events and how they interact with structures is important to consider in assessing risks to treatments. Also, it is important to consider what could happen to materials used for the treatments and what might happen to large woody debris transported downstream. Will failure of the structures used in the design lead to increased channel instability downstream in the treatment

23 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

area or in downstream areas? For each structure, potential failure modes, the effects of failure, potential causes or mechanisms, and design checks are discussed.

Risk priority numbers have been provided in table 5. They show the design features that will be used for the project and provide a 1–10 ranking of potential failure modes of each design component. The failure modes that have the highest risk of occurring require a thorough assessment of design components to ensure that there has been consideration of the potential failure mechanisms and adequate design features employed. Also, once the project is implemented, features with higher risk priorities should be monitored.

24 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Table 4. Restoration design components and potential risks, causes and effects of failure Risk Priority #, Potential Effects of Potential Causes or (1–10; 1 = low, 10 Treatment Potential Failure Mode Failure Mechanisms = high) Design Checks Formidable Burial by incoming Project not effective Insufficient design 3 Allowable shear stress check Multi-Faceted sediment considerations Meander Bend Rapid lateral migration Property or Improper design 5 Design experience – Maximum Structures infrastructure damage specifications Scour Depths Calculated, Adequate Ballast Erosion of opposite bank Minimal, some sediment Improper design, placement 2 Design experience – Cross input or alignment Section Area Correctly Assessed Structure displacement Minimal, reduce design Improper material sizing, or 3 Use largest cost-effective effectiveness design materials Excessive scouring of Potential to cause Improper design 7 Follow design guidelines for bed-BF channel shear structure failure structures, scour/ shear stress 1.71 lb/sq ft check Gravel Bar and Burial by incoming Minimal Insufficient design capacity 3 Allowable shear stress check Point Bar sediment Structures Rapid lateral migration Property or Improper design, placement 5 Design experience – Cross infrastructure damage or alignment Section Area Correctly Assessed, Dominant Channel Analysis Erosion of opposite bank Minimal, some sediment Improper design, placement 2 Design experience – Cross input or alignment Section Area Correctly Assessed Structure displacement Potential to cause Improper design 3 Follow design guidelines for structure failure structures, scour/ shear stress check Side Channel River Capture Property and Stochastic flood event 4 Hydraulic Modeling, Dominant Activation, infrastructure damage Channel Analysis Groundwater Burial by incoming Project not effective Flood events, improper 5 Hydraulic Modeling, Channel Channels sediment designs - location Slope Assessment, Eddy and Deposition Analysis

25 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Potential Failure Mechanisms Structure failure is defined as the point at which the structure is degraded by excessive erosion or buoyancy, buried by incoming sediments, or abandoned to the point of being ineffective. The four primary modes of failure are: scour, buoyancy, burial, and abandonment. These mechanisms can lead to disposition of the structure, partial failure, and catastrophic failure. Structure disposition occurs when flow forces shift or reorient the structure from its original constructed form. Though the structure largely remains intact it may or may not function as designed. Partial failure occurs when part of the structure is lost due to scour, buoyancy, or burial. In the event of catastrophic structure failure, the majority if not the entire structure would be lost from its original position and transported downstream. Catastrophic failure could occur from variety mechanisms such as excessive debris loading and increased surface area, excessive scour and undermining of the structure, buoyancy, large wood and boulder debris torrents during flood events, or any combination thereof.

In the unlikely event that these structures fail, large woody debris used for the structures would be transported downstream and either re-deposited elsewhere or transported by the river to the Sandy River downstream and ultimately to the Hood Canal. There is a relatively low risk that this material will cause a risk to areas downstream, especially at bridges. Downstream bridges have design flow capacities that currently accommodate large wood transported by the stream. Large wood is a natural component of flood debris in rivers, and the amount that could be generated from these structures will not exceed what is normally observed in rivers at flood stage.

Correct placement, orientation, and construction of structures are critical to preventing failures. High velocity regions and depositional areas need to be identified and accounted for during the design process. Portions of the structure exposed to the highest velocities must be oriented correctly and armored with the appropriate materials including preloading upstream regions with slash and other smaller woody material.

Stream Bed Scour The mechanism with the highest risk priority number for possible structure failure is bed scour around or adjacent to the structure. Formidable multi-faceted structures are designed to scour pools and reduce near-bank shear stress by focusing the energy away from the bank or terrace. Point and gravel bar structures are designed to initiate deposition; however, scour on the upstream face is common.

The Sandy River project area is low to moderate in terms of energy because of the low slope (less than 1 percent) and wide intact floodplain which dissipates energy and the likelihood of failure from shearing of structure. The reach where these structures are proposed have stream slopes less than 1 percent on average. Stream slope is a direct measure of energy where streams that are considered high energy have slopes greater than 2 percent (Castro 2009). Bankfull stream bed shear calculated for the project area were 1.71 pounds/square foot, enough to mobilize the bed material around the structures and excavate an estimated 8 feet residual scour depth. In 2009 and 2012 maximum residual pool depths were measured in 15 of deepest pools. These pools were created by various types of scour: bend scour, local, constriction, drop or weir and jet scour. The deepest residual pool depth found in the surveys was 7.6 feet, adjacent to a formidable multi-faceted structure constructed in 2009.

26 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

To reduce the risk associated with bed scour, structure depth will exceed the depth of the calculated scour within the project area by at least a 25 percent or approximately 10 feet residual scour depth, and possibly deeper, depending on site conditions.

Increased Surface Area: Debris Loading During large flood events large amounts of woody debris can be transported downstream and collect on structures and other nick points. Excessive debris loading can dramatically increase the surface area of the structure leading to extreme forces which can lead to catastrophic failure due to shearing. To prevent catastrophic failure from excessive debris loading and increased surface area, significant portions of the structure are buried for ballast and vertical members are installed to provide further resistance to shear. Per Marzullo 2009, greater than 50 percent of all structures will be buried. In addition, vertical members will be placed at spacing intervals of 30 feet or less. Also, the flanks of bar structures are oriented downstream designed to release excess debris.

Buoyancy The Sandy River is a high-volume river where flood flows can reach 30,000 cubic feet per second with flood water elevations reaching 12 feet or higher above the existing bed. Therefore, buoyancy and rafting could lead to partial or catastrophic structure failure. Design measures to reduce failure risk associated with buoyancy are to insure structure heights exceed the estimated Q100 water surface elevation to prevent the structure from being overtopped during large flood events. In addition, placement of vertical members above the Q100 water surface elevation retain and collect additional debris further increasing long term stability.

Burial and Abandonment Burial of the structure from upstream sediment sources or structure abandonment due to channel avulsions are failure mechanisms that have been considered during this design process. Burial or abandonment during extreme flood events could occur regardless of the level of design and analysis. The Skokomish is a high sediment load dynamic river with a very broad flood plain and avulsions of the stream channel are a natural process and expected to occur. However, evaluating the dominant historic flow paths reduce the risk of structure burial, abandonment, and excessive scour, and therefore increases the probability of long-term structure stability and effectiveness.

Stream Channel Capture – Channel Avulsion Stream channel capture and channel avulsions into the reconnected floodplain and into the excavated groundwater channels have been assessed and risk are expected to be low. The risk is low due to the following factors: 1) the mainstem stream channel within the project area was bull dozed and channelized after the 1965 floods. This project will take out small sections of the levee network; less than 400 feet of the 6,000 feet of levees. 2) The upstream area proposed for levee removal will only be taken down to the Q3 elevation therefore only Q3 and higher flows will access the historic floodplain. 3) The existing mainstem stream channel through the project area contains a slope nearly two times that of the relic channels in the floodplain which greatly reduces the chances of channel capture and avulsion. 4) The geometry at which the mainstem Sandy River enters the project area from upstream is oriented against the historic Little Joe Creek alluvial fan and lahar terrace on the right bank. These features direct flow toward the South, toward the Salmon River confluence and into the consolidated lahar conglomerate left

27 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

bank. As flow leaves this section it is directed into the channelized levee section until it exists under the bridge.

Water Elevation Response As previously discussed in the HEC RAS section flood elevations showed that Alternative D produced a 0.06-0.15 net rise in water elevation at the Q100 discharge. This is due to fill placed in the side channel near the site 5 levee excavation. Conversely Alternative E did not result in a net rise in water surface elevations; Alternative E incrementally reduced water surface elevations at the Q5 and higher return intervals. The incremental decrease is a result of removing the section of the levee and not filling the adjacent section of the side channel.

There will be no detectable increase rise in water surface elevations as a result of large wood structure construction. There may be incremental localized increases upstream of the structures however these increases downstream of the structures were not observed.

Structure Risk Summary Structure failure risk for the Sandy River Fish Habitat Restoration Project is expected to be low due to the relatively low slope and design measures incorporated into the structures.

The surface areas of structures are expected to increase as debris accumulates. Surface area increases are impossible to predict, and therefore yearly monitoring would need to occur for 5 years after implementation or after large flood events.

Stream channel capture and avulsion through the reconnected floodplain are also unlikely due to the differences in channel slope of the mainstem and relic channel and remaining levee network. Project Cost Estimates Cost estimates are based on similar projects constructed in 2008–2017. The source of trees have not been identified at the time of this report, and therefore, cost for these materials was estimated on the high end of past project costs. These estimates are based on time and equipment projects and are directed by a qualified engineers and watershed restoration project managers.

28 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Table 5. Cost estimate for Alternative D - RM 37.3-38.4 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Restoration Project, Clackamas County, Oregon.

Site Description Project Over-Sight Mobilization Hydraulic Fluid Conversion#1 HydraulicGVW or Excavator Greater 95,000#2 Hydrauliclbs GVW or Excavator Greater 80,0006" lbs Trash Pump & 200 feet#1 of Rockhose Truck >20 CY #2 Rock Truck > 20 CY End Dump Log Truck Key MembersLength Rootwads >30" Dia.,Rootwad Attached >50'Length in Trees >24" Dia.,Rootwad >50'Length inTrees 18-24" Dia.,Rootwad >50'Length inTrees 12-18"Logs Dia., >24" > 40' Dia., in >50 inLogs Length 18-24" Dia., >50'Logs in Length12-18" Dia., 30' in SlashLength Boulders >3' in Dia. Project Totals Cost / Unit $ 164.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 235.00 $ 220.00 $ 620.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 132.00 $ 122.00 $ 400.00 $ 300.00 $ 200.00 $ 150.00 $ 100.00 $ 75.00 $ 50.00 $ 14.00 $ 31.30 Task Per Hour Each Each Per Hour Per Hour Per Day Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Each Each Each Each Each Each Each Per CY Per CY Levee Removal -approx. 13,750 CY 52 4 2 46 0 0 46 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 8,528.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 10,810.00 $ - $ - $ 11,500.00 $ 11,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 58,338.00 Levee Removal -approx. 9,200 CY 42 0 0 36 0 0 36 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 6,888.00 $ - $ - $ 8,460.00 $ - $ - $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 33,348.00 Groundwater Meander Scar Channel (1,400 feet) & Single Tree Placement 32 30 18 0 0 24 24 24 18 28 32 52 0 0 0 30 0 $ 5,248.00 $ - $ - $ 7,050.00 $ 3,960.00 $ - $ - $ 6,000.00 $ 3,168.00 $ 2,928.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 8,400.00 $ 6,400.00 $ 7,800.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 420.00 $ - $ 58,574.00 Groundwater Meander Scar Channel (800 feet) & Single Tree Placement 20 18 10 0 0 12 12 10 10 15 20 35 0 0 0 20 0 $ 3,280.00 $ - $ - $ 4,230.00 $ 2,200.00 $ - $ - $ 3,000.00 $ 1,584.00 $ 1,220.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 5,250.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 280.00 $ - $ 33,544.00 Island Bar Structure 55 0 0 50 50 5 20 20 40 40 25 35 50 75 10 10 0 50 210 $ 9,020.00 $ - $ - $ 11,750.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 3,100.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,280.00 $ 4,880.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 11,250.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 750.00 $ - $ 700.00 $ 6,573.00 $ 105,803.00 Island Bar Structure 35 0 0 32 32 3 10 10 30 30 15 25 40 55 7 6 0 30 110 $ 5,740.00 $ - $ - $ 7,520.00 $ 7,040.00 $ 1,860.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,960.00 $ 3,660.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,250.00 $ 700.00 $ 450.00 $ - $ 420.00 $ 3,443.00 $ 69,543.00 Little Joe Creek - Pool, Spawning Glide and LWD Rehabilitation 110 110 110 12 40 40 60 110 30 45 60 90 30 30 0 150 400 $ 18,040.00 $ - $ - $ 25,850.00 $ 24,200.00 $ 7,440.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 7,920.00 $ 13,420.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 2,250.00 $ - $ 2,100.00 $ 12,520.00 $ 187,740.00 Margin Large Wood Structure (Along East Barlow Trail Road) 20 40 40 0 40 40 0 0 30 40 50 210 0 0 0 300 0 $ 3,280.00 $ - $ - $ 9,400.00 $ 8,800.00 $ - $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ - $ - $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 31,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,200.00 $ - $ 111,180.00 Total Units Per Item 366 4 2 362 260 20 192 228 166 214 128 188 252 517 47 46 0 580 720 $ 658,070.00 Cost Per Item $ 60,024.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 85,070.00 $ 57,200.00 $ 12,400.00 $ 48,000.00 $ 57,000.00 $ 21,912.00 $ 26,108.00 $ 51,200.00 $ 56,400.00 $ 50,400.00 $ 77,550.00 $ 4,700.00 $ 3,450.00 $ - $ 8,120.00 $ 22,536.00 $ 658,070.00

Table 6. Cost estimate for Alternative E - RM 37.3-38.4 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Restoration Project, Clackamas County, Oregon.

Site Description Project Over-Sight Mobilization Hydraulic Fluid Conversion#1 HydraulicGVW or Excavator Greater 95,000#2 Hydrauliclbs GVW or Excavator Greater 80,0006" lbs Trash Pump & 200 feet #1of Rockhose Truck >20 CY #2 Rock Truck > 20 CY End Dump Log Truck Key MembersLength Rootwads >30" Dia.,Rootwad Attached >50'Length in Trees >24" Dia.,Rootwad >50'Length inTrees 18-24" Dia.,Rootwad >50'Length inTrees 12-18"Logs Dia., >24" > 40' Dia., in >50 inLogs Length 18-24" Dia., >50'Logs in Length12-18" Dia., 30' in SlashLength Boulders >3' in Dia. Project Totals Cost / Unit $ 164.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 235.00 $ 220.00 $ 620.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 132.00 $ 122.00 $ 400.00 $ 300.00 $ 200.00 $ 150.00 $ 100.00 $ 75.00 $ 50.00 $ 14.00 $ 31.30 Task Per Hour Each Each Per Hour Per Hour Per Day Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Each Each Each Each Each Each Each Per CY Per CY Levee Removal -approx. 13,750 CY 52 4 2 128 60 0 60 60 330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 8,528.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 30,080.00 $ 13,200.00 $ - $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 43,560.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 141,368.00 Levee Removal -approx. 9,200 CY 42 0 0 36 0 0 36 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 6,888.00 $ - $ - $ 8,460.00 $ - $ - $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 33,348.00 Groundwater Meander Scar Channel (1,400 feet) & Single Tree Placement 32 30 18 0 0 24 24 24 18 28 32 52 0 0 0 30 0 $ 5,248.00 $ - $ - $ 7,050.00 $ 3,960.00 $ - $ - $ 6,000.00 $ 3,168.00 $ 2,928.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 8,400.00 $ 6,400.00 $ 7,800.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 420.00 $ - $ 58,574.00 Groundwater Meander Scar Channel (800 feet) & Single Tree Placement 20 18 10 0 0 12 12 10 10 15 20 35 0 0 0 20 0 $ 3,280.00 $ - $ - $ 4,230.00 $ 2,200.00 $ - $ - $ 3,000.00 $ 1,584.00 $ 1,220.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 5,250.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 280.00 $ - $ 33,544.00 Island Bar Structure 55 0 0 50 50 5 20 20 40 40 25 35 50 75 10 10 0 50 210 $ 9,020.00 $ - $ - $ 11,750.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 3,100.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,280.00 $ 4,880.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 11,250.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 750.00 $ - $ 700.00 $ 6,573.00 $ 105,803.00 Island Bar Structure 35 0 0 32 32 3 10 10 30 30 15 25 40 55 7 6 0 30 110 $ 5,740.00 $ - $ - $ 7,520.00 $ 7,040.00 $ 1,860.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,960.00 $ 3,660.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,250.00 $ 700.00 $ 450.00 $ - $ 420.00 $ 3,443.00 $ 69,543.00 Little Joe Creek - Pool, Spawning Glide and LWD Rehabilitation 110 110 110 12 40 40 60 110 30 45 60 90 30 30 0 150 400 $ 18,040.00 $ - $ - $ 25,850.00 $ 24,200.00 $ 7,440.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 7,920.00 $ 13,420.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 2,250.00 $ - $ 2,100.00 $ 12,520.00 $ 187,740.00 Margin Large Wood Structure (Along East Barlow Trail Road) 20 40 40 0 40 40 0 0 30 40 50 210 0 0 0 300 0 $ 3,280.00 $ - $ - $ 9,400.00 $ 8,800.00 $ - $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ - $ - $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 31,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,200.00 $ - $ 111,180.00 Total Units Per Item 366 4 2 444 320 20 206 242 496 214 128 188 252 517 47 46 0 580 720 $ 741,100.00 Cost Per Item $ 60,024.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 104,340.00 $ 70,400.00 $ 12,400.00 $ 51,500.00 $ 60,500.00 $ 65,472.00 $ 26,108.00 $ 51,200.00 $ 56,400.00 $ 50,400.00 $ 77,550.00 $ 4,700.00 $ 3,450.00 $ - $ 8,120.00 $ 22,536.00 $ 741,100.00

29 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Table 7. Cost estimate for Alternative F - RM 37.3-38.4 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Restoration Project, Clackamas County, Oregon.

Alternative F PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE

Site Site Description Project Over-Sight Mobilization Hydraulic Fluid Conversion#1 HydraulicGVW or Excavator Greater 95,000#2 Hydrauliclbs GVW or Excavator Greater 80,0006" lbs Trash Pump & 200 feet #1of Rockhose Truck >20 CY #2 Rock Truck > 20 CY End Dump Log Truck Key MembersLength Rootwads >30" Dia.,Rootwad Attached >50'Length in Trees >24" Dia.,Rootwad >50'Length inTrees 18-24" Dia.,Rootwad >50'Length inTrees 12-18"Logs Dia., >24" > 40' Dia., in >50 inLogs Length 18-24" Dia., >50'Logs in Length12-18" Dia., 30' in SlashLength Boulders >3' in Dia. Project Totals Cost per Unit $ 164.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 235.00 $ 220.00 $ 620.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 132.00 $ 122.00 $ 400.00 $ 300.00 $ 200.00 $ 150.00 $ 100.00 $ 75.00 $ 50.00 $ 14.00 $ 31.30 SSRC Project Areas Task Per Hour Each Each Per Hour Per Hour Per Day Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Each Each Each Each Each Each Each Per CY Per CY Project Area 1 Levee Removal - 13,600 CY 28 4 2 50 50 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost $ 4,592.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 11,750.00 $ 11,000.00 $ - $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 68,342.00 Project Area 1 Gravel Bar Construction - 5,400 CY 32 0 0 28 0 0 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost $ 5,248.00 $ - $ - $ 6,580.00 $ - $ - $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,828.00 Project Area 1 Island Bar Structures (2) 55 0 0 80 80 8 20 20 40 40 25 35 50 75 10 10 0 50 210 Cost $ 9,020.00 $ - $ - $ 18,800.00 $ 17,600.00 $ 4,960.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,280.00 $ 4,880.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 11,250.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 750.00 $ - $ 700.00 $ 6,573.00 $ 121,313.00 Project Area 1 Groundwater Meander Scar Channel & Single Tree Placement - 410 FT 12 10 5 0 0 6 6 5 5 8 10 17 0 0 0 10 0 Cost $ 1,968.00 $ - $ - $ 2,350.00 $ 1,100.00 $ - $ - $ 1,500.00 $ 792.00 $ 610.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,550.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 140.00 $ - $ 17,410.00 Project Area 2 Levee Removal - 33,000 CY 52 4 2 128 60 0 60 60 330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost $ 8,528.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 30,080.00 $ 13,200.00 $ - $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 43,560.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 141,368.00 Project Area 2 Gravel Bar Construction - 8,800 CY 38 0 0 42 0 0 42 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost $ 6,232.00 $ - $ - $ 9,870.00 $ - $ - $ 10,500.00 $ 10,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 37,102.00 Project Area 2 Island Bar Structures (3) 110 0 0 100 100 20 40 80 80 80 50 70 100 150 20 20 0 100 420 Cost $ 18,040.00 $ - $ - $ 23,500.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 12,400.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 10,560.00 $ 9,760.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ - $ 1,400.00 $ 13,146.00 $ 227,806.00 Project Area 2 Groundwater Meander Scar Channel & Single Tree Placement - 2,700 FT 20 18 10 0 0 12 12 10 10 15 20 35 0 0 0 20 0 Cost $ 3,280.00 $ - $ - $ 4,230.00 $ 2,200.00 $ - $ - $ 3,000.00 $ 1,584.00 $ 1,220.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 5,250.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 280.00 $ - $ 33,544.00 Project Area 2 Margin Large Wood Structure 20 40 40 0 40 40 0 0 30 40 50 210 0 0 0 300 0 Cost $ 3,280.00 $ - $ - $ 9,400.00 $ 8,800.00 $ - $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ - $ - $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 31,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,200.00 $ - $ 111,180.00 Project Area 2 Groin-Grade Controls (3) 55 0 0 50 50 0 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 820 Cost $ 9,020.00 $ - $ - $ 11,750.00 $ 11,000.00 $ - $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 6,600.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,666.00 $ 89,036.00 Project Area 3 Levee Removal -10,000 CY 26 0 0 45 45 0 45 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost $ 4,264.00 $ - $ - $ 10,575.00 $ 9,900.00 $ - $ 11,250.00 $ 11,250.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 47,239.00 Project Area 3 Gravel Bar Construction - 4,200 CY 12 0 0 22 0 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost $ 1,968.00 $ - $ - $ 5,170.00 $ - $ - $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 18,138.00 Project Area 3 Island Bar Structures (3) 110 0 0 100 100 20 40 80 80 80 50 70 100 150 20 20 0 100 420 Cost $ 18,040.00 $ - $ - $ 23,500.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 12,400.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 10,560.00 $ 9,760.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ - $ 1,400.00 $ 13,146.00 $ 227,806.00 Project Area 3 Groundwater Meander Scar Channel & Single Tree Placement - 740 FT 16 16 9 0 0 9 9 10 10 16 20 30 0 0 0 30 0 Cost $ 2,624.00 $ - $ - $ 3,760.00 $ 1,980.00 $ - $ - $ 2,250.00 $ 1,188.00 $ 1,220.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 420.00 $ - $ 30,742.00 Project Area 3 Little Joe Creek - Pool, Spawning Glide and LWD Rehabilitation 110 110 110 12 40 40 60 110 30 45 60 90 30 30 0 150 400 Cost $ 18,040.00 $ - $ - $ 25,850.00 $ 24,200.00 $ 7,440.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 7,920.00 $ 13,420.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 2,250.00 $ - $ 2,100.00 $ 12,520.00 $ 187,740.00 Total Units Per Item 299 4 2 379 339 20 223 238 115 165 100 144 190 422 40 40 0 540 610 $ 1,384,594.00 Cost Per Item $ 114,144.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 197,165.00 $ 144,980.00 $ 37,200.00 $ 119,250.00 $ 146,000.00 $ 88,044.00 $ 40,870.00 $ 84,000.00 $ 89,700.00 $ 82,000.00 $ 113,550.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ - $ 10,640.00 $ 71,051.00 $ 1,384,594.00 Preliminary Estimates - Tree sources and levee removal waste areas have not been identified. Cost estimates for Site 11; Culvert replacement cost estimates have not been calculated.

30 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

References Abbey, T.B.; Montgomery, D.Rl. 1996. Large wood debris jams, channel hydraulics and habitat formation in large rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management (12): 201–221.

Bilby, R.E.; Likens, G.E. 1980. Importance of organic debris dams in the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Ecology 61 1107–1113.

Bair, T.B. 1999. Wind River watershed hydraulic geometry relationships. Wind River, Skamania County, Washington. Unpublished data.

Baranski, C. 1989. Coho smolt production in ten Puget Sound Streams. Technical Report 99. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia.

Bryant, M.D. 1982. Organic debris in salmonid habitat in southeast Alaska: Measurement and effects. (Pages 259–265) In: Armantrout, N.B.; editor. Acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat inventory information. Westerm Division, American Fisheries Society, Portland OR.

Bryant, M.D. 1983. The role and management of woody debris in west coast salmonid nursery streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3: 322–330.

Bustard, D.R.; Hawthorne, V.M. 1975. Aspects of the winter ecology of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32: 677–680.

Niezgoda, S.L.; Johnson, P.A. 2007. Case study in cost-based risk assessment for selecting a stream restoration design method for a channel relocation project, 2007. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering.

Castro, J. 2008. Stream energy, erosion, and flooding. Presented to Touchet River Landowners (August 26, 2008); Waitsburg, WA.

Castro, J.M.; Jackson, P.L. 2001. Bankfull discharge recurrence intervals and regional hydraulic geometry relationships: Patterns in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(5).

Canning, D.J.; Randlette, J.; Haskins, W.A. 1988. Sandy River Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan. Washington Department of Ecology, Report 87-24, Olympia, WA. In: Stover, S.C.; Montgomery, D.R. Channel change and flooding, Sandy River, Washington. Journal of Hydrology 243 (2001): 272–286.

Chapman, D.W. 1981. Pristine production of anadromous salmonids – Puyallup River. Final report. Contract No. P00C14206456. Produced for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Portland, OR. (as cited in Warren 1984).

Carson, R.J. 1970. Quaternary geology of the South-Central Olympic Peninsula, Washington. PhD

Chan, S.; Maas-Hebner, K.; Emmingham, B. 1996. Thinning hardwood and conifer stands to increase light levels: Have you thinned enough? COPE Report 9(4): 2–6.

31 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Chan, S.; Bailey, M.; Karnes, D.; [and others]. 1997. Riparian silviculture in the Oregon Coast Range: A partnership between management and research. (Pages 190–198) In: Proceedings of the 1997 National Silviculture Workshop; General Technical Report GTR-283, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest and Range Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.

Dolloff, C.A. 1986. Effects of stream cleaning on juvenile coho slamon and Dolly Varden in southeast Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 743–755.

Emmingham, B.; Chan, S.; Mikowski, D. [and others]. 2000. Silviculture practices for riparian forest in the Oregon Coast Range. Oregon State University, College of Forestry, Forest Research Laboratory.

Emmingham, W.H.; Maas, K. 1994. Survival and growth of conifers released in alder dominated coastal riparian zones. COPE Report 7 (2&3): 75–77.

Everest, F.H.; Meehan, W.R. 1981. Forest management and anadromous fish habitat productivity. (Pages 521–530 ) In: Sabol, K.; editor. Transactions of the Forty-sixth North American Wildlife Conference, Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

Fox, M.; Bolton, S. 2007. A regional and geomorphic reference for quantities and volumes of instream LWD in unmanaged forest basins of Washington State. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27: 342–359.

Hassan, M.A.; Woodsmith, R.D. 2003. load transport in an obstruction-formed pool in a forest, gravelbed stream. Geomorphology 58: 203–221.

Harmon, M.E.; Franklin, J.F.; Swanson, F.J.; [and others]. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15: 133–302.

Hartman, G.F.; Scrivener, J.C.; Miles, M.J. 1996. Impacts of logging on Carnation Creek, a high- energy coastal stream in British Columbia, and their implications for restoring fish habitat. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 (Supplement 1): 237–251.

Hetrick, N.J.; Brusven, M.A.; Meehan, W.R.; Bjornn, T.C. 1998. Changes in solar input, water temperature, periphyton accumulation, and allocthonous input and storage after canopy removal along two small salmon streams in southeast Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127: 859–875.

Hey, R.D.; Thorne, C.R. 1986. Stable channels with mobile gravel beds. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering112(8): 671–689.

Howell, P.J. 2006. Effects of Wildfire and Subsequent Hydrologic Events on Fish Distribution and Abundance in Tributaries of North Fork John Day River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:983-994. American Fisheries Society DOI: 10.1577/M05-114.1

Irving, J.S.; Bjornn, T.C. 1984. Effects of substrate size composition on survival of kokanee salmon and cutthroat and rainbow trout. Technical report 84-6, Idaho Cooperative Fisheries Research Unity, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Inter-Fluve Inc. 2012. Technical Memo. Middle Sandy River Restoration Prioritization. Sandy River Basin Watershed Council.

32 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Langbein, W.B.; Leopold, L.B. 1966. River meanders: Theory of minimum variance. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252: 57 p.

Lestelle, L.C., L.E. Mobrand and W.E. McConnaha, 2004. Information Structure of Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) and Habitat Rating Rules for Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon and Steelhead Trout.

Maas, K.; Emminham, W.H. 1995. Third year survival and growth of conifers planted in red alder dominated riparian areas. COPE report 8(1): 5–7.

Marzullo, C. 2009. Large Wood Structure Durability Assessment for the Skokomish River Restoration Project.

McCandless, T.L. 2003. Maryland stream survey: Bankfull discharge and channel characteristics of streams in the Allegheny Plateau and the Valley and Ridge Hydrologic Regions. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. CBFO-S03-01

Metro and River Design Group, 2012. Lower Sandy River Habitat Assessment and Candidate Site Design Project Technical Memorandum.

Minore, D.; Weatherly, H.G. 1994. Riparian trees, shrubs, and forest regeneration in the coastal mountains of Oregon. New Forest 8: 249–263.

Montgomery, D.R.; Buffington, J.M. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel response, and assessment of channel conditions. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement Report TFW-SH10-93-002. 84 p.

Moser, E. 2009. Engineered channel structures risk assessment. Unpublished raw data.

Murphy, M.L.; Koski, K.V. 1989. Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska streams and implications for streamside management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9: 427–436.

Murphy, M.L.; Meehan, W.R. 1991. Stream ecosystems: Influences of forest and rangeland management on slamonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 17–46.

Nakamura, F.; Swanson, F. 1993. Effects of coarse woody debris on morphology and sediment storage of a mountain stream system in western Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 18: 43–61.

Newton, M.R.; Willis, J.; Walsh, E.; [and others]. 1996. Enhancing riparian habitat for fish, wildlife, and timber in managed forest. Weed Technology 10: 429 –438.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2011. Critical Habitat for the Southern Distinct Population Segment of Eulachon Final Report. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Protected Resources Division.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 2002. In Sandy River Basin Partners (SRBC), 2005. Sandy River Basin Characterization Report.

33 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Niezgoda, S. L. and P.A. Johnson. 2007. Case Study in Cost-Based Risk Assessment for Selecting a Stream Restoration Design Method for a Channel Relocation Project. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering/Volume 133 Issue 5 - May 2007

Portland Water Bureau Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan (PWB). 2008. http://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/46157 accessed 7/11/2015

Roni, P.; Quinn, T.P. 2001. Density and size of juvenile salmonids in response to placement of large woody debris in western Oregon and Washington streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 282–292.

Smith, R.D.; Sidle, R.C.; Porter, P.E.; Noel, J.R. 1993. Effects of experimental removal of woody debris on the channel morphology of a forest, gravel-bed stream. Journal of Hydrology 152: 153–178.

Sandy River Basin Partners (SRBP), 2015. Web Site. http://www.sandyriverpartners.org/ access 7/10/2015

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No date. HEC-RAS 3.1.3. The Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA.

Tappel, P.D.; Bjornn, T.C. 1983. A new method of relating size of spawning gravel to salmonid embryo survival. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3: 123–135.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2007. Profile Survey of the Sandy River for Marmot Dam Removal, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group.

Wallace, J.B.; Webster, J.R.; Meyer, J.L. 1995. Influence of log additions on physical and biotic characteristics of a mountain streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2120–2137.

Ward, B.R. and P.A. Slaney. 1993. Egg-to-Smolt Survival and Fry-to-Smolt Density Dependence of Keogh River Steelhead. Ministry of Environment, Fisheries Branch, Fisheries Research and Development Section, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Williams, G.P. 1986. River meanders and channel size. Journal of Hydrology 88: 147–164.

Williams, G.P. 1981. Empirical hydraulic equations.

Worster, K.R. 2003. (Civil Design Engineer) Anchoring methods for large woody debris. USDA- NRCS National Design Construction and Soil Mechanics Center.

34 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Appendix A

Figure 25. FEMA flood insurance map of the Middle Sandy River valley, Clackamas County, Oregon.

35 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Figure 26. FEMA flood insurance map of the Middle Sandy River valley and the project area, Clackamas County, Oregon.

36 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Appendix B HEC RAS 2-D Hydraulic Modeling

37 Sandy-Salmon River Confluence Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Appendix C Alternatives D – F Cost Estimates

38