1. North Fork Teanaway Large Wood Trapping Implementation
SRFB Application #
June 13, 2017
Rebecca Wassell
(509)

2. Key limiting factors within the watershed are temperature and flow
Key limiting factors within the watershed are temperature and flow. Associated limitations are availability of spawning gravels, low large wood availability, and decreased floodplain connection.
Teanaway Comm. Forest

3. Middle Fork Teanaway River, circa 1900
Natural Log Jam in
Middle Fork Teanaway River, circa 1900
Source: Russell, I. C Rivers of North America. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. 327pp. Figure B, Plate XII, page (Scan by T. Abbe)

7. Middle Fork Teanaway River, circa 1900
Natural Log Jam in
Middle Fork Teanaway River, circa 1900
Source: Russell, I. C Rivers of North America. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. 327pp. Figure B, Plate XII, page (Scan by T. Abbe)

9. Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan Upper Yakima Action #14
Restore instream and floodplain habitat complexity in Swauk and Taneum creeks and Teanaway and lower Cle Elum rivers.

10. Designed for: The large wood trapping project aims to:
Restore the role of “key” wood pieces in this altered stream system by installing 10 large wood trapping structures in 3 miles of NF Teanaway River by September, Wood will increase scour around structures and deepen the channel thalweg.;
Reactivate up to 200 acres of floodplain  through wood placement and splash dam regrading by September, The project will slow and trap floodwaters, increasing spring floodplain connections for late season low flow availability; and
Reduce the legacy of splash damming in the river by regrading remnants of a splash dam that constrains 0.3 mile of the river channel by September, 2019.
Designed for:

12. Project components Coordinate with land managers,
Review and modify preliminary designs,
Conduct geotech work,
Complete final design, Complete permit applications,
Construct, and
Monitor.
Construct structures that take the place of “key pieces” within each identified treatment area

13. Proposed treatment sites

14. Not proposed in this current proposal.
TAG/CC Question, Request, or Comment
Response: Where / how is the comment addressed in the final application
Clarify/update wood trapping structure location with new goals (since previous landowner concerns no longer limit goal of floodplain activation)
New locations will be selected using HEC-RAS and LIDAR, with floodplain activation as the primary objective. 
Consider wood replenishments in lower Jack Creek? One TAG member cautioned against this.
Not proposed in this current proposal. 
Timeline on structures—think about learning opportunities versus cost changes.
This is the first step in a multi-year project to restore in-stream structure and floodplain connection in the Teanaway Forks – this project will inform future work. 
What are the project’s long-term goals and process objectives? Bed aggradation was mentioned on the site as the primary goal.
Restore the role of “key” wood pieces, with an emphasis on restoring floodplain connectivity through bed aggradation. 
Do designs serve as cookie cutters for the new sites?
Not necessarily – the preliminary designs will be updated to reflect the current “state of the science”. 
Maybe clarify how the current designs relate to the new sites.
Not yet known. 

15. SRFB Technical Review Panel Question, Request, or Comment
Response: Where / how is the comment addressed in the final application?
Please highlight differences between the current proposal and the proposal.
was a design proposal for 5 NF Teanaway and 3 WF Teanaway sites. This is an implementation proposal for 10 NF Teanaway sites. 
Explain how the additional five sites will be selected.
LIDAR and HEC-RAS will be used to identify sites with floodplain reconnection potential. 
Attach available LIDAR to PRISM.
Will do. 
This is a cost-effective approach that is well suited to the project site due to the lack of infrastructure on-site. Concerns of downstream landowners are being addressed.
Thanks! 

16. New Information – LiDAR data to be used to develop HEC RAS 2D Model to verify sites relative to side channels and past channel patterns

17. North Fork Existing Site Conditions
Side channel near Site 4
Looking upstream at Site 4

19. Existing natural wood jam between Sites 4 and 6 in the North Fork Teanaway River.

20. Looking upstream at North Fork Teanaway Site 6

22. Looking downstream at North Fork Teanaway Site 7

24. Confluence with Jack Creek near Site 8
Looking upstream at North Fork Teanaway Site 8

26. Looking downstream at North Fork Teanaway Site 9

28. Budget Final design $85,000 $ Permitting $18,000 $13,000 $5,000
Total Cost
Match
SRFB Request
Final design
$85,000 $
Permitting
$18,000
$13,000
$5,000
Construction
$343,575
$55,750
$287,825
Project management, bookkeeping, mileage
$20,875
$4,700
$16,175
Total Request
$394,000

29. Existing natural wood jam between Sites 4 and 6 adult fish observed in deep pool

31. Five sites are proposed on American Forest Holdings land,
North Fork Sites
29 Pines
Five sites are proposed on American Forest Holdings land,
between RM 5.05 and RM 6.3
Structures are at least 2.75 miles upstream of other private property (1.2 miles upstream of Dickey Creek bridge)
Dickey Creek Bridge

34. Minimum Log diameter (feet) Minimum length (feet) 2.0 105.0 114.8 2.1
Minimum Key Pieces of Large Wood in Eastern Washington Streams
from Shuett-Hames, D., A. E. Pleus, J. Ward, M. Fox and J. Light TFW Monitoring Program Method Manual for the Large Woody Debris Survey. And Fox, M. J A New Look at the Quantities and Volumes of Instream Wood in Forested Basins within Washington State. M.S. Thesis.
Bankfull Width (feet)
>164
Minimum Log diameter (feet)
Minimum length (feet)
2.0
105.0
114.8
2.1
91.9
98.4
108.3
2.3
78.7
85.3
2.5
68.9
72.2
82.0
2.6
59.1
65.6
2.8
52.5
62.3
3.0
49.2
55.8
Minimum volume (cubic feet)
317.8
344.3
370.8
379.6
West Fork ; avg bankfull width around 70 ft for treatment reach , North Fork: 100 ft for both treatment reaches

35. Existing wood counts in surveyed reaches
West Fork
Middle Fork
North Fork
Number of pieces > 6 inches dia and 20 feet long 61 33 55
Length surveyed
4,329 feet
3,271 feet
7,115 feet
Frequency
74 pieces/mile
53 pieces/ mile
40 pieces/ mile
Number of “Key” pieces 1
1 - 2