1. Upper White Pine Floodplain Reconnection Presentation to PRCC Nov. 13, 2014

2. Here’s what we heard… 1.Why not re-connect the historic channel? 2.Does this design provide the highest biological benefit for the cost? Could you just breach the levee and let the re-located channel just form it’s own path?

3. Presentation Overview 1.Why not re-connect the historic channel? 2.Soils Data 3.Modeling Results 4.Levee breach and “let it go” 5.Revised Design Concept 6.Next Steps/Discussion

4. Historic Channel 190’ long culvert or 240’ long bridge 2 perforations through railway ½ floodplain/CMZ

5. Soil Sampling

8. Channel profile with soil pit data

9. Preliminary 2D Modeling Results - Inundation 2 year 10 year 50 year100 year

10. Preliminary 2D Modeling Results - Velocity 2 year 10 year 50 year100 year

11. Why not breach levee and “let it go”? 1.Uncertainty with channel formation through project area 2.Downstream impacts to habitat and aquatic organisms 3.Downstream impacts to infrastructure

12. Uncertainty with channel formation through project area Sand substrate will result in high erosion rates with unpredictable results Undesirable impacts could include: – Re-occupation of existing channel – Re-creation of new incised channel – Channel formation straight through powerline corridor

13. Downstream impacts to habitat and aquatic organisms Discharge of 30,000 cu yds or more of material, much of it fines Sediment impacts could be chronic and long-lasting, with detrimental channel instability persisting for years WDFW comments – Lack good data on current sediment levels/issues – Egg to fry studies to determine if limiting factor – Concern about introduction of more fine sediment USFWS comments – 303d Listed for temperature

14. Downstream impacts to infrastructure 30,000+ cy Material deposition channel response – Rapid lateral erosion – Channel avulsions Potential impact to downstream infrastructure Highway 2, Railroad, CPUD & BPA powerlines, private properties Rate of channel change already high due to conversion of project area to a Transport Reach in late 1950s/early 1960s

15. Revised Design Concept

16. Revised Design Concept – Why? Not Overly Engineered Similar Floodplain Connection Proposed Bank Treatments – FESL’s on outside bends Coarse and fine material Plant between & through – Wood At toe of FESL’s On face of banks Burial and piling anchoring Objective = reduce or eliminate ferrous anchoring 10 year 2 year old FESL’s at Tyee

17. Next Steps Project timeline – Critical paths 1.NEPA December 60% design information to USFS February EA and draft decision notice 2.Powerline Re-location 2015 December Construction MOU in place January draft bid documents for poles February bid for poles March pole engineering design April order poles for August delivery September install poles 3.Restoration Funding

19. Questions and Discussion 1.Format/process for funding request? 2.Liason?

20. Cost and Evaluation of Alternatives Levee removal only 30% Design 2 meanders Current concept 3 meanders 4 Meander concept Least expensive Most expensive Biological Benefit Ranked 1 – 4 Cost