PROJECT PLANNING & SCHEDULING - RESOLUTION OF CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS & DISPUTES - GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS ENGINEERING DESIGN - PROJECT MANAGEMENT - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS & DESIGN - SITE CLEANUP PLANS

598-Report-09-Updated.doc

PHIL MARTINSON ENGINEERING, INC. PO Box 544 Phone 503-557-1555 Marylhurst, OR 97036 Fax 503-210-0360

October 14, 2006

Jerry Christensen – Chief Geotechnical, Civil & Environmental Engineer US Army Corps of Engineers – Portland District Phone: 503-808-4906 PO Box 2946 Contact via Lei Lum Portland, OR 97208 Colonel Thomas O’Donovan Phone: 503-808-4502 US Army Corps of Engineers – Portland District Contact via Diane Shepherd PO Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208 SUBJECT: Trout Creek Emergency Bank Repair Columbia Empire Farms

Design Details ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Ineffective Solution used to Facilitate Permit Approval Exhibit B - Effective Solution to the Problem Exhibit C – Summary of Information from NMFS’ Experts Exhibit D – Memo from Retired General Robert Jenkins who

experienced a similar problem on the Rapidan River in Madison County, Virginia

Dear Jerry Christensen & Colonel O’Donovan, This report addresses an erosion problem in Trout Creek, which is located just north of Madras, Oregon. The specific location is just west of the Highway 97 bridge, where Trout Creek flows under Highway 97. Following is a summary of the current erosion conditions and design details describing how we proposed to mitigate the erosion problem and enhance the creek bank protection to promote fish habitat. Instead we were directed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to install J-Hooks as a remedy to stop the erosion problem and prevent any further erosion.

Page 2 of 7

Our concern is with erosion at two sites – Site A-B located near the Boulder House and Site C located near and just upstream from a point referred to as POD 5. Site A-B is of critical concern due to its proximity to the Drain Field and the main farm houses. Site C is of critical concern due to its encroachment on the infiltration gallery located at POD 5. PROBLEM: In 1964, the highway 97 bridge was destroyed from a flash flood

(common occurrence in this area). The Bridge was rebuilt in 1964 and berms were installed in the flood plain by the Corps of Engineers. These berms are one of the major factors that have contributed to this present and ongoing erosion problem. These berms also need to be removed to prevent further damage to the creek bank and mitigate the erosion problem.

During times of high water and increased creek flows, the banks along the creek bed have eroded and caused damage in two critical areas described as location A-B and location C. The total length of the creek bed in this area is approximately 60,000 feet, however the only critical areas (that is sites A-B and C) cover less than 1500 feet. Thousands of Cubic Yards of material have been lost due to this erosion which has had a detrimental impact on the farm soils, irrigation systems, fish population and aquatic habitat in Trout Creek (which is a tributary to the Deschutes River).

Presently Columbia Empire Farms is looking at losing tens of thousand of dollars due to this erosion problem not being rectified in a timely manner. In addition, the State of Oregon is faced with damage to the fish population and aquatic habitat because of this unabated erosion from uncontrolled flash flooding. This problem with flash flooding was made apparent again in Trout Creek on April 2, 2006 when the creek flows went from 300 CFS to over 1,000 CFS in a 2-hour time period (per the Sage Brush gauging station). What precious little topsoil there is in this area is being lost to the effects of flash flooding on unprotected stream banks with detrimental impacts on the aquatic habitat and fish population. It is imperative that the soils, private property and fish habitat be protected from these flash floods before additional irreparable damage occurs.

Page 3 of 7

EROSION CAUSED BY REDIRECTED FLOW AGAINST THE CREEK BANK

CREEK FLOW

LOCATION OF SITE A-B (Looking Downstream)

SOLUTION: Columbia Empire Farms has proposed a plan to repair the damage

done to the creek bank and protect the creek bank from further damage by using Vegetated Riprap. Vegetated riprap is a proven and effective solution for this type of creek – which is subject to severe flash flooding. This solution not only corrects the damage and protects the creek bank from further erosion, it promotes the growth of natural vegetation to enhance the creek bank and provide further protection of the fish habitat.

Drawings and additional information describing an effective solution

to the problem are attached as Exhibits B.1 and B.2.

Page 4 of 7

VOLUNTEER WILLOWS

WHICH GROW NATURALLY ON PROTECTED BANKS

STAGNANT WATER

POOL CAUSED BY EROSION OF THE BANK

EROSION

AREA TO BE REPAIRED

REPAIR AREA OF SITE A-B (Looking Upstream)

Page 5 of 7

MAIN TROUT CREEK

CHANNEL

EROSION AREA TO BE REPAIRED

REPAIR AREA OF SITE C (Looking Upstream)

Page 6 of 7

EXAMPLE SITE: The following photograph describes another site that was built 40 years ago that uses rip-rap to protect that bank from erosion. It enhances the growth of natural vegetation to promote the aquatic habitat and enhance the fish population. The vegetation at this site consists of volunteer plantings and natural growth of the plant life. The repairs we have proposed would follow this same design, with a specific planting schedule to assure immediate growth of the vegetation.

MAIN TROUT CREEK CHANNEL

PAST EROSION AREA REPAIRED WITH RIPRAP

& SELF VEGETATED WITH NATURAL VOLUNTEER PLANTS

RIP-RAPED BANK PROTECTS FROM EROSION AND ALLOWS NATURAL GROWTH & PROLIFERATION OF AQUATIC HABITAT

EXAMPLE SITE (Looking Upstream) REPAIR PROBLEM: We are being prevented from proceeding with effective

repairs due to the approval procedure. Specifically NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) is requiring the use of J-Hook structures in Trout Creek. Although J-Hooks may work in typical creeks and streams, Trout Creek is non-typical with its Flash Flood events and its typical low flows. The design required by NMFS is attached as Exhibit A.1 and A.2 (please note the designs in these exhibits has been

Page 7 of 7

modified slightly prior to final permit approval and field directives from NMFS). We are proceeding to install the J-Hooks according to the NMFS’ design criteria, however we believe this design is a recipe for disaster. The creek bank will remain unprotected and a flash flood event will again cause irreparable damage to the creek bank, private property, permanent loss of fish habitat and further damage to the fish population. Our experience and investigation of similar sites which are affected by flash-flood events has confirmed our fears of the J-Hook design failure. It leaves the creek bank and the associated vegetation unprotected.

This concern is further supported by two attached reports

which specifically address this problem. Please refer to the attached reports:

Exhibit C - Summary of Information Received from

the experts recommended by NMFS Exhibit D - Memo from Retired General Robert

Jenkins who experienced a similar problem on the Rapidan River in Virginia

This is a potentially serious situation and we are requesting a directive from you to allow us the permitting approval (in the form of an amendment to the current permit) that will allow us to install Vegetated Riprap to mitigate any further damage at Sites A/B and C (less than 1500 feet). Without this approval, we cannot take the necessary steps to prevent further damage to the creek bank and protect the vegetation along the creek bank. The erosion that will result from a flash flood will not only damage these immediate sites but the silt released by a flash flood event will cause irreparable damage to this fish population and fish habitat located downstream of these sites – which includes not only Trout Creek but also the Deschutes River. Your assistance in issuing an amendment to our permit is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, Philip O. Martinson, P.E. Civil Engineer & Biochemist

EXHIBIT C.1 of 5

MEMO The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) gave the following recommendations and design criteria for the J-Hook design: 1. Scott Hoefer of NMFS recommended we contact a consultant to assist in

the J-Hook design.

Don Reichmuth Geomax 1023 West 30th Avenue Spokane, WA 99203-1324

We contacted Don and discussed the NMFS design recommendations. Don recommended not using J-Hooks since “J-hooks do not work in the creeks and streams of the Pacific Northwest.” He said the J-Hooks will all be washed out and will not work at all. This will be especially true of Trout Creek with its common Flash Flood Events.

2. The NMFS staff recommended a website that we use as a resource in designing a solution to the erosion problem. “I wanted to provide you with an excellent on-line resource for stream bank protection and would encourage you to check it out. It includes almost every technique that has been successfully used. It even includes a section on riprap. If you check that out it will help you understand why we discourage the use of riprap. It also includes a section on barbs and their orientation. The link is: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/ispgdoc.htm.”

That website does in fact give design criteria for Vegetated Riprap – which would be ideal for this site due to the flash flooding events that occur in Trout Creek. Page 96 of this report discusses using Vegetated Riprap (as we proposed):

EXHIBIT C.2 of 5

Vegetated Riprap - Riprap is typically vegetated by applying soil in the joints of the rock and planting seed, cuttings or rooted, woody species. Care must be taken in arranging the soil to make sure it fills the voids between rocks but does not hold the rocks apart from one another. Rocks held apart by soil will settle when the soil is washed out by floodwaters or surface runoff, which may result in destabilization of the riprap layer. Because a small amount of this settling is inevitable, the riprap/soil layer should be slightly thicker than it would have been had no soil been used. The soil should not be installed by pouring it over the surface of the rocks; doing so will only cause the soil in this location to be readily washed away by stream flow or surface runoff. Instead, the surface of the soil should lie about one half of the mean rock diameter below the top of the rock. Once the soil is in place, live cuttings can be planted in the soil-filled joints between the rocks (see the discussion in this chapter addressing the technique, Woody Plantings). On existing riprap banks, stakes can be driven through the rock layer and soil can be placed in the voids created. If the rock is large, a pilot hole should first be created using a steel rod. Often an apparatus called a “stinger” (a large, steel rod connected to the arm of an excavator or backhoe) is required to penetrate the rock layer. Details regarding the stinger are included in the technique discussed in this chapter called Woody Plantings. In new riprap installations, live cuttings are inserted in conjunction with rock placement. Planting in joints creates a more aesthetically pleasing bank and more terrestrial habitat. Vegetation planted this way can offer shade, cover and nutrient input to the stream. Woody plants will provide additional roughness and encourage deposition of fine sediment on the bank surface. The fine sediment, in turn, will foster the establishment of additional vegetation

EXHIBIT C.3 of 5

3. The J-Hook design was developed by Dave Rosgen. We reviewed his

design criteria and contacted his office.

He told us “In reviewing the site, the radius of curvature is too tight (90 degree bend) and the bank height ratio is too great (bank height above bankfull stage).” He also sent us the following drawing showing us we would need to rechannel the creek to make J-Hooks work.

EXHIBIT C.4 of 5

From reviewing the information provided by The National Marine Fisheries Service and talking with their experts regarding the use of J-Hooks to stabilize the bank and stop the erosion; we are convinced the only logical solution is to use Vegetated Riprap to repair the current damage and prevent a catastrophic event from occurring that will cause irreparable harm and damage to Trout Creek and to the Deschutes River (located downstream from Trout Creek). Following is a summary of our reasons to use Vegetated Riprap: 1. The only way to protect the Creek Bank is with Riprap. We need the

riprap due to the erosion from high waters. We believe the fish are unaffected since the normal low flows of Trout Creek keep the fish away from the riprap.

2. In order to address the protection of the vegetation necessary for Fish

Habitat, we have incorporated a design utilizing Vegetated Riprap that addresses fish habitat and bank protection. It provides bank protection to stop the erosion and provides protection of the vegetation necessary for Fish Habitat.

3. Trout Creek is a non-typical watershed since it is known for extreme

fluctuations in water levels associated with flash flooding. Without proper protection of the creek bank and the vegetation growing on the creek bank, both the creek bank and the vegetation on the creek bank will be lost during high flows - causing irreparable damage to the property and the fish habitat.

4. This is clearly evidenced in the damage caused at sites A-B and C. Both the

vegetation and the creek bank were lost during the high flows at these locations. There is no doubt this will occur again with a high water event. The Vegetated Riprap we have proposed addresses both of these concerns.

5. With the Vegetated Riprap design, the only times the creek will be in

contact with the Riprap, is during the flash flood events which normally subside after a few hours. For this reason the Vegetated Riprap will not affect the fish habitat. In addition, the vegetation we are incorporating in the design will enhance the fish habitat by adding shade to the creek and

EXHIBIT C.5 of 5

the riprap will protect this added vegetation during these flash flood events – therefore enhancing the fish habitat and promoting the fish population.

6. We are convinced (from the NMFS experts and the recognized design

criteria standards) the J-Hooks will not work and will be washed out in the first flash flood event after their installation. We also believe the fish will have little contact with these J-Hooks because the Trout Creek Flows are normally very low.

EXHIBIT D.1 of 6

MEMO [Reformatted to Simplify Reading] From: Robert Jenkins Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 7:21 PM To: Floyd Aylor Subject: Stream Restoration Floyd, I am sorry it has taken me this long to get back to you on your stream restoration questions. I have been traveling a lot with my job and wanted to look at the section of the Rapidan [a River located in North-Central Virginia] again (the river I spoke of when I was in Portland). Just got that done last weekend. When we worked with all the numerous agencies (including the Army Corps of Engineers) on the stream restoration project, they insisted on putting in J-hook structures as a means of slowing down the water during times of high water from heavy rain. Other restoration techniques used were creating turns in the river where none previously existed and using "root wads" to reinforce the outer stream banks in the turns. Unfortunately, very little reinforcement [Riprap] of the river banks was done, even when knowing that the original problem in this area was erosion and eventual collapse of the river bank that allowed the river to flood the area and threaten a sizeable bridge there. The J-hooks were built of very large stone (boulders) in a number of places along the river bank, but without any stone reinforcement [Riprap] along the stream bank, the river simply washed out the bank behind the J-hook and nullified any effect it may have had. There is a strong belief that the J-hook exacerbated the bank erosion by channeling the water against and into the bank. One thing is clear; without reinforcement [Riprap] with very heavy stone (boulders) the dirt banks, where the J-hooks are located, will wash away with the first significant high water and render the J-hooks useless. The section of the Rapidan to which I refer, has river banks, where the J-hooks were, that have been moved by river erosion as much as 25 yards from where they were originally. I noticed this past weekend that the project managers have gone back in and reinforced some of the turns in the river with heavy quarry boulders but there still is not enough reinforcement [Riprap] to stop the severe bank erosion. Having known of and been familiar with the Rapidan River all of my life, I seriously doubt that we will ever stabilize the section of the river where this project took place without a major reinforcement [Riprap] of the river banks with heavy stone or some other material that is equally erosion resistant--particularly on the outer banks of the turns. (Root wads help but are not very readily available and tend to not last very long.) The following pictures [the pictures and corresponding descriptions were moved to the end of this memo] show the area where the restoration project took place. I believe these pictures clearly show that most of the original project has been destroyed by high water primarily because we did not sufficiently reinforce the stream banks to prevent erosion. If you get back to Virginia any time in the future, I will take you to see this section of the Rapidan. Hope this helps clarify the discussion we had in Portland in August. Bob

EXHIBIT D.2 of 6

The first picture shows where a J-hook was located - but is totally washed out and the river has moved to the right.

EXHIBIT D.3 of 6

The second picture shows a J-hook further up the river that was added after the original project. It is damaged from high water and the bank behind it has been severely eroded.

EXHIBIT D.4 of 6

The third picture shows a section of the river looking upstream, where several J-hooks were originally placed. The stream has moved about 25 yards left at the apex of the turn.

EXHIBIT D.5 of 6

The fourth picture shows how the stream has migrated to the right by eroding the unreinforced dirt and gravel stream bank--there was also a J-hook in this area originally.

EXHIBIT D.6 of 6

The fifth picture shows the same as the previous picture from the bridge above the river. The stream was initially lined up with the bridge to the left of where it is now located (that is, on the left side of the rock and gravel bar).