HomeMy WebLinkAbout057 98
(¿It: P.¡J,). r- - S -(-fð
,,"
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
In the matter of
x
RESOLUTION NO.5 7 -98
Approval ofthe Lower Big
Quilcene River Comprehensive
Flood Hazard Management Plan.
x
x
x
WHEREAS, The Local Interagency Team (LIT) agencies have created the Lower Big Quilcene River
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (plan), and,
WHEREAS, This Plan was developed through a comprehensive process, with cooperation and active
participation of all LIT agencies and the public, including Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife,
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Point No Point Treaty Council, Jefferson County Public Works
Department, Point Whitney Shellfish Lab, Quilcene Flood Board, Jefferson County Conservation Service,
United States Forest Service, and other agencies as well as interested landowners, and,
WHEREAS, The Plan has been approved by the LIT at it's January 22, 1998 meeting, and,
WHEREAS, Official Jefferson County approval of the Plan will strengthen future implementation and
grant opportunities, enhancing possible funding sources for riverine projects,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Jefferson County hereby approves the Lower Big Quilcene
River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan final draft, dated March 6, 1998, county project
#QF 1284, Department of Ecology (DOE) grant # G9700029.
~
ADOPTED THIS £ DAY OF
~u~ 199X
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
"""
.."."""" " ,"
...c,""", "'..-
", ¡ ~ ~"J 1,1 .
, " ,.,," """"""-""J ",
"f,t.'Wi"."
J' ' , ,
,,""", ',,',,,',.'':'"",.OJ,,.,\,,,,
"" " "",,-" ",' ",,:., ~
\~.,~,-", I: ,,:' ,
, ¡~;;'"",.':'L; _,--I; ,
SEAL:
"'"
',' ¡ ,\ '\
ATTEST:
~~y øof)~
Clerk ofthe Board
VOl~
?A "r~ r- :;Ji;
'- If r~¡," .--. ".
" "
Lower Big Quilcene River
Comprehensive Flood Hazard
Management Plan
Quilcene, Washington
March 6, 1998
Prepared for:
Jefferson County Department of Public Works
State of Washington, Department of Ecology
Grant Number G9700029
Prepared by:
GeoEngineers, me.
Cascade Environmental Services, me.
Urban Regional Research
Jefferson County Department of Public Works
Local mteragency Team (LIT) Agencies
í) 4' '-' ' ,," 1'--, ' ,
f fH'~ f. )-",-
,- HU- - '
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
INTR 0 D U CTI 0 N ............................................................................................................. 1
I
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS .............................................................2
W ATERSBED DESCRIPTION .........................................................................,............ 4
I
PAST ACTIVITIES IN THE BIG QUILCENE WATERSHED ........................"....... 8
I
FLOODING HISTORY IN THE BIG QUILCENE WATERSHED......................... 10
FLOOD IMPACTS ......................................................................................................... 11
I
PREVIOUS REl\1ED IAL ACTIONS ............................................................................ 12
I
RECO MMEND ED A CTI 0 NS .......................... ............................................................ 14
I
Action A.I - Reconfigure Linger Longer Road Bridge and Access to Accommodate Flood Flows and
Traffic. .........,..........,...............................,...,......,...,....,....,...,.........".........,.........,......,...............,..............16
Action A.2 - Property Buyout and Conversion of Use......."........"........."......................................"...... 16
Action A.3 - North-Side Floodway Conveyance Improvement, Below RM 1,1.....................................17
Action A.4 - Levee RepairlMaintenance ....,......................................"........."......................."................17
Action B.I - Identification and Acknowledgment of Sediment Sources .................,.............."........", 18
Action B.2 - Landslide Stabilization ....,...............................,......".........................."..........................,..18
Action B.3 - Streambank Stabilization ............................."........".........................................................19
Action B.4 - Gravel RemovaI.,..................",...,........,.....",..........,.,.......................,.................................19
Action B.5 - Large Woody Debris Management..................................",...............................,..............20
Action B.6 - Channel Reconstruction ....................."....................,........................................................20
Action B.7 - Dredging ......"........"....................,..........,............,.......,.........".....................,.................,...20
Action B.8 - Estuary Restoration ................................................".................................."........"...........21
I
I
I
ACTION FUNDING PLAN ........................................................................................... 22
I
BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 28
I
D IS CDS S ION.................................................................................................................. 32
I
SELE CTED REFEREN CES .......................................................... ...,.... ................,... ... 33
GLOSSARY OF TERl\1S ............................................................................................... 35
I
I
I
" '
:'(i4'
;: rAG~
1 f'-',-- ,'-,
, '.--~,:,:'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOWER BIG QUILCENE RIVER
COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN
QUILCENE, WASHINGTON
FOR
JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
INTRODUCTION
This flood hazard management plan is presented on behalf of the LIT (Local
Interagency Team), of which Jefferson County Department of Public Works is the lead
agency, to provide a long-term basis for management of flood hazards in the lower Big
Qui1cene River drainage. The plan was prepared by a project team consisting of
Kenneth G. Buss from GeoEngineers, Inc., Redmond, W A; Kent Doughty from Cascade
Environmental Services, Bellingham, W A; Jane Preuss from Urban Regional Research,
Seattle, W A, and Jefferson County Department of Public Works, as well as the agencies
and individuals of the LIT. The location of the river is shown with respect to local
features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1, and the River Segment Maps, Figures 2a through
4b. The area of concern extends from just above the Hiddenda1e community at about
River Mile (RM) 4,0 (approximate river miles from the mouth) down to the mouth of
the river in Qui1cene Bay. This area of the drainage has been subjected to an increasing
frequency of floods and flood damage beginning in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
These floods have resulted in considerable damage to public and private property as well
as anadromous fish habitat. There has also been an increase in risk to health and safety
of the residents living along the river. This is evident as damage to homes and adjacent
property as well as risk to health caused by flooding of septic tankldrainfield systems
and wells providing water for residential use. Public property including roads, bridges
and the Qui1cene National Fish Hatchery (QNFH) have also been damaged by these
flood events.
Qui1cene Bay is home to a major shellfish industry, a resource that has been
damaged by deposition of silt and contamination in past floods, Anadromous fish
habitat, from the Hiddendale community downstream, has been severely impacted by
deposition in the riverbed and erosion of streambanks during flooding. Riparian
vegetation along portions of the river has been damaged or destroyed, further
contributing to flood damages and degradation of habitat.
,') .
t.~ 4: rAG~
'-11 . - , fj-'
,j '.) ,"-
-"c.. - - ",
1
, VOL
r)4
L í-;::.~
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS
Primary goals of the Flood Plan are specifically identified in the Scope of Wark
provided by Jefferson County Department of Public Works and the State of Washington
Department of Ecology (Ecology) regarding the Big Quilcene River Flood Hazard Study
(Grant Number G9700029). Specific language comprising "The Scope of Work"
presented by Jefferson County and Ecology to the project team is repeated below:
TASK 1
Facilitate coordination between Department of Ecology, Jefferson County, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Quilcene Flood Board, U.S. Forest Service, and the Local
Interagency Team to fInalize the Big Quilcene River Comprehensive Flood
Management Plan. To accomplish this task, the consultant will utilize information
provided in the Geomax and Philip Williams Studies, the Big Quilcene Watershed
Analysis, the Salmon/Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project (SSHIAP),
and historical sources. Additional information may be available from GeoEngineers,
Inc., and the Dungeness/Quilcene (DQ) Study. The finalized Comprehensive Plan will
include recommendations to reduce flood hazard while protecting fish habitat.
TASK 2
Provide a CostlBenefit Analysis and Financial Plan to support projects proposed
in the Comprehensive Plan.
TASK 3
Evaluation of activities completed on the nver to date, using existing
information only. Additional information regarding the specific goals of this project
was provided by Jefferson County Department of Public Warks and members of the
Local Interagency Team (LIT). The goals conveyed by the County and the LIT are as
follows:
Reduce flood hazard while minimizing impacts to habitat
Health and Safety
Habitat restoration
The proj ect team used information and results presented in existing reports to develop a
plan of action focused on achieving the goals identified above, The protection of
existing fish and aquatic habitat, as well as opportunities to improve habitat during the
execution of any and all recommendations, is also clearly identified as a prerequisite of
the plan.
1 '," ,.~~eports reviewed as part of the de;e10pment of this plan are provided in the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
References Section. m addition to cited reports, data and infonnation fÌom
representatives of Jefferson County Department of Public Works, Washington State
Department ofFish and Wildlife, Jefferson County Conservation District, the LIT, and
residents and owners of property near the river were utilized,
The Scope of Work does not provide for the following:
Additional reconnaissance or data collection.
Additional research.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Additional analysis or reworking of existing data,
Error analysis or testing of results and hypothesis presented in reports of others,
Because of this, it was necessary to assume that previous data is accurate and
represents the current situation, When obvious discrepancies arose, the subject data was
not used in development of the Actions recommended in this plan.
The plan is intended to provide guidance for management of hazards associated
with flooding of the lower Big Quilcene River. The plan itself cannot control floods or
reduce severity or frequency of flooding. However, if implemented, Actions
recommended in this plan are intended to provide a systematic approach to reduce flood
hazards and assist in long-tenn stabilization of the lower river system. As such, the
various Actions recommended are meant to be implemented in conjunction with each
other so that long-tenn reduction of flood hazards is achieved.
m addition to flood hazard mitigation, the plan intent is to reduce impacts from
flooding that directly or indirectly impose adverse impacts to fisheries and other aquatic
habitat. It is recommended, as a mandate of the plan, that all Actions be conducted in a
manner to minimize disruption of aquatic resources and habitat. It is also recommended
that wherever applicable fisheries protection and restoration be implemented as a
criterion of all design plans,
Certain assumptions were necessary in development of the plan, As stated
earlier, data and infonnation in previous studies were assumed to be accurate. The team
also assumed, for purposes of evaluations, that activities on federally-owned lands in the
upper watershed, such as logging and road building, will continue to decrease. The
State of Washington has adapted into regulatory law prescriptions developed as part of
the Big Quilcene River Watershed Analysis. This action will also have a long-term
beneficial effect of reducing sediment from nonfederally-owned forested lands in the
upper watershed, It was further assumed that flood flows in the future will be at least as
great or greater than those experienced in the last 10 to 20 years. Finally, an assumption
was made that recommended actions described in the GeoEngineers, mc. report (1996)
prepared for the D.S, Fish & Wildlife Service will be carried out. These recommended
actions will reduce the volume of bedload material presently being transported
downstream ofD.S. Highway 101. 3 ! VOL 24 rA[~ 1'-~'4:j é
WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
GENERAL
Stated geography of the Big Quilcene River watershed, including geology,
topography, hydrology and weather, historical events and flooding history, is based on
infonnation from the above-mentioned sources. The Quilcene, Mt. Walker, and Tyler
Peak USGS quadrangle maps were also reviewed to detennine if any mining claims are
located within the watershed.
The Big Quilcene River watershed is located on the east flank of the Olympic
Mountain Range (Figure 1), The watershed is bounded by watersheds of the Dungeness,
Dosewallips and Little Quilcene rivers. The river is approximately 30 miles long, from
its headwaters near the eastern boundary of Olympic National Park to its outlet into
Hood Canal near Quilcene, Washington.
TOPOGRAPHIC SETTING
The Big Quilcene watershed drains about 69 square miles of mountainous region
bounded on the north by the Quilcene Range, on the west by Mt. Buckhorn, on the south
by Crag and Buck Mountains, and on the southeast by Mt. Walker. Watershed teITain is
generally steep, with rouglùy 7,800 feet of total vertical relief.
TeITain sUITounding the main stem river above RM 4.0 is typically composed of
very steep, rugged slopes that fonn a narrow upper channel corridor. Area slopes have
numerous tributary streams, many of which drain relatively large subbasins. These
steep slopes are prone to mass wasting, debris tOITents and snow avalanches,
From approximate RM 4.0 to RM 2.5, relief and steep teITain sUITounding the
main stem decrease slightly, although width of the stream corridor increases
significantly. Ravine slopes in this area are drained by a small intennittent tributary
stream on the south and a major perennial stream, Penny Creek, that enters the main
stem from the north just upstream of the Highway 101 bridge, Penny Creek supplies
water to the National Fish Hatchery.
Below RM 2.5 sUITounding telTain consists of the northern flank ofMt. Walker,
which fonns the south ravine slope of the stream, and broad, low-lying, flood-plain
teITaces located on the north river bank. The flood plain extends northward and merges
with similar flood plains associated with the Little Quilcene River, No tributary streams
enter the main channel along this lower reach, Below this point, the river flows across
the fan-delta and into Quilcene Bay.
VOL
'")4
L f-,;r,~
1"'.11 '-'.
. "-f-.C,
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WEATHER
The region has a relatively mild maritime climate. Most precipitation for the Big
Quilcene watershed originates from weather systems moving across the Olympic
Peninsula from the Pacific Ocean~ Average annual watershed precipitation is
approximately 61 inches, with rainfalls ranging from 51 inches near Quilcene and the
river mouth, to 76 inches in the upper watershed, Average annual temperature in the
Quilcene area is 50°F (Fahrenheit), ranging from an average summertime high of 78°F
to an average wintertime low of 30°F, Extreme temperatures are usually rare and of
short duration.
Over 80 percent of the annual precipitation falls between October and April.
Winter precipitation usually occurs as snowpack above an elevation of 4,000 feet, as
rain and snow between 2,000 and 4,000 feet, and as rain below 2,000 feet. Summer
months are relatively dry, Subsequently, most high river flow events result from either
brief and intense winter or spring rainstorms or heavy rains falling on existing
snowpack.
HYDROLOGY
Limited historical discharge records from USGS gauging stations indicate
average low-flow discharge is less than 100 cubic feet per second (cfs), while maximum
flows range from 1,500 cis to 3,050 cis. Additional flows recorded at the diversion dam
(9.5 miles upstream of the river mouth) estimate a maximum flow over the period of
1934 to 1990 of 3,650 cfs. It is estimated that representative flood discharges at the
river mouth are approximately 3,580 cfs for the 10-year flood, and 5,900 cfs for the 100-
year flood (Big Quilcene Watershed Analysis, 1994).
GEOLOGY, SEDIMENT SUPPLY AND DEPOSITION
Geology
The Big Quilcene River watershed is underlain primarily by three geologic units;
bedrock, a unit of various glacial deposits, and alluvial post-glacial deposits.
The bedrock unit consists of rock belonging to the Crescent Formation, which
includes erosion resistant volcanic basalt flows inter-bedded with comparatively less
resistant siltstones, shales and sandstones. Bedrock is exposed at the surface along river
banks above RM 1.8, or buried at shallow depths beneath the channel. Typically,
presence of bedrock along riverbanks tends to prevent lateral channel migration.
The unit of glacial deposits is derived from possibly several glaciations and
includes lodgement tills interbedded with outwash sands and gravels. The till is
composed of dense sandy silt with gravel, cobbles and boulders, and the outwash
consists of stratified sand and gravel deposited by meltwater streams flowing off an
24-' "r- -~.,--'- - '4.: 5
r,i\J~ J
; VOL
approaching glacier. The alluvial deposits consist of sand and gravel with local silt or
clay, generally derived from bedrock and glacial deposits and deposited by stream flow.
Peat deposits are also present locally within the alluvium.
Sediment Supply
Glacial and alluvial deposits as well as siltstone and sandstone members of the
Crescent Fonnation provide a ready source of coarse bedload material to the river and
its tributaries above RM 2.0. Glacial deposits are present primarily east of Penny Creek,
but also mantle ravine slopes and valley walls upstream of the hatchery and along
several tributary channels. Most commonly, sand and gravel are delivered from hill
slopes and stream banks to the channel by mass wasting, which includes landslides,
debris flows and debris tOITents. Stream reaches most historically prone to mass wasting
occur upstream ofRM 4.0 and between RM 1.3 and 2.0.
Most coarse material contributed to the river is transported as bedload, and fine
sediment is usually transported as suspended load. Bedload material, typically
mobilized once or twice per year during peak flood events, moves through higher
gradient reaches to lower gradient reaches, where it is deposited within and alongside
the channel. Most suspended sediment is carried further downstream, where it is
deposited on mudflats and discharged into Quilcene Bay.
In general, channel conditions upstream of RM 3.5 are more conducive to rapid
transportation of bedload materials through the upper reaches, mostly as a result of very
steep channel gradients from 3 to 20 percent, and narrow stream corridors. Conversely,
channel conditions downstream ofRM 3.5 are more conducive to deposition of bedload
materials as a result of lower channel gradients, relatively wide stream corridors and the
presence of broad flood plains. Gravel transported by Penny Creek to the main stem is
generally removed at the National Fish Hatchery entrance.
Several channel segments downstream of RM 3.5 have been identified as areas
of extensive deposition, primarily by bedload transported from upstream reaches. In-
channel deposition of bedload is typically a result of several factors, including local
decreases in channel gradient, proximity of sediment source areas, migration of gravel
bars, and channel width, There are several areas of pronounced bedload accumulation.
Between RM 0.0 and RM 0.8, the streambed elevation has increased up to 4 feet in
places. (Collins, 1993) Between RM 2.0 and approximate RM 2.3, there. is a zone of
channel braiding and bar migration active since at least the early 1960's. The reach
between RM 2,5 and RM 3.4 has experienced extensive bar building and channel
braiding since 1962 (GeoEngineers 1996),
Another area of extensive bedload deposition is located between RM 1.3 and
RM 1.8. In aqqi~on to depqsiti~))f bedload transported from upstream reaches, this
VOL c- q r~r,~ 1 '. 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
area is subject to sediment input from extensive erosion of bank material and slope
failure processes. As a result, the area has experienced very rapid channel aggradation,
bar accretion and active channel migration.
AQUATIC RESOURCES
Both resident and anadromous salmonids inhabit the lower Big Quilcene River.
Fish passage is blocked at RM 7.6 by a natural rock waterfalL Summer-run chum
migrate from saltwater to spawn from August through mid-October. This wild fish
species has reached critically low population levels in Hood Canal, to which the Big
Quilcene River is tributary. Summer chum salmon are proposed for listing as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act A late fall chum salmon run also occurs in the Big
Quilcene and is supported by natural spawning from hatchery origin fish as well as
artificial production. Late fall chum salmon spawn from mid-November through early
January and the population is considered healthy. Coho enter the river in mid-August
through mid-November with spawning occurring from November through mid-January.
Coho salmon stocks in the Big Quilcene River are predominantly of hatchery origin,
and hence are genetically influenced by hatchery production. Winter steelhead spawn
from mid-February through May. Their geographic spawning area extends further
upstream in the watershed than other anadromous species since the hatchery fish weir is
disengaged during migration of steelhead. Summer/fall chinook, no longer raised by the
hatchery, are present in sparse numbers, Coho salmon and steelhead and cutthroat trout
are the only anadromous species to reside in the river as juvenile fish for extended
periods, Pink and sockeye salmon have appeared in the river intennittently. In addition
to winter steelhead, cutthroat trout are the primary anadromous species in the river
allowed to spawn above the hatchery.
Quilcene Bay and surrounding marine waters include some of the most
productive oyster and clam growing areas in Washington State, supporting a major
shellfish industry as well as providing recreational opportunities for shellfish harvesting,
Coast Seafoods hatchery at Quilcene is considered the world's largest shellfish
hatchery. Both the seed and harvested shellfish contribute to the commercial
production. Pacific oysters and manila clams are found in local public tidelands.
Washington State recently purchased oyster and clam beds near the Big Quilcene mouth,
an area comprising the largest State-owned shellfish tidelands in Washington.
Abundant and diverse fish populations are a legacy of the Pacific Northwest,
including the Big Quilcene River. Fishing has sustained indigenous peoples of the
Northwest for thousands of years and is inseparable from their cultural heritage. The
importance of fish to indigenous peoples continues today and is recognized by treaty.
The commercial fis~g industry is a substantial component of Jefferson County
[VOL 24 :,"- - '~"'4:~_: 7 - - ','
economy. Donaldson and Steele (1994) report the annual commercial salmon catch in
local marine waters (Area 12A) is valued at $111,000 (10 year average ending 1992).
The Big Quilcene National Fish Hatchery is the primary contributor to this production,
with annual release targets of 2.2 million fall chum salmon fly, 450,000 coho salmon
smolts, and 400,000 summer chum salmon fiy. In addition, there has been an annual
release of 300,000 salmon smolts reared in Quilcene waters by the Point No-Point
Treaty Council. Sport fishing greatly benefits the local economy. Sportfishing and non-
commercial shellfishing in the QuiIcenelDabob Bay area has sustained an annual direct
value of approximately $200,000. It is estimated that sport harvesting returns an
additional 40 cents on the dollar to the local community (Donaldson and Steele 1994).
Commercial oyster and clam production is valued at $6,140,000 per year and supports
65 FTE employees (Donaldson and Steele 1994). In summary, total marine resources
have a direct annual value of over $6.3 million plus indirect benefits in support services.
PAST ACTIVITIES IN THE BIG QUILCENE WATERSHED
LOGGING
Early timber harvest activities in the Quilcene area were primarily located in
lower elevations, in close proximity to marine or rail transport. Timber harvest began in
the upper watershed following the 1925 and 1930 fires in Penny and Marple Creeks,
which introduced salvage harvesting, Logging increased steadily during and following
World War II, with peak activity occurring from the 1960's to the 1980's, Timber
harvesting has been decreasing since the late 1980's,
DEVELOP:MENT
The first homestead in Quilcene was established in 1860. The original townsite
of QuiIcene was located in the river floodplain, but gradually moved to higher ground as
a result of continued flooding. It is not lœown when dikes were first constructed in the
lower 0.5 mile of the river. Survey maps circa the 1880s show diked channels,
coincident with expansion of railroad and lumber industry in the area.
Construction of the Hiddendale Residential Community development began in
1962. This development is located upstream of the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery, on
the south bank Hiddenda1e is constructed entirely within the 100-year flood plain;
expansion continues at the present time.
In general, areas above RM 4.0 have experienced only limited development over
the past few decades, but have been subj ected to timber harvesting and road building.
From approximate RM 1.5 to RM 4.0, development has increased significantly over the
past three decades. This increase is mostly a result of steady growth at Hiddendale,
numerous homes situated on ravine slopes on the north side of the river, and expansion
ofhatch;i faci~t~\Af;Ç l' ""4:t: 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Below RM 1.5 land modifications have also increased over the past several
decades, resulting in occupation of historical flood plains by farms, pasture lands and
residential homes.
DAMS AND WATER WEIRS
Several small weirs and one dam structure have been constructed in the
watershed since 1911. The Quilcene National Fish Hatchery (QNFH) was built in 1911,
with a weir to divert water from Penny Creek. With hatchery expansions, additional
water was required for operations. A water intake was therefore constructed upstream of
the hatchery on the north bailie Subsequently, a second intake was constructed further
upstream due to channel migration. At a later date, a low flow weir was constructed to
divert more flow into the upstream weir. This low structure, constructed primarily of
riprap and concrete ecology blocks, diverts low flows from the south channel over to the
intake on the north bank. This diversion structure is designed so that high flows pass
over the structure. Another weir, not a diversion structure, is located just downstream of
the hatchery. The purpose of this fish weir is to direct returning salmon to the hatchery;
the weir is level with the stream bottom, and creates no upstream pool.
While it is probable that the fish weir located at the QNFH causes deposition of
sediment immediately upstream, local channel aggradation and braiding is likely a result
of reduced channel gradient and increased bedload deposition since 1973, As mentioned
above, the hatchery was constructed at its present location in 1911. The present fish
weir, which replaced the original weir of 1911, was installed in 1989. The present fish
weir is situated rougWy 100 feet downstream and 2 feet lower than the original weir.
Air photo analysis perfonned by GeoEngineers for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
indicate gravel presently occupying the channel upstream of this weir began
accumulating between 1962 and 1973. Prior to 1973, the channel above the hatchery
displayed a stable configuration with no apparent braiding or shoaling visible in active
channels. For a complete discussion of channel conditions in the vicinity of the
hatchery, refer to GeoEngineers' report, Big Quilcene River Gravel Removal Evaluation
dated December 20, 1996~
The original Olympic Gravity Water System was built in 1906 to bring water
from Snow Creek to Port Townsend. A diversion dam was constructed on the Big
Quilcene River at RM 9.5 in 1926 to provide additional water to Port Townsend.
Diversion from the Big Quilcene began in 1928. A maximum of 30 cfs is diverted
according to a water right issued to the City of Port Townsend (13QW A 1994), As a
supplement to this primary source, water is also diverted from the Little Qui1cene River.
Water is stored in Lords Lake reservoir and used during low flow or high turbidity flow
'\1 ')4"
,01- C rH'
..ii '," ,I ," -,
Æ 4--"
9
periods in the Big Quilcene. This reservoir is filled with water from both the Little and
Big Quilcene Rivers.
FLOODING HISTORY IN THE BIG QUILCENE WATERSHED
Reports that were reviewed describe a great deal of anecdotal information fiom
local sources concerning flooding in the Big Quilcene Watershed. Although there are
few reliable streamflow records for significant flood events, sufficient infonnation exists
for identification of flood events (Big Quilcene Watershed Analysis, 1994; personal
communication). Major flood events within the watershed include:
December 1926
November 1951
February 1954
January 1959
January 1960
December 1966
January 1968
March 1971
December 1979
November 1986
Recent major flooding events include:
NovemberlDecember 1990
1993 (flooding breached a levee
electrical transmission lines)
NovemberlDecember 1995
December 1996
January 1997
March 1997
and almost reached the base of Bonneville
The data show a recent substantial increase in flood frequency. In addition to
greater precipitation, increased flooding is caused by several factors, including road
building over the past several decades, channel confinement below the Hiddendale
community, and extensive channel aggradation. This flooding is significant enough to
raise water system turbidity in excess of drinking water standards, silt-in fish ponds at
the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery, cause septic tanks to overflow, and damage roads
and utility lines.
VOI-
24 ¡-,1(;;
1""",'"
'.. ,,+i"'"-.
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
FLOOD IMPACTS
HEALTH AND SAFETY
Impacts experienced from past flooding on the lower Big Quilcene River have
been varied and severe. These impacts are likely to increase in frequency and severity
as the river continues to aggrade and erode its banks. Of primary concern are those
impacts to health and safety of Quilcene residents along the river.
An obvious adverse impact is the threat to homes and residents from rising
floodwaters, which could be worsened by sudden breach of existing levees, or abrupt
release ofa debris jam in the channel. However, a more insidious health impact is rising
ground water resulting from streambed. Collins, 1993, showed that streambed elevation
has increased nearly 4 feet from 1971 to 1993, between Rodgers Street and Linger
Longer Road, Associated with rising ground water levels and flood waters is risk of
septic system failure and contamination of residential wells.
Flooding creates an additional safety risk when Linger Longer Road is covered
by floodwaters. This road provides the only access to approximately 70 residences.
Any medical, fire or accident emergency response would be severely hampered should
they occur when the road is flooded.
PROPERTY DAMAGE
Extensive damage to private and public property has occurred during past floods.
This has included damage to residences and other structures, Also, some property
owners have experienced substantial loss of land. For example, at least one home will
likely need to be moved due to threat of continued toe erosion and shallow landsliding
along a 75- to I DO-foot bank at RM 1.4. Other residences are threatened as well, but not
so dramatically. Property is also being lost from large landslides between RM 1.7 and
RM 1.9, as a result of river migration and subsequent erosion ofthe hillside toe.
Shellfish beds in Qui1cene bay have suffered damage fiom sediments deposited
during flood flows. As discussed in a previous section, the shellfish industry is a major
contributor to the local economy, with one report (Donaldson and Steele, 1994) stating a
value of $6,140,000 per year. Flood impacts also include possible contamination of
shellfish beds from failed septic systems.
Public property along the river is at risk from flooding. Local streets and county
roads are regularly inundated by flood waters and suffer damage from erosion of
embankments and pavement. There is also potential impacts on bridges and culverts.
Some local shellfish beds are publicly owned, and have suffered damage along with
privately owned beds. The hatchery has suffered flood damages in the past, and may
again in the future if flood hazards are not reduced.
kVDL
;:~4 ,.fy:
,.1\ "'..1 " ,.-'"
- ,.' ,~~.'
" ",',
11
RESOURCE DAMAGE
Past floods have had a detrimental impact on many resources in the lower Big
Quilcene River system. Reduced water depth caused by channel aggradation poses an
upstream fish passage problem for returning summer chum salmon. Channel bed
destabilization, channel shifting and aggradation can either bury or scour coho and chum
salmon eggs incubating in the gravel, thereby hindering survival. Low summer flows,
which dramatically reduce channel wetted perimeter in aggraded areas, are generally
harmful to fish runs. Increased fine sediment in spawning gravels, especially in the
lower river mile, also reduce spawning success.
Channel aggradation has diminished pool frequency as well as pool volume.
Subsequent loss of channel complexity reduces winter habitat for coho salmon, and
steelhead and cutthroat trout, the only three anadromous species which overwinter as
juveniles in the Big Quilcene River. Summer rearing habitat for juvenile coho has also
been damaged by flooding. Loss of pool volume is considered a limiting factor for coho
(WDFW 1994). Summer rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead and anadromous
cutthroat trout are similarly degraded in lower reaches of the river.
Reductions in density and size of riparian trees in the watershed due to logging
and other land uses have greatly reduced availability of large woody debris (L WD).
L WD can increase habitat diversity and provide sediment sorting and storage in
balanced river systems. Loss of riparian vegetation and in-channel wood degrades both
summer and winter rearing fisheries habitat, and impacts other riparian-dependent
wildlife as welL
Shellfish beds in Quilcene Bay have also suffered damage from flood flows. In
the mid to late 1980's high levels of fecal colifonn bacteria were detected in the north
end of Qui1cene Bay (Jefferson County Study 1986, as cited in Reichmuth and Welch
1993). Ground water in the river fan delta is within 0 to 18 inches ofthe ground surface
during winter months. Aggradation of the river bed causes elevated groundwater levels,
which contribute to septic system failure and risk of biological contamination to
shellfish beds. Jefferson County initiated a water quality project and analysis in 1986
which identified agricultural practices, failing septic systems, and resident seal
populations as primary sources of bacterial pollution in Quilcene Bay. Also, sediment
from landslides and bank erosion is deposited downstream in spawning gravels as well
as the bay, adversely affecting public and commercial shellfish beds.
PREVIOUS REMEDIAL ACTIONS
GENERAL
Numerous actions have been implemented in past years in an attempt to reduce
hazards from floo~ijlg ,or to mijga,t~ ~~age caused by flooding. These measures have
VOL G if: rM;>" 1 '.. ..). ' 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
included dredging, gravel removal, bank protection, levee construction, levee removal,
property acquisition and bridge removal. There has been varying degrees of success,
although it is nearly impossible to accurately determine effectiveness since little or no
regular monitoring was completed. Many of the measures were completed without
design drawings or other documentation. However, anecdotal evidence of success has
been obtained from discussions with local residents and review of available documents.
More detailed discussion of these past remedial actions are presented in the following
paragraphs.
GRAVEL TRAPS AND GRAVEL REMOV AL
Over the last 25 years, much material has been removed from the river by means
of gravel traps or bar removal (personal communications). The gravel traps installed
lately (since 1994) have been relatively small, generally less than approximately 2,000
cubic yards (yds3). They have been excavated on bars as gravel trap cells, without any
excavation in moving water of the stream channel. The other primary method of gravel
removal has been extraction of material from gravel bars, generally above average low
water level. No measurements are available to assess effectiveness of this bar removal.
Local residents and others involved in monitoring the river feel gravel removal efforts
have been successful in reducing channel aggradation and level of flood flows. Also,
there are no documented adverse impacts to the river resulting from these gravel
removal efforts.
DREDGING
As flooding of the river became more frequent and severe, channel dredging took
place downstream of Rodgers Street and Linger Longer bridge. There is little or no
documentation regarding effectiveness of these mitigation efforts, although it is likely
that damage/overflow of levees was reduced for a few years after dredging was
completed. Dredging was eventually discontinued because of possible risks to fisheries
and shellfish resources. The lower river was also dredged in March 1992 and December
1993. Three to six feet of channel bottom was removed from the powerline crossing to
the river mouth. However, the channel aggraded following the first major storm event
(personal communication), Additional dredging has been performed periodically by
private property owners,
LEVEE CONSTRUCTION
Over the years, protection of streambanks on the Big Quilcene River has taken
many forms. The most obvious has been construction of levees on both banks from
Rodgers Street to !he river mouth ~d .o~ the south bank, for a short distance upstream of
!HOI ~~4 ""-""'" 13 ,""
.f - '--' f::,r, ",. .;:J.t., ,. .. ,- .
Rodgers Street. These levees have protected residential areas from flood during periods
of low to moderate flows, but at present, high flows with a 2 or 3 year recurrence
interval overtop levees and flood property on the north side of the river.
In 1993, the river breached the south bank levee downstream of the Linger
Longer bridge. Flood waters cut a channel through the Newman property and
abandoned lower reaches of the fonner channeL Subsequently, the levee was repaired
and flow was re-routed to the fonner channel.
In 1995 a portion of the north dike was removed downstream of Linger Longer
bridge. Property on the north bank was acquired by Jefferson County in conjunction
with this dike removal, providing an area of public property where overland flows can
occur,
STREAMBANK PROTECTION
Other fonns of streambank protection formerly implemented include placement
of logs, riprap, stumps, rock and log barbs, soil reinforcement and toe stabilization. The
most recent efforts incorporating these materials were completed in 1996 at the
Hiddendale development upstream of the hatchery, and on the north bank at about RM
1.5. These efforts have performed quite well in flooding during the winter of
1996/1997. Further loss of riverbank was prevented, and the amount of sediment added
to the river system was reduced. However, in a major storm in March 1997, river flow
was diverted by a landslide on the south bank at about RM 1.8, and directed toward the
north bank where flood flows eroded the upstream end of recently completed log barb
bank protection.
WOOD REMOVAL
In the past, sporadic efforts have been made to remove large log jams and debris
piles fiom the river. Mostly, these were obstructions deposited during high flows, and
were not located in the low flow channel. There is no documented effects of wood
removal, although loss of woody debris can result in pool loss which affects fish habitat.
Another effect oiL WD removal is the loss of sediment sorting and storage sites.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
INTRODUCTION
Natural resource management and particularly flood hazard management must
recognize both natural processes and the realities of balancing public safety, property
protection, and public resource protection. The following sections of the plan present
Actions that are recommended to provide mitigation of repetitive flood hazards evident
on the lower Big '<lwlc~~~ Riv-tr' )ttiitaiiscussed in a previous section of this plan.
VOI- C Y.: r ;",..L 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Actions are presented as separate and individual, but each should be considered as only
part of a systematic approach to mitigation of hazards on the entire lower river. Many of
the Actions will only affect a specific reach of the river, but when combined as
recommended in this plan, they provide a comprehensive approach to mitigate hazards
as well as improve conditions for fisheries and other resources. The measures
recommended in the plan to reduce repetitive flood hazards are separated into two
general categories; those affecting health and safety, and those affecting sediment
supplied to the river and channel stability. Infonnation reviewed for development of
this plan clearly demonstrates the many contributions to conditions and hazards
presently existing in the lower river basin, including historical activities in the
watershed, development, local geology, and weather patterns. Recommended Actions
have been developed to both remedy these local conditions to the highest possible
degree, and provide mitigation of overall hazards.
The recommended Actions are concepts for treatment of especially problematic
reaches on the Big Quilcene River. While all such areas of concern are vitally
important, they are generally regarded in the following priority,
1. Linger Longer and Rodgers St. area, approximate RM 0.5
2. Landslides, slope failure, bank erosion, approximate RM 1.5-2.5
3. Aggradation at the river mouth, approximate RM 0.0-0.5
Actions are presented in an order consistent with treatment of these areas in the priority
above. However, the Action concepts address flooding and habitat concerns
simultaneously- Therefore, the Actions are not mutually exclusive, but may be
implemented concurrently, as funding becomes available, or as conditions evolve on the
nver.
Design and implementation of the Actions will be completed in a manner that
minimizes impacts to fisheries and other resources. Many of the recommended Actions
will enhance fisheries habitat; this is an important criterion for the design effort.
Land use in the lower Big Quilcene River drainage is currently governed by the
Jefferson County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, #18-1120-95, The ordinance
prohibits building in the floodway, and mandates specific flood-proofing measures
needed for structures to be built in the Flood Hazard Area (lOO-year flood plain). The
following methods and provisions for accomplishing flood management are included in
this ordinance:
1. Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and
property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases
in erosion or in flood height or velocities.
Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such
uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction.
2' 4'" 15' " ' ,
, fH;r 1': \5;~;
2.
, YOI-
3.
Controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural
protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters.
Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will UIll1aturally
divert flood water or may increase flood hazards in other areas.
4.
The ordinance also states that all developments in the flood plain should be
consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and subsequent amendments,
as well as the Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program.
Therefore, since responsible policies are in place, this plan does not specifically discuss
further land use regulations.
ACTIONS TO MITIGATE REPETITIVE HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS
WHILE RESTORING FISH HABITAT
General
The Actions recommended subsequently in this section of the plan are designed to
provide specific mitigation for hazards to health, safety and property in the floodway and
lower flood basin. As discussed in the introduction to this section, it is intended that these
Actions be considered as parts of the whole Plan. fudividual Actions will be beneficial for
specific sections of the river; however to fully mitigate hazards the plan recommends that
Actions be implemented as a whole as funding becomes available.
Action A.I - Reconfigure Linger Longer Road Bridge and Access to Accommodate
Flood Flows and Traffic.
TIris Action is necessary to mitigate health and safety risk regarding access to some
70 residences and businesses during periods of high-water flood flows. Careful attention
to design features will be necessary to assure that adequate flow capacity is provided for
floodwaters that now flow over the road. The plan recommends consideration of a bridge
extension with causeway approaches to allow all flows to pass under the bridge and
causeway.
TIris Action is especially critical to reduce risk to health and safety should a life-
threatening situation arise during a period of high water, and will be more effective when
combined with other recommended Actions,
Action A.2 - Property Buyout and Conversion of Use
TIris Action alone will eliminate damages relating to properties that are purchased.
However, when combined with other recommended Actions, it will be very effective in
mitigating hazards and reducing future costs of flood damage. Obviously, it also will
redu~~- heal~ 4an~ r, ~afety1 ~?f~~~s, Partic~~arlY those associated with the purchased
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
properties.
Criteria for selection of properties include such factors as owner willingness to
participate, utility of the property with respect to flood storage capacity/accommodation of
overflow, relationship of property to other overflow properties, and amenability to habitat
restoration. Specific properties which will be selected for purchase should maximize as
many of these criteria as possible, Participation in a buyout program would be voluntary.
Action A.3 - North-Side Floodway Conveyance Improvement, Below RM 1.1.
This Action entails the study and design of floodway and habitat improvements,
which will move flood flows through this area in a more beneficial manner. Flood flows
cUlTently overtop the north bank upstream of Rodgers Street, starting at RM 1.1, and are
stored in a large floodplain area behind Rodgers St. This water then flows over Rodgers
Street which acts as a defacto spillway. The proposed Action may include setback or
removal of dikes on the north river bank, a controlled overflow at Rodgers St., and
acquisition of associated floodplain easements or properties. hnplementation of this
Action would take advantage of the historical overflow path in the north flood way. This
Action may also include construction of new levees on the north floodplain near I DO-year
flood limits to protect homes and historic structures from flood overflows. Detennination
of the need and location of these levees must be part of the detailed design effort that
evaluates Actions A.I, A.2, A.3 and A4.
Action A.4 - Levee Repair/Maintenance
This Action provides an essential element to overall mitigation of flood hazards
imposed on existing homes along the lower river. hnplementation of Actions A.1, A2
and A,3 will reduce pressures exerted on the levees during flood events, The intent of this
Action is to allow landowners to repair and maintain levees/dikes as needed to protect their
property. The primary sections that will likely require maintenance and repair are on the
south bank, below RM 1.1.
ACTIONS TO REDUCE SEDIMENT AND STABILIZE THE CHANNEL
General
Every stream must be considered as a system of integrated elements. As a
consequence, any action in the stream produces an effect elsewhere in the system. This
is very apparent for the lower Big Quilcene, which is plagued by chronic problems of
channel aggradation and high rates of bank erosion. A number of factors have
contributed to these problems: channel constriction (bridges and dikes), loss of
floodplain area and forested riparian zone, increased sediment input throughout the
: VOL 2 4 rH~ - 1 L,^'S:~:
17
, ,
system, and loss of tidal energy inputs. Aggradation of the channel has increased
hazards associated with flooding and damage to property, residences and fish habitat
This plan recommends a comprehensive series of Actions which, when
implemented, will reduce flood hazards and bed aggradation, provide a more stable
configuration for the cha1ll1el, and restore fish habitat
Action B.1 - Identification and Acknowledgment of Sediment Sources
VariOllS studies, infonnation and data exists regarding sources of sediment in the
Big Quilcene River system. Using this existing infonnation, sediment source areas
should be inventoried and considered in the planning stages ofproject implementation.
While acknowledgment of these sediment sources is recognized as an important issue,
completion of such an inventory should not prevent, hinder, or delay project
development~
Action B.2 - Landslide Stabilization
Unstable slopes and shallow landslides present along the lower river corridor are
located primarily between RM 1.3 and RM 1.8. The landslides typically occur along
slopes with gradients of 50 percent or greater, in response to erosion and undercutting
along the river bank as river flow removes support from the slope base. Evidence
suggests that confinement of the river channel against high slopes of Mt, Walker
between roughly RM 1.6 and RM 2.3 has likely forced the river to erode into these
slopes.
The plan recommends both structural and non-structural approaches for design
and implementation of measures to stabilize landslides, reducing deposition of sediment
into the river, Structural measures must be designed to provide support for the slide
mass, as well as to prevent erosion of additional material from the hillside toe.
Structural methods include rock buttressing, biotechnical treatments, toe benns,
drainage, mechanically stabilized earth, and revegetation of exposed soil.
Non structural approaches include measures that allow the river to move away
:fÌom these potentially massive sediment sources, producing favorable benefits and long
tenn cost effectiveness. Allowing channel sinuosity to increase without eroding into
high bluffs would decrease the river's erosive energy. Each project location will require
development of a site specific design, as well as cooperation of affected landowners.
All stabilization measures must be compatible with other recommended flood hazard
mitigation Actions, to assure the most effective treatment and reduction of these
hazards.
Bank erosion can be a result of natural channel meandering across the floodplain.
VOI- 24 f)J, " l':':~l) 18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
However, bank erosion can also be accelerated by a nwnber of factors. These factors
include removal of riparian forest, channel straightening and diking, confinement of the
river against unstable slopes, depletion of stable logjams, and bed aggradation, Actions
to reduce bank erosion problems should address these root causes,
Action B.3 - Streambank Stabilization
Bank erosion has destroyed a large area of pasture land between RM 1.5 and 1.6,
as the south bank landslide at approximate RM 1.8 causes channel aggradation and
subsequently diverts flow across the river to the north bank. Bank stabilization
measures may include structural and non-structural methods. Wherever practical, flood
easements may be acquired :from erosion susceptible properties, given willing
landowners, allowing the river to return to natural processes, and avoiding the need for
conscious efforts at bank stabilization. The most appropriate stabilization method for
any particular section of streambank should be detennined after systemic, local
evaluation of streamflow, topography, soil condition, and other resource requirements.
This Action should be part of a comprehensive approach for reduction of hazards in
order to realize maximum effectiveness.
Streambank stabilization design should include consideration of riprap, barbs,
trees, artificial log jams, channel reconstruction, dike setback or removal, revegetation
of exposed soil and enhancement of riparian habitat.
Action B.4 - Gravel Removal
In past years, gravel has been removed :from the river in varying amounts to
maintain open channels and to reduce the elevation of flood flows, Without a
monitoring program it is difficult to quantify the effectiveness of this removal.
Therefore, an appropriately scaled gravel transport evaluation should be perfonned.
Based on results of the evaluation, specific areas should be identified from which gravel
is to be removed. The removal plan should include a program to monitor effectiveness
and impacts of the remoyal. In general, evaluation of gravel removal from the reach
below Rodgers Street and Linger Longer Road, as well as the severely aggraded and
braided reach between RM 1.3 and RM 1.8 is recommended, The program should be
designed such that removal occurs only when predetermined quantities have
accwnulated. In particular, the design should identify those areas where gravel removal
will provide channel stability and reduce hazards resulting from aggradation and
associated flooding. It is expected that successful implementation of other Action items
will reduce future dependence on gravel removal.
Location and timing of gravel removal should not degrade fish habitat or
seasonal fish use, Mid to late summer generally presents the least impact to fisheries.
VOL 24 r"r~ - ... 1""",-: 19
'" '- -t ,. ,,~ ~.
Hydraulic pennits issued by Washington Department of Fisheries are required for gravel
removal within the ordinary high water channel.
Action B.5 - Large Woody Debris Management
The Big Qui1cene River currently has low levels of stable Large Woody Debris
(LWD) and few sources of large diameter LWD. LWD structures store sediment and
reduce stream energy which can result in a more stable channel. L WD also creates more
diverse fish habitat. Removal of L WD may have the effect of increased conveyance of
water and sediment. However, increased conveyance of water is equivalent to increased
velocity, which leads to bank erosion and more sediment input into the river system.
Another effect ofL WD removal is loss of sediment storage sites and fish habitat
The objective ofLWD management upstream of Rodgers Street is to increase the
amount of stable LWD. Between Rodgers St. and the BPA Powerlines, the objective is
to ensure that L WD does not create a flood hazard. Below the powerlines, L WD is
generally not a flood hazard. To reduce flood hazards, options for relocation ofLWD to
areas of high habitat value and low flood risk should be considered preferable to
complete debris removal from the channel system.
Action B.6 - Channel Reconstruction
Channel relocation and reconstruction should be considered as a means of
moving the river away from high, erosive bluffs, adding channel length to reduce
erosive energy, creating improved, stable fish habitat, and healthy riparian vegetation.
Channel reconstruction will require the participation/cooperation of willing landowners.
The channel reconstruction must be carefully designed to duplicate characteristics of
the fonner stable channel and reduce risk of future braiding. This Action is intended to
reduce flood damage by reducing sediment inputs from unstable slopes, and decreasing
stream energy and associated bank erosion,
Action B.7 - Dredging
For purposes of the plan, dredging is defined as removal of material from the
primary channel to provide more capacity for flood flows or to specifically rechannel the
river. The plan reconIDlends that dredging be implemented only after proper evaluation,
and only as part of the larger comprehensive approach to reduce hazards, The plan does
not reconIDlend dredging as a routine maintenance measure, but as an emergency
response to catastrophic events, or as a component of other Actions.
VOI-
')4
'H'"
L-, r'..,,'
ì'" r-"""'
, ;")ï;
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Action B.8 - Estuary Restoration
In the lower reaches of tidally influenced rivers worldwide, the loss of tidal
prism (the intertidal area functionally connected to the stream) has often been associated
with dramatic stream channel buildup and plugging. Especially within protected bays,
tidal estuaries provide a critical mechanism for transporting stream sediments into the
marine environment. Tidal flushing minimizes the rate of sediment buildup in the lower
reaches of creeks and rivers and upon their deltas. A stream's energy becomes virtually
zero at its mouth, This abrupt loss of energy would seemingly cause an enonnous
decline in the stream's ability to move sediment and therefore lead to rapid stream
channel filling and delta enlargement. hI areas of great tidal range, however, highly
functional estuaries harness tidal energy for moving sediment using a network of tidal
surge plains and channels. These features comprise the tidal prism which serves
functionally as a tributary of the freshwater stream. Within the tidally influenced area,
declining stream energy is replaced by increasing tidal energy which transports and
distributes sediment further into the marine environment than can be attributed to stream
energy alone. Over durations of considerable time, mud flats aggrade with stream-born
sediment, become vegetated into salt marsh wetlands dissected by tidal channels and
stream distributaries, and the estuary advances seaward. The linking of streams with
tidal energy is a necessary mechanism to create stable, slowly evolving, complex and
productive estuaries. On the northern Olympic Peninsula, estuary-intact stream systems
generally extend their deltas seaward (prograde) less than 2 feet per year. Olympic
Peninsula streams that drain into protected bays but lack a significant linkage with an
intertidal estuary commonly prograde their deltas 10 feet or more per year on average.
Channelization, river diking, and bay diking have virtually eliminated the Big
Quilcene River's historical tidal prism and intertidal estuary. Since these impacts began
some 11 or 12 decades ago, the river mouth has advanced approximately 1,700 feet into
Quilcene Bay, hIcreasingly severe flooding and the degradation of fish, shel1ñsh, and
waterfowl habitat are problems commonly observed at stream mouths where these
human impacts have occurred (e.g. Little Quilcene and Dungeness Rivers, Snow, Morse,
and Jimmycomelately Creeks). The plan recommends the design and implementation of
measures to restore tidal energy and intertidal estuary habitat at the mouth of the Big
Quilcene River. These measures may include the removal of large quantities of
sediment from the delta cone area, possible relocation of the lower river channel, the
removal of certain dikes downstream of Linger Longer Road, and possibly the removal
of dikes in adjacent marine areas. Although considerable further study is necessary to
properly design this action, the importance of estuary restoration cannot be over-
emphasized,
, VOL
24 r,;~~ - 1 ":'~)~~i
21
ACTION FUNDING PLAN
Implementation of this comprehensive multi-Action plan must balance
objectives, which have been articulated in the various reference documents, with
accessibility of available funds. Reference documents reviewed by the project team all
address surface water resource management. However, emphasis of these studies ranges
from flood control to habitat restoration to aquatic resources, Likewise, reviewers ofthe
various funding sources will reflect slightly different priorities and objectives.
Each Action or proposed project is intended to satisfy several objectives that
have been identified as important by the LIT members. As objectives of each Action are
identified, they can be used to satisfy various eligibility criteria for specific funds. The
ability to document such multi-objective project management practices is cited by a
variety of funding agencies as one of the most important criteria in qualifying for
funding.
The first component of the Action Funding Plan involves Local hnprovement
Districts, or LIDs. Policy, procedure and limitations for implementation of LIDs are
dictated by Revised Code of Washington chapters 86 and 36. LIDs are a means of
assisting benefited properties in financing needed capital improvements, such as river
management projects. Two initialization methods can be utilized in the LID fonnation:
The resolution of intention method, which allows the legislative body to initiate an LID;
and the petition method, by which property owners petition to initiate the LID. In this
funding mechanism, potential projects will be identified and prioritized by the impacted
property owners, local flood boards, and the LIT. An annual budget will then be
established based on the priority projects. Fees necessary to meet this budget will be
equally distributed among those properties benefited by the improvement, per the above
referenced RCW s.
Another important source of potential funding may be realized from taxation of the
Big Quilcene, Little Quilcene, and Dosewallips Flood Sub-zones. Additional information
and limitations for this funding method are stated in RCW 86.15.160. Both the LID and
flood sub-zone taxation funding methods are applicable to all Actions proposed in this
plan.
ELI GIBILITY
Additional sources of potential funding to implement the Actions are provided
below. Each individual program has specific eligibility requirements, target areas,
advantages and limitations. Funding competitiveness and application time frames are
subject to change; the appropriate listed agency should be contacted for further
infonnation. Potential funding sources are presented with respect to Actions
recommended in the plan. q 4' )I' "" ,," ¡"",
22 VIJI- L I',. r = 1 ' ,~H /
"" ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ACTIONS TO MITIGATE REPETITIVE HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS
WHILE RESTORING FISH HABITAT
Action A.I - Reconfigure Linger Longer Road Bridge and Access to Accommodate
Flood Flows and Traffic.
Objectives. Address the chronic flooding situation as previously described in
this plan. It is anticipated that this can be accomplished using the existing right-of-way
(i.e., no additional right-of-way need be acquired). Presently when the roadway is
flooded, no access is available into or out of the area, representing health and safety
risks. The proposed Action will eliminate this condition.
Possible Funding Sources:
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
"Section 406" Program
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
Remarks ..
Linger Longer Road impacted by the November 1995 and
February 1996 stonns. If damage was identified on a
Damage Survey Report (DSR) the project could be
eligible for Section 406 funding under the infrastructure
repair program. Funds are a grant; 75% Federal, with
25% match (12% paid by the State), Funds are for design
and construction,
If a DSR was not prepared, the project is ineligible for
Section 406 funding, but still may be eligible for HMGP
consideration.
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Remarks:
Economic Development Administration
Title 9-Special Adjustment Grant
The grant program requires a 25% local match. It is
intended to make a community more economically
resilient. Funds are to improve beyond what existed prior
to the flood,
Action A.2 - Property Buyout and Conversion of Use
Objectives. .. A number of homes near the lower reaches of the river have been
;.. . 23 !YOC 24 r;1G~ l"l,:i
subjected to repetitive damage from flooding. Acquiring these properties will
pennanently solve health and safety hazards for impacted residents.
As stated in Action B.2, criteria for selection of properties include such factors as
owner willingness to participate, utility of the property with respect to flood storage
capacity/accommodation of overflow, relationship of property to other overflow
properties, and amenability to habitat restoration. Specific properties which will be
selected for purchase should maximize as many of these criteria as possible. Participation
in a buyout program would be voluntary.
Possible Funding Sources:
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
HMGP
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Remarks :
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Community Development Block Grant Funds
This funding can be used for matching other federal funds.
Agency:
Possible Programs:
State Trade and Economic Development
Emergency Funding-Public Works Grant Program
Action A.3 - North-Side Floodway Conveyance Improvement, Below RM 1.1.
Objectives. Implementation would effectively mitigate floodwaters in this
location, utilizing historical overflow routes in the north-bank floodway.
Possible Funding Sources:
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Remarks :
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
FEMA 406 Public Faculties Program
This measure would mitigate damage to a previously
damaged facility (i.e., Linger Longer Road), and could
therefore be part of the repair and mitigation under
Section 406.
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Emergency Watershed Protection Service
Watershed Protection & Flood Protection Program
Technical Assistance Program
24 '101- 2 4 rM,~
r :' h ~:';
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Remarks:
Farm Services Agency
Conservation Easement
May be used for portions of the overflow charmel not
acquired outright.
Action A.4 - Levee Repair/Maintenance
Objectives. The intent of this Action is to allow landowners to repair and
maintain dikes as needed to protect their property.
Possible Funding Sources:
Agency:
See agencies and programs listed for the above three
actions
Agency :
Possible Programs:
Remarks:
US Anny Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
Flood Control Works: Flood Control Projects
This funding may be available only if the project meets
certain eligibility requirements,
ACTIONS TO REDUCE SEDIMENT AND STABILIZE THE CHANNEL
Action B.t - Identification and Acknowledgment of Sediment Sources.
Objectives There is much information in existence relating to sources of
sediment in the Big Quilcene River. The Action is intended to simply call attention to
this fact, and gain acknowledgment of this information to managers or proponents of
projects. Since the activity is intended to be completed as part of the planning/design
phase of project development, no additional special ftmding for this specific task will be
needed. Further consideration or study of sediment sources should not prevent, hinder
or delay project development.
Action B.2 - Landslide Stabilization
Objectives. Utilize both structural and non-structural methods to stabilize
landslides and reduce deposition of sediment into the river.
Possible Funding Sources:
Remarks:
See Streambank Stabilization below.
25 'VOI- 24 fÀ~~
1,-.cJ""",-,:
, 0",;
Action B.3 - Streambank Stabilization
Objectives. Implement measures to stabilize streambanks, reducing erosion and
subsequent recession of the streambanks. This Action may include structural and non-
structural methods.
Possible Funding Sources:
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Remarks :
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Remarks:
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Remarks:
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Remarks:
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Remarks :
FEMA
Section 406 or HMGP
Eligible for 406 if channel damage was included in the
DSR.
Fann Services Agency
Environmental Quality Incentives Program; Emergency
Conservation Program
Forest Service
Urban and Community Forestry Program, Stewardship
Incentive Program*
* Administered jointly with NRCS and FSA
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Emergency Watershed Protection Program, Technical
Assistance, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
National Park Service
Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program
Technical assistance for greenway planning & restoration
projects. (Cost share required.)
Washington State Department ofFish & Wildlife
Technical Assistance for Emergency Flood Projects
Very pertinent for Habitat restoration projects.
Economic Development Administration
Title 9 Special Economic Adjustment Grant
Purpose of this program is to improve the
resilience of the county.
26 VOL
economiC
~) 4 "r~
i-- ~ t" '"
if."'" ,
, .) \"J.
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Remarks:
Rural Development
Water and Waste Water Disposal Loans and Grants
Communities smaller than 5,500 will be given priority in
this program,
Agency:
Possible Programs:
Remarks:
US Anny Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
Flood Control Works: Flood Control Projects
This funding may be available only if the project meets
certain eligibility requirements.
Action B.4 - Gravel Removal
Objectives, This Action will reduce aggradation, braiding and blockage of the
channel in a manner that does not degrade fish habitat or seasonal fish use.
Possible Funding Sources:
Remarks:
The programs and associated agencies listed above under
Action B.3 Streambank Stabilization are also appropriate
for this Action.
Action B.5 - Large Woody Debris Management
Objectives. Inventory existing Large Woody Debris (LWD):in the river system,
Identify and relocate high hazard debris, to enhance bank stability and low flow habitat.
Possible Funding Sources:
Remarks:
The programs and associated agencies listed above under
Action B.3 Streambank Stabilization are also appropriate
for this Action.
Action B.6 - Channel Reconstruction
Objectives. This Action is intended to reduce flood damage by reducing
sediment inputs from unstable slopes, decrease stream energy and associated bank
erosion, and to provide for more channel stability.
Possible Funding Sources:
"
27
: VOL
')'
(, 4 rÞJ~
1 ',q,,-,,:, ..
; . D~'
Remarks:
The programs and associated agencies listed above under
Action B.3 Streambank Stabilization are also appropriate
for this Action.
Action B. 7 - Dredging
Objectives. Dredging, defined as removal of material from the primary channel
to improve flood flow capacity, is recommended only after proper evaluation, and as
part of a larger comprehensive approach for hazard reduction. Dredging is not
recommended as a routine maintenance measure.
Possible Funding Sources:
Remarks:
The programs and associated agencies listed above under
Action B.3 Streambank Stabilization are also appropriate
for this Action.
Action B.8 - Estuary Restoration
Objectives. The plan recommends design and implementation of measures to
restore tidal energy and intertidal estuary habitat at the mouth of the Big Quilcene River.
These measures may include removal of large quantities of sediment from the delta
cone area, possible relocation of the lower river channel, removal of certain dikes
downstream of Linger Longer Road, and possibly removal of dikes in adjacent marine
areas.
Possible Funding Sources:
Remarks:
The programs and associated agencies listed above under
Action B.3 Streambank Stabilization are also appropriate
for this Action.
BENEFIT COST ANAL YSIS
GENERAL
The following analysis is useful for realization/comparison of benefits and costs
that each proposed Action is likely to present, as well as to help identify those Actions
of the plan which will return higher benefits for relative incurred costs. The analysis is
not intended to be the sole decision making factor regarding proj ect prioritization, but
rather a helpful tool to assist with this process. Recommended plan Actions include
measures of fisheries restoration and/or shellfish bed preservation. Reasonable
28 '1/01- 24 rM,C" - f:;h~;
I
I
I'
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
monetary estimates of these benefits are very difficult to obtain or generate; therefore
the analysis includes only relative benefit/cost discussion.
Some Actions recommended in the plan are intended to be implemented in
conjunction with other Actions. These were considered both separately and jointly.
Additional combinations are possible. The following sections detail particular
assumptions for each recommended Action.
MITIGATE REPETITIVE HEAL TH AND SAFETY HAZARDS WHILE
RESTORING FISH HABITAT
Action A.I - Reconfigure Linger Longer Road Bridge and Access to Accommodate
Flood Flows and Traffic.
For this Action, the proposed proj ect will include construction of a bridge
extension with causeway approaches of sufficient length to allow all flood flows to pass
~peded, Cost to construct a structure of this length to current acceptable standards
may be quite high, However, if no action is taken, over time the existing condition may
also present costs that must be considered, such as emergency replacement of the
existing channel-constricting bridge in case of possible destruction by flood, and
opportunity cost of gradually declining habitat and riverine environment.
Construction of the proposed bridge/causeway would offer major long term
benefits for fisheries and associated wildlife habitat. Further, as described below in the
combined Action proposal, the causeway is vitally important to other plan
recommendations, such as the North-side floodway conveyance improvement described
in Action A.3. Other immediate benefits of this proposal include improved fITe and
medical emergency access to some 70 residential properties, and commercial access to
the Coast Oyster shellfish facility, as well as the Quilcene Marina. It must be noted that
a high percentage of retirees reside at the impacted properties; as access is compromised
by flooding conditions approximately 5 days per year at present, the issue of medical
emergency response is a very real concern.
Action A.2 - Property Buyout and Conversion of Use
Anticipated costs for this Action include property purchase price, relocation
expenses, and removal of existing structures fiom the site, Benefits are permanent
mitigation of flood safety concerns and future flood damages for impacted residents, and
reduction of health hazard by removal of failing septic systems, Acquisition of
appropriate properties will allow implementation of other proposed Actions, further
benefiting both chronic flooding conditions and habitat issues.
As previously discussed in the Action description, criteria for property selection
includes owner willingness to participate, utility of property with respect to flood
, 29 'VOL 24 r~[~ 1~-. o"-;'
storage capacity/accommodation of overflow, relationship of property to other flood
impacted properties, and amenability to habitat restoration. Properties selected, for
purchase should maximize as many of these criteria as possible, and participation in a
buyout program would be voluntary.
Actions A.3 and A.4 - North-Side Floodway Conveyance Improvement, Below RM
1.1., and Levee Repair/Maintenance.
These Actions may include setback or removal of dikes on the north river bank, a
controlled overflow at Rodgers Street, acquisition of associated floodplain easements or
properties, the construction of new levees on the north floodplain near the 100-year
flood limits, and repair/maintenance of existing levees on the south river bank.
Depending upon the project scope, some of these proposals may also require
implementation of Actions A.1 or A.2. Applicable costs may therefore also include
construction of a bridge extension with flood causeway on Linger Longer road, and
acquisition of selected flood impacted properties,
Benefits of this Action are long tenn mitigation of chronic flooding conditions
endured by residents of Quilcene adjacent to the lower river, on both the north and south
banks. Also, habitat will be improved by the wider channel corridor (and associated
lower flood-flow water velocities) presented by dike setbacks and the controlled
overflow.
Actions A.I, A.2, A.3, and A.4 - Linger Long Road Access, Property Buyout,
NorthMSide Floodway Conveyance Improvement and Levee Repair/Maintenance.
This option combines the Actions in a comprehensive manner to mitigate
hazards in the lower river. Costs related to the following activities must be considered:
Completing the Linger Longer road bridge/causeway, acquiring key flood impacted
properties from willing sellers, constructing a floodway conveyance improvement on the
north bank, and repairing/maintaining levees on the south bank.
As a benefit ofthese Actions, the lower river corridor will be vastly improved for
flood damages and safety/health concerns, as well as fish and wildlife habitat. Chronic
flooding conditions long endured by residents will be alleviated, access to various
properties south of the river during flood events will be secured, and high flood-flow
velocities harmful to fish runs will be mitigated by a wider channel cross section. A
functional, natural, healthy, and beautiful riverine environment will result.
REDUCE SEDIMENT AND STABILIZE THE CHANNEL
Action B.2 - Landslide Stabilization
This Action includes both structural and non-stru~l approac9F& ,fQ!~Jandslide
30 ' VOI- t:' q fHJ~ - 1," )i J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
stabilization from RM 1.6 to 2.3, Structural landslide stabilization costs include
placement of approximately 800 linear feet of slope toe buttress, preventing erosion and
further introduction of sediments to the river system. (This represents a total length of
toe buttress necessary from RM 1.6 to 2.3, and not a continuous length.)
Non-structural measures primarily involve increasing channel sinuosity,
allowing the river to move away from massive sediment sources located in these areas.
However, acquisition of associated floodplain easements or properties would be
necessary. Such costs are directly proportional to specific project scopes and require
willing landowner participation.
Benefits of this Action include saving a residence currently jeopardized at an
over-steeped riverside bluff, preventing further property loss at landslide areas, and
reduced aggradation of the river channel. Fisheries restoration and oyster bed
preservation are also benefits of this Action, as a result of less sediment introduced into
the river.
Action B.3 - Streambank Stabilization
This Action consists of repairing and stabilizing the streambank in high erosion
areas, utilizing riprap bank annor, barbs, trees, artificial log jams, channel
reconstruction, dike setback, and revegetation of exposed soil. Approximately 1,600
linear feet of streambank stabilization may be necessary.
Benefits for this option include preventing property losses which would result
fiom erosion, and positive impacts to fish habitat, including fisheries restoration and
oyster bed preservation.
Actions B.2, B.3 and B.6 - Landslide Stabilization, Streambank Stabilization and
Channel Reconstruction.
This option combines the Actions listed above. In Action B.6 Channel
Reconstruction, property acquisition as well as excavation costs for a new, more sinuous
channel (approximately 2000 linear feet) must be considered, Possible costs for Actions
B.2 and B.3, Landslide Stabilization and Streambank Stabilization, are discussed above.
Potential benefits for Actions B.2 and B.3 are as previously stated. The benefit
of Action B.6 consists of removing future possibility of further bank erosion by channel
reconstruction, This option has significant benefits for fisheries restoration, oyster bed
preservation, and flooding/erosion conditions, largely due to the combination of the
Actions,
Action BA - Gravel Removal
This Action includes the removal of gravel in areas where such removal will
" ", ,¡')A lL"'L.'--
"' ¡, 31 VOL GLf: rH~ ' u:':'
provide channel stability and reduce flood hazards. The gravel is removed in relatively
small excavated cells of 500-1000 cubic yards, located on aggraded gravel bars. Gravel
cells typically fill to pre-excavation elevation each season. Benefits for this Action are
prevention of further bank erosion and flood damage, both in the gravel removal area as
well as downstream.
Action B.8 - Estuary Restoration
This Action includes removal of large quantities of sediment from the river delta
area, possible relocation of the lower river channel, removal of certain dikes downstream
of Linger Longer Road, and possible removal of dikes in adjacent marine areas. As
discussed above in the description of Action B.8, the purpose is to restore tidal energy
and intertidal estuary habitat, This is potentially a large scale project; excavation of
250,000 cubic yards of material from the river mouth and Quilcene Bay has been
proposed. Cost for such a project may be somewhat offset by salvage of material, if
gravels suitable for off-site construction purposes are resident.
Fully described previously in this report, the project will be beneficial to both
anadromous fish and shellfish habitat. Also, flooding impacts in the lower river will be
greatly reduced, due to increased downstream channel gradient. By reestablishment of
marine and riverine interactions, habitat, water quality, and flooding conditions will be
improved.
Actions B.4, B.6 and B.8 - Gravel Removal, Channel Reconstruction, and Estuary
Restoration.
Relevant costs and benefits for Actions BA, B.6 and B.8 are discussed above.
However, it must be stressed that combining Actions, such as in this option, will
dramatically increase project effectiveness. Benefits of each individual Action can be
fully realized only when complimenting projects are completed in a comprehensive
fashion. Further, some benefits are especially difficult to quantify or measure, such as
preservation of human health and lives, and conservation/restoration of a healthy,
enjoyable riverine environment.
DISCUSSION
Action A 1 (Linger Longer Bridge Reconfiguration) has many real world
benefits that are very difficult to quantify monetarily. The proposed bridge/causeway
would permanently remove safety risks associated with flooding access for numerous
residents, as well as Coast Oyster and the Quilcene Marina, while allowing dike
setbacks as a benefit to fish habitat. There have been chronic flood and habitat issues in
this location for over 20 years; the proposal would provÜ~) <;L solution to, !~~ ,EToblem
32 VOL c- 4 r~r,; - 1. (U
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rather than another short term fIX. It must also be noted that Actions A2-AA have some
dependence on Action AI. When considering benefit/cost ratios, the advantages of
implementing recommended Actions ill a comprehensive, illtegrated manner is clear.
It is anticipated that project level benefits and costs will be developed for each
proposed Action as further prioritization is completed, and specific fundillg sources are
secured, The above analysis is useful for realization/comparison of costs and benefits
that each Action is likely to present As mentioned above, definite monetary benefits
resulting from reduced streambed aggradation, illcreased channel stability, and habitat
enhancement are difficult to quantify. Further, improvement of well water quality and
septic system functions that will follow as aggradation is reduced and the channel is
stabilized are long term benefits nearly impossible to quantify.
LIMITATIONS
This report is for use by Jefferson County Department of Public Works, the Big
Quilcene Local Interagency Team, and their appoillted representatives to assist ill long-
term flood hazard management on and adjacent to the lower Big Quilcene River,
Quilcene, Washillgton, The report is not illtended to be used for design of specific
remediation measures or for preparation of specific construction documents.
Within limitations of scope, schedule and budget, services of the team have been
executed ill accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report
was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be
understood.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Collins, B., "Sediment Transport and Deposition ill the Lower Big Quilcene River, and
Evaluation of Planned Gravel Removal for Flood Control" Produced 1993. Report
prepared for the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resource Planning Project, Hood Canal
Salmon Enhancement Group, and Port Gamble S'Klallam Fisheries Office, (20 plus
appendices. )
Donaldson, J" and Steele, D., "Marine Resources of Quilcene and Dabob Bays," January
1994.
GeoEngineers, Inc" "Draft Report, Big Quilcene River, Gravel Removal Evaluation."
December 1996.
Geomax, P.C., "Jefferson County Comprehensive Flood Management Plan for the Big
Quilcene and Dosewallips Rivers," February 1995,
33
, YOI-
Q4"
~ r;;~~
1 ~""';:"'j,"'
. ,,1
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, "The Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Management
Plan." June 1994.
Mayte, R, and others, "Big Quilcene Watershed Analysis; an ecological report at the
watershed leveL" November 1994.
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, "Detailed Project Report, Big Quilcene
River, Quilcene, Washington, Unfavorable Section 205." October 1972.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, "Washington State Salmon and Steelhead
Stock fuventory." December 1994.
Williams, P.B., Fishbain, L, Coulton, K.G., and Collins, B., "A Restoration Feasibility
Study for the Big Quilcene River." Philip Williams and Associates, Ltd., San
Francisco, CA, 1995.
34
VOL
'-)4
., " r-
L r;'\1~
),! ,..A':,--"¡,.-'.'
I. (,.c.;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Aggradation:
sediment.
Increasing the elevation of the streambed by deposition of alluvial
Alluvial Deposit: Sediment transported by water and deposited in and along stream
channels, on flood plains, deltas and alluvial fans.
Anadromous: A species of fish which ascend rivers from the sea to spawn.
Bar Accretion: Growth of sand and gravel bars by gradual deposition.
Basalt: A fine-grained igneous rock
Bedload: Sediment transported downstream by sliding, rolling, or bouncing along the
streambed,
Bedrock: Solid rock, such a sandstone or basalt, overlain by unconsolidated soil.
Bar Building: Slow to rapid growth of meander or braid bars.
Bar Migration: Unidirectional growth of a bar, usually in the downstream or cross
stream directions,
Barbs: Long, slender projections placed along river banks and oriented at various angles
into streamflow. The purpose of barbs is to reduce velocity along river banks and
encourage deposition as a protection measure. Barbs may consist of logs, tree trunks,
riprap spurs, to name a few examples,
Base Flood: The flood having a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any
gIven year.
Channel Complexity: The spatial pattern of fish habitat types (pool, riffle, run etc) and
habitat cover.
Channel Corridor: The area occupied by active and inactive channels.
VOL
') ,.
G4 r,;C~
1f-¡'->;'j""
. ,. ..:¡
35
Channel Migration: The lateral change in the position or configuration of the channel
resulting from bar growth and river bank erosion,
Comprehensive: Complete or broad coverage.
Debris Flow: The rapid downslope movement of soil, rock, wood, dislodged vegetation
and water.
Debris Torrent:
channeL
The rapid flow of water, soil woody debris within an existing stream
Dikes: Used in this report synonymously with levee.
Ecology Blocks: Precast concrete blocks designed to fit closely together to fonn a wall
or barrier.
Fan-Delta: The alluvial deposit at the mouth of a river.
Flank: The slope or side of a ridge or mountain.
Floodplain:
flooding.
The area adjoining rivers, streams, lakes or coastal waters subject to
Floodplain Terrace: A broad plain adjacent to a river channel fonned by deposition of
fine sediment during flood overflow.
Floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that
must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the
water surface elevation more than one foot
Glacial Deposit: Sediment deposits of glacial origin.
Intermittent: A stream which flows only part of the time, such as after it receives water
after a stonn.
_VOL
, ,; ;"¡l f '.;-"1,.:
LLl r;;r,~ - 1.. (~'1
36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Levee: An artificial bank or wall confining a stream to its channel and limiting the area
of river flooding,
Lodgement Till: Sediment deposited beneath a moving glacier.
Main Stem: The main (primary) channel of a river.
Mass Wasting: The slow to rapid downslope movement of earth materials.
Meltwater Stream: A stream resulting from the melting of an approaching or retreating
glacier.
Mitigation Measure: An action designed to reduce or eliminate an adverse impact
Outwash: Sand and gravel deposited by meltwater streams flowing from a glacier.
Perennial: Streams that flow throughout the year, and from source to mouth.
Relief The difference in elevation between the high and low points of a land surface.
Riffle:
current.
An area of shallow flow extending across the bed of a stream causing fast
Riparian: The plant and soil environment existing along stream banks and lakes.
Rock Buttress: A wall composed of large riprap or stream boulders designed to
stabilize, reinforce or protect the toe of a slope or streambank.
Stratified: Sediment sorted by size, and layered, implying deposition by moving water.
Subbasin: A smaller drainage basin than that of the watershed
Suspended Load: That portion of the sediment load transported in the upper 2/3 of a
water column (i.e" held in suspension).
Systemic: Affecting the system as a whole.
VOL
')4
G ',r-
r",,~
1~,~'? -
37
Toe Berms: A benn of rock or soil placed at the toe of a slope to resist failure.
Weir:
A low dam that creates a pool while allowing water to pass over the top.
38
VOL
q .' , f ~"'"~I';-'
L" 4 ',r., " r. (,,)
r,." -
,
\' ',I I " ,/- , ,', ..' ,- I '!I'1"!'I~""""'~"";~'-íI-!'i~'",,-,/' 1\f' , ~} ,fll:i!i'II, \
I" 1,'-- /,-,' ----"'" "I""II'II'ï¡\')'I"'Fr", w 11",,"1
,'\",\' \ / /~_/ //'/:',--":/ ,,-- ,':I~"i:,"!!,I\,,\i,Ul.:I"(:'\:ì,,~;I':, :~,/J'\I "- '
1\1,\,"--_,/" -,- 1/ /',-.-' r;, ",\~">¡,,,!,I'\I'_"-VL'<:'I'I\\'ìll~-~'"'---I,I¿~------=--"}----"
"'\"""""-""/' )"/ /"" ','I "'~--,i""~"~"""""II" " '¡;:"f 7
J"t", >,',;;--_,/-,,/1 ',I /j/"",~-_/,-.--, , ,il,-,\""\":':""11.1~'","'",,;\,,, ~\Ii" '1__-
"¡'," ,//"",,"" I'" ,-', " ""I"J,'"""-",)"",, 'I"'! ~--'-
,', ,,\,,~, '" 7-. {'. J. " j.-. v---~, . .', ') IJh;~)!':;J;!jl,h~..:A"i; ,"--, ' . , 7. I I
'{'%>~"~~,- "::~Q<)<> ,{, : I, '"i )', '",-", -<;,:;;;/!}hl\:ír;)~i'I~I,t>:'J-)'",':,!, i' ,\ " , ,/ i ( I
'"" """i,í!( (I" 'ooo~, "g'f-1x,i~:r'd 'I : ,~J. .
'\"~5~n: ,/6i@(~:;~~~;'~~: ; n "!~JMi~~~~i"~lfu ~i , .. ~:: i ) J~~ l",~ " /
D"'" -/",~((:,(Z""--- - -""'/)'1015;>- ~~'\\:'\\Ù¡/l!."-à:--';;}~ì"'~II"'" i-\\;');~ I '<-'-'0- /
\\ " 9,,<\\,~:~¿\,,1 "\\lì\k; ,,'" ".~~~-~:--~'----'----/"'<-;;~~~;'::- , , ~~<;ì:~':t~'~.?,..\'?',~~~~:~\\~\~,\',~::: ,:i. ~" " ' ~M;~~~'~L~- - \'-'"
\ '\' ", \\\ "\\~\>\->~~_:_-~'--_'::"~------ì //~,.' f - I '.- ',J '-,"--:i,\,:~-:{\\II\\'(\\\I:',~, ~'.. ,co '21 'I~ --"-':'fo",-:"-"",,
\\ I\\\";'_\\"\, ",__"/_"/' ",", ':;ü"""""'-'-""'~'\"\\'~\i"""":'~'1( ,',","" I' I'v""(..,~-"-_",,
-\ \":"',\,\\\«<;..,\ ,._-------_-:,'::--:-,~/>--,í'-//'/i) :'" ,.,,:!..;,:<,.{\\\\Ii::"\'¡""\-\ii\',,~ ',' --'~"'\'\"\.<~-~"':
'\' '-'\,~- ~, , -"""','1"'" I" ',:, ",-,
- \,\'\\~oo':(ìc-, -/'-,:-,1/"'///// ' , '-\:ll!¡lìi¡I:"\\'I::,:",),-:ili'il_'~:,.'\'<:t', \,\,:,
' """1"'----_' '01"," I,' , """',\'.11,'""" ""'- 'Go" '11'
' \ \ \\\\\~_~-"':7' "-->:/" ,/ ;I' ?M¡')~,-)7, ;\!\II~I"~i!i"~!\I\I'I: ",'!~, l_,'J'fX\'" \~
'< :', \i\~>;:\!'/,<' >~>,/ C~/::>l ", "i'1'}Þ~'1'i:~. ,'\"\,"""
:_~--)',:",,/i;'}':\f' ):,'J,.:'i l:' -/-:-'/' Z', , """i'-':'::]\"'\\¡:,"'r'" \IJ ,I",
""'~--' ': /'-:røJ/l:::¿n!/}",C','I,',: ~ \-.. '.-_-:~---'- /-., , ,;,' ' : i iç?tl~')J).' !U: ~<\:'\ ", . \~I, ~""\
--.--,-r--,';',';J;/"¡IH\ '~"<-""a~ ",:, )"1""-"(""--"\'" '¡'o \
'-"'--~-~--;d'~;j;;l\, ':-\ ',' <: --~'~c: /,'( "/ ,', GJ. ", :"i.;'ì\\:\'\\:)I:_--\'>::\\\;-)~':',! I ~', ,"-\
>.. - -~- 0:) ::. '" ... '-----c--. . -- '~' , ' , ", ' ~i!J:\I'I~1 ~" 0;', , ,~O '. ' ,
~~i~~~ >:}' I)~/ ;lC'" ' i, "",:,;);;;!,FV -; -'i~!r¡~~\\;ri - \- ....-Yi~--:' --;
L~~)l;(¡I.:-----:»',/-:.--:--,---,-,-->;---:,:;:,::,c_:_-"",----,~-J ,/,' "¡:'j'-'-;"": ," /,/,II\,'lj))I'il!'~¡'I"""'!'II:lIi::'\i\')' 'I i I:' 'I
,;,'\r~<"", ,¡"...-=-::: ,-/-- ,-----""", -'-"1" ""'I"¡I",,, "
"fI"')"'I'!"""«:;:J¡'--/'~'~":::~<""'-OO__i '1,/,--------,--":,,, '. ',flr'ii"-"'" ""';"":"]/,1'", 'I'~l 'j'
'/""I/;,-',~:",":":i"/iJi/;",__,,-.-:>,,~;,,-,,---,-,,---- 1.-",-,?800_'--"i':;"",I"-"'\\1->;""','\'\\\:',i:,'"il,i,I:' ,,{ , ,I,
"\,,,/-.i)""'-"vli'f""'--'-"---'-~'---- ------.. I' ,\,,!?I),,¡ "O'I"1J"il"¡""""""""I, "
1,'I'i~ly,;/(~':\ ':(:1'1(1:[ ,',,',(r::::~~~:.:~/--,',' --'-v."!¡ '. '-i--?"---I,):;;./,¡/'¡,,';I,IY::--/.I,; )~,.:' iill ;\::'" 'iii"', i,' I i') Ii~ :' I;"
':1""))""»:':\1"",:";/:""--"; '--'_,;-,_n_-'-:,;.-,":--n'_',/-, -:'",\",'\"/I!'i¡?"""""'¡ ,\:,.."I",\I;;il/!/IIII/I/'II"",
--¡!I:':"""'/"'¡;i¡'I"":':/Ir-=-,,"---~------""-" :,;/".-",'\. 'iill,¡:~il~,"!"",'" (i""(;'\I"","IIIIIII/ ,j",
~\i1\\\\\i~i:r,,(,~,<Ij, ,,->~~/-_n__~ "";:"",, '~~./>/'//I¡\i'IJ.I;¡~í(>:)/;!I!);¡t'i' 'I'!i 111)'1))1)111/ /11) Ii':' '--OJ;:! Ä
1-')))YI) ,:">:',);/:'>,", ", ¿~~~~~:~~~------:-:,..,~ ' :\~,-,:::«:\//',Ii::i,i i,lil(;,,/L¡<",','. 1"'\ ,: II i\gli/Î' "f'i~i!:,!\' '~' I ¡ii (l(r,~ I t,' ;';~'
:Y)i:;íJ<~~;/:/>'II~~Ç'/::r/" / : /( ,i'/ ~ii~;6~-':~'~:'3,!';'~ IJ/(:\i, 1.1.\\ \\\i~\ \¡\'¡ /\!) ) ,'¡-;I)J')Ii( ;/,/;;,i~/>,i, ';.// "
@¡:!!\!,,!!(!:'þ:(:,ç;,~:: ::;:;;1/" i~Q -- -' ,/ ',;' ,.) (r;"::'-'-j----;';;,~-(>:--~~_:~>,))\) )' iM))\\¡ ¡Iil\ illi?::' I .if r((1 ¡/'iti ;' (¡'I~/ /(r,' ~ ( "t<:
3dI,I,¡:':l"". '~;?-~~-~ ' , '--:,:,;.J.,,:'::',//', (~/ I: j /! / /;..< -'i":-':%:~:~:-::: ,>/ïïi;¡ II: ¡::Ii)!.,":;¡'}.,-¡ ¡lir' !i~!,/" )11 II, :1), "( (~>:',
~ii'ilp~/;,/-3':f.' r( ! ,/,' "_----=!!'[ ",;'A'/I/I,,/I[,,:::, '111'(' /¡! I' 'i\' " "'1
~~;;(f--ffj~!5,.-/';) ~ ': ~~,//C~d'%5f;?i(~jí:i;{'ull¡i ~rJej¿ 1,))+" \'\I!iI,--j
;))){-7')(;' ,>-/,:."cX'J Ii 'j:L:,?,¡--.:-a.'?:f,>'>;/c"'/"'//J:¡iflr'li':; !¡\)f:i~' :!/
Vi,) i'i' :I,;:;'/~?¡F,'::':' :,,;:-":-:::;~;~i; .,- >:_~i~:~-,~/ 'd/://,:;~\::_" ':->:~;::<:;':-)~~~~}:~<:<;:':'i/r(;;' ,//:,~,,1) / i) i?i 7) / \ "/ /~~ ,;/,::Jil '
~ 7/'(' IH~' 'lil(fJ~. ,CI- "'rl é,,¿gfu- 'j~// " ,1;1, -"" ",,/, I, ¡ iI""'6O I
~ :;1 'F " ¡ N ~\\'\~:~~&-~~'!.í~;;tj ';¿:{i / ¡JJJiit*-t;:f;!/'¡iþ,i!/ ("(/ //;,',;::/ ,/~
N It," !;!::'>:"\",~o4,~~/.):i=----, ) , r":;o- /,/ ii/i;;!;'¡;;{¡;Y!) "j' i~ -- ¡¡'(¡,i
~ ;,~I'ï"\~\\'~~\~_:~:~~~7,i~L&~~9;~";1~/-~/ ":i~)!"~':':fì\~./'~':;:I:';~ffil;::'<:,j,»::'~~lj¡:<!-'~';'i,ì( 'ir'if~!' 11~'1
¡'i,\\p----""""""'~'\<""<~<'/I ',' ," !"m! '; ) )/JI)I 'ìk;~"'---33ij,','lil} ,\- I~i_-'.'I('"
1i~~~ - , i ,-',:'~'~~,-~,-2-/l' '-:;c~/;: \<-~:--\j '-..~::I(>¡Y/ I )¡--(r<'-,t"~,-,_:---'/:')/,rf~:;;",>;:?~;;',--',:"/:,,i;{ ,
'<-",Q-- /~"'U-" "=='--- '_""_,, ,,---:~iì ",' il; ':;' if""",,"'\:~:.o"'-"I'l((,(~(!l'(/'&~'I"r,>--"
~¿~i;;>:~--~;\,/,--/-/~"'=.::""'" -/,'.,: l~_,/_(,/\/ ,-,1«/ "\\\_'~~'~~-~:-'\')/"\«\\\\\)\;~\.\(' ¡,'I'r,>_!] \e:,-
'-- 1, >"":v---""~', 1---\..1 ,'-=o",,--=- ,>:ì'",,' /..'!¡,/", \ \ --'\,,1, \\ \10,1,1.,1\.1:'1' ,~/', Iii
""'-~-~-"'- '.~,..,- -"'--"",-,' "","-" "'I.., 'I "'-'1",'
~è(?' ¿e;:"~,,~., ':~~ ~=::;).:~::.>, 'èo;;"'\ \i!¡ :-.':>.I:!,'}!~I\ '1 : \ ,ç\J J :\': r
i'ci~<ri~h'~~~~~>,~-\".//--':~;,~;;;:~7i>'i:~~~'\¿::~-?i ì '\) '!\)~~'1111(\!(II'(iì:\i\,¡\\,:\I\,~~~%;: \--\\
:':,~'¡'~~~ l ,J-<'-'",.---, 6J~\;.1"';J2~~~--,,-::::~'--~_/,ê:7 :_~' '0.//) / ), I "', ;'l¡(;~ìW\\~;,'~ \I-":,:~~J \\,
¡ ~~--~)~\~~;;;j~~~] ~--)~1,4~~~$\\~)~
N """"'ë< '~""'o;2£-'--'" r-""",' "-WI IL- 1 ß\ 1""" ~
~ ~~~~~2~t"~~~~I;:¡)i!\'
-Jc/.,,'?~j\illl'il~!Y:'.';;.~~~'\j~" ~-, ":,'ì~\\t~'r-~~~\':~"';~"'-"'~;\¿O"~,-c\\\'i'~'
~(~j:/~.';:':ì;~~~;{;~>',';)û:}:)III,I.~: 1:1 \¿)';f;: ;::~:'~~~~\~~~<-\l\('-'\I " ,,\_',~~:,¡), ~?II,:'i~I::I\Q;:~~~~ii4~~')j')¡)
;:¡~- ;:."'~¿~d:'¡"~;;/. èt,V;~'ifJ¡ lì i' I ", ~;:)?à~ ~ ~ ,"'~~.
i ~ ~~~l~~~:'~~~i "',' ~ ¡"!! 11 :1~!'~~~'1i:, \,~ii!:' fl ~;" ~~~ói
-- ,,-,~ ..
I,
\!!VOI-
I: "
h.. -
1
',~"j',,(¡,/
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
r VOL
24
r,',f;;:
1" ""'"IC"l'; """
" '.. '/,....,'
r--
ð"J
~
co
N
~
('j
0
0
.,....
I
CO
8
I
N
N
"f
....
)1
¡
«
.....J
:;c;
II
«
¿
¿4 '¡"-,::;c
" -' " ~,
~
Geo 8 Engineers
RIVER SEGMENT MAP
FIGURE 2A
VOI-
¿4
. :.r:-
, ,",'
1
, "'¡,
<.{
-.J
:r:
0:
<.{
:2
, US HIGHWAY 101
r---
'"
"'-
co
<:'\J
"'-
Ç')
0
0
,...
I
co
8
I
<:'\J
<:'\J
'<:;t
,...
I
I
0
I
500
I
SCALE IN FEET
VOI-
::.4 rM;~
1":~lq't
1000
I
EXPLANATION:
D CHANNEL AGGRADATION
fEll BANK EROSION AREA
- SLOPE FAILURE AREA
---- 100 YEAR FLOOD LIMITS
-- - FREQUENT FLOOD OVERFLOW LlMTS
~' L. LEVEE
BIG QUILCENE DELTA
MOUTH
Note: Channel configuration based on September 1996 WSDOT Aerial Photography.
-~".
Geo . Engineers
RIVER SEGMENT MAP
FIGURE 28
~ VOI-
I"-
m
.......
co
C\.I
.......
C')
a
a
.,....
1
co
8
I
C\.I
C\.I
'<T
«
-L
:+:.
c::
«
¿
..
VOL
~
',,¡' ,"
I,"
J.
~
Geo '" Engineers
RIVER SEGMENT MAP
FIGURE 3A
,',
,'00\,
~
---
EXPLANATION:
1'-
ð'J
-....
o::J
N
-....
C')
a
a
.....
I
8
I
N
N
'<;f'
.....
D
-
-
SLOPE FAILURE AREA
CHANNEL AGGRADATION
BANK EROSION AREA
--.;¡ 100 YEAR FLOOD LIMITS
- -- FREQUENT FLOOD OVERFLOW LlMTS
~ LEVEE
«
-l
J:
à:
«
:2:
VOL
~4"
¡- ',r~
'- r,.."
.'
l"~'I.:.'<
" ,-", "
I
/
0
I
500
--.J
SCALE IN FEET
1000
I
Note: Channel configuration based on September 1996 WSDOT Aerial Photography.
""'-dl'"
Geo 811 Engineers
RIVER SEGMENT MAP
FIGURE 38
1.,'01-
')4
r.:.. i-,;r;¡:-
f"',~f;
I'-
G)
---
CD
Ç\J
---
è")
0
0
I
CO
8
I
Ç\J
N
<::t
/
/
«
....J
+=
II
«
~
V()!--
~~
,L
,""-
;:,r:-
- ' '-- -
--C'" ,",'.,-",--
-, '..,",:;-~-,~;
<!)-:, --
",--"" ':
-.- "CO,
-.&'GJ'"
G ~!.2i!
eo ~" Engineers
RIVER SEGMENT MAP
FIGURE 4A
,'"
- VOL
I'
'-
: ;: ----:-
-,1
-L
....-"
BIG QUILCENE NATIONAL FISH HATCH
I"-
m
.......
CD
N
.......
(j
a
a
T"""
I
cc
8
I
Ç\..
C'\
"<T
T"""
\
)
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
<{
-"
:r:
ó:
<{
¿
,.,¡ ,,"
/ .;:1i§~~'L-
EXPLANATION:
D CHANNEL AGGRADATION
E BANK EROSION AREA
.. SLOPE FAILURE AREA
- 100 YEAR FLOOD LIMITS
/
/
- - - FREQUENT FLOOD OVERFLOW LlMTS
0
I
500
1
SCALE IN FEET
1000
I
~ LEVEE
Note: Channel configuration based on September 1996 WSDOT Aerial Photography.
-~,..
Geo ~IJ Engineers
RIVER SEGMENT MAP
FIGURE 48
YO 1-
'""~(-L.-:':
. J~,."