Restored marsh at Fisher Slough; Photo Credit: Polly Hicks ......Fisher Slough drains a total...

Fisher Slough Freshwater Tidal Marsh Restoration Final Report

Restored marsh at Fisher Slough; Photo Credit: Polly Hicks, NOAA

Fisher Slough Freshwater Tidal Marsh Restoration

Grant #NA09NMF4630317 Final report: July 1, 2009 – December 31, 2012

Prepared for:

NOAA Restoration Center F/HC3, NOAA Fisheries Service

1315 East Wets Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910

Prepared by:

Jenny Baker The Nature Conservancy

410 N 4th Street Mt Vernon, WA 98273.

April 30, 2013 This report was prepared by The Nature Conservancy under award # NA09NMF4630317 from the NOAA Restoration Center, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NOAA Restoration Center or the U.S. Department of Commerce.


Contents Executive Summary……………………………………..………………………………………………………………………….4 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5

II. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 8

A. Project Design ................................................................................................................. 8

B. Contractor Selection ..................................................................................................... 10

C. Project Construction ..................................................................................................... 11

D. Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................... 15

E. Jobs and Employment ................................................................................................... 19

F. Socioeconomic Outcomes ............................................................................................. 19

G. Outreach ....................................................................................................................... 19

III. Condensed Project Timeline .................................................................................................. 20

IV. Results .................................................................................................................................... 20

A. Project Design ............................................................................................................... 20

B. Contractor Selection ..................................................................................................... 23

C. Project Construction ..................................................................................................... 23

D. Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................... 28

E. Jobs and Employment ................................................................................................... 35

F. Socioeconomic Outcome ............................................................................................... 35

G. Outreach ....................................................................................................................... 35

V. Lessons Learned and Unexpected Outcomes ....................................................................... 37

VI. Summary ................................................................................................................................ 44


Appendices Appendix A: Construction Photo Updates

Appendix B: Fisher Slough Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan

Appendix C: Socioeconomic Study

Appendix D: Detailed Project Timeline

Appendix E: Monitoring Reports

1. 2009 Fish Monitoring Report 2. 2010 Fish Monitoring Report 3. 2010 Fisher Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Monitoring Report 4. 2011 Fish Monitoring Report 5. 2011 Fisher Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Monitoring Report 6. 2012 Fish Monitoring Report

Appendix F: Summary of Media Stories

Appendix G: Summary of Presentations

Appendix H: Cultural Resources Contingency Mitigation Plan


Executive Summary The Skagit River produces 50% percent of Puget Sound’s wild Chinook salmon, which are reliant on estuary habitat in the river delta in order to feed and grow as juvenile make their way from freshwater habitat in the river system to the salty waters of Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean. This same area that is vital to Chinook salmon is also critical to the economy of the Skagit River delta. Starting in the 1800’s, the rich soils of the delta were converted to support a strong local agricultural industry resulting in a loss of 80% of historic estuary habitat. Today, the loss of estuarine and tidally influenced (or freshwater tidal) habitat is one of the biggest factors limiting Chinook recovery, and the balance between farming and fisheries has been, at times, contentious. Fisher Slough is a tidally influenced wetland and farmland complex within the Skagit River delta. The ultimate aim of the Fisher Slough project is to restore tidal marsh habitat for juvenile Chinook, improve fish passage, and reduce floods on neighboring lands within a working agricultural landscape. In 2009, The Nature Conservancy received Recovery Act funding from NOAA to quickly advance the Fisher Slough project from feasibility and design to construction. This project is a great example of how environmental restoration can provide multiple benefits by restoring natural connections between the river, floodplain and estuary while preserving the surrounding farmlands for agriculture. Project outcomes include:

• 60 acres of estuary habitat restored for juvenile Chinook salmon. • Increased accessibility to 15 miles of tributary habitat for Coho, chum and pink salmon,

and cutthroat and steelhead trout. • 250 acre-feet of additional flood storage, which will contain a 5-year event and protect

agricultural uses of adjacent properties from the most frequent and costly floods. • Replacement of aging flood protection and drainage infrastructure, reducing potential

for catastrophic failure. • Local jobs at 16 companies and organizations - supporting more than 47,000 labor hours

that directly touched more than 300 workers. • Long-term socioeconomic benefits resulting from restoration, which are predicted to be

between $9.1 and $20.6 million over the next 50 years. The project showcases the feasibility and long-term benefits of restoration that provides multiple community benefits. The outcomes of this project go beyond acres restored. The trust forged between parties that were once embattled adversaries in “farmers vs. fish” is already beginning to move community dialogue and project development beyond conflicts of the past. It demonstrates that restoration can achieve ecological goals and meet critical community needs, while simultaneously building relationships and community support for similar future projects.


I. Introduction The Skagit River delta, located in northwestern Washington State, historically comprised a 44 square mile (28,370-acre) complex of tidal and non-tidal wetlands that, in turn, supported a diverse array of fish and wildlife species. The rich soils of the delta were converted to agriculture starting in the 1800’s, resulting in a 73% loss of estuarine wetlands and channels, along with the birth of a strong local agricultural heritage. Once-abundant populations of Chinook salmon and other delta-dependent species have declined in numbers in part due to habitat loss, and several are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The loss of estuarine habitat is one of the primary factors limiting Chinook recovery (Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan, 2005). Juvenile Chinook traveling downriver from spawning grounds utilize distributaries and tidal channels of the estuary to feed and grow, thereby increasing their chances of survival once they reach Skagit Bay and the Puget Sound. These habitats have been lost as the delta has been developed for farming and other human uses. The complex system of channels that juvenile Chinook depended on to grow has been constrained and straightened to run directly into Skagit Bay. While the Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan calls for 2700 acres of estuary restoration, estuary restoration actions to date have been almost exclusively limited to public lands which make up only a small percentage of the system. This is mostly due to longstanding conflicts between farming and fisheries interests. In this working landscape it is critical to both restore habitat and maintain a viable and productive agricultural land base.

Photo Credit: TNC Fisher Slough is located within the Skagit River delta and connects with a distributary of the South Fork Skagit River. There were many NOAA Trust Species that were targeted to benefit from restoration at Fisher Slough including Chinook (ESA Threatened), Coho (ESA Species of Concern)

Left: Juvenile Chinook salmon use estuary habitat to feed and grow on their way from the river to Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean. Chinook are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and the primary factor limiting Chinook recovery in the Skagit River watershed is the availability of estuary habitat.


and chum salmon, and cutthroat trout. Because Chinook are listed as Threatened under ESA, the primary focus of the project was on restoring estuary habitat and monitoring the effects on Chinook. Juvenile Chinook that travel down the river from spawning grounds in the upper watershed rear in estuary habitat such as Fisher Slough. The project restored 60 acres out of the 2700 needed in the Skagit to recover Chinook salmon and is estimated to produce an additional 16,000 smolts annually. Tributaries that enter Fisher Slough support adult spawning coho and chum salmon and cutthroat trout. Juvenile coho and chum salmon and cutthroat trout travel down the tributaries to rear in Fisher Slough. Fisher Slough drains a total watershed area of approximately 23 square miles (14,720 acres). Many creeks converge in the Skagit River floodplain and historically flowed through a complex network of tidal and non-tidal wetland habitats before reaching the south fork of the Skagit River. Fisher Slough is positioned as one of the last freshwater tidal sloughs available to juvenile Chinook as they move down the South Fork of the Skagit River towards Skagit Bay (Figure 1). The floodplain in the vicinity of Fisher Slough was extensively modified prior to the 1930’s with the installation of a floodgate/levee system designed to claim land for agricultural purposes. The slough and lower reaches of the tributaries were confined within levees built with dredge spoils and lined with monotypic stands of invasive reed canary grass. The historical alluvial fan had been completely eliminated and tidal processes were severely muted by floodgates. Natural hydrological processes were almost non-existent. The net result was a reduction in the extent and quality of tidal wetland habitats, reduced accessibility for fish, reduced tidal exchange resulting in degraded water quality, stream routing that caused levee erosion, a reduction in flood storage capacity of Fisher Slough and resultant increase in the severity and frequency of flooding in the watershed’s lowlands. Agriculture is an anchor industry in Skagit County and the surrounding region. More than 3,300 people are engaged in full-time equivalent employment directly in agricultural activities and 5,650 people are engaged in employment generated overall by the local agriculture industry (out of a population of 118,109). The direct economic impact of agriculture in Skagit County exceeds $500 million annually with an additional $100 million generated by farm related tourism such as hunting, wildlife watching and agro-tourism, and from fishing. Conversion of agricultural land to other uses, including estuary habitat, is opposed by the agricultural community as they seek to maintain the viability of agriculture in the Skagit delta. Habitat has typically been perceived as a threat to agriculture because it takes land out of production, which has the potential to affect farmers’ ability to manage crop rotations and hurt support industries such as processing facilities, tractor dealers and seed, fertilizer and other agriculture-related suppliers. As a result, farming and fisheries interests have been at odds for many years in the region. Having witnessed a decade long controversy and gridlock between stakeholders that limited the restoration of critical estuarine habitat to the public lands that lie at the very mouth of the Skagit River, TNC, Dike District 3 (DD3) and Drainage and Irrigation District 17 (DD17) embarked on the


Figure 1. Fisher Slough is a freshwater tidal slough located in the south east part of the Skagit River delta that receives tributary runoff from a 23-square mile watershed. Fisher Slough project to demonstrate that salmon recovery actions could be compatible with the needs of the agricultural community. The project was planned and designed to meet multiple stakeholder needs including restored estuary habitat, additional flood storage capacity, and updated drainage and flood control infrastructure. The hope was that Fisher Slough could be a model project that would build trust between stakeholders and open the door to similar projects on other private lands in the region.


Specific project objectives (all of equal importance), as collaboratively defined by TNC and our partners, DD3 and DD17, and the Tribes were to:

• create freshwater tidal rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon; • provide fish passage for Coho and chum spawning access; • improve flood storage to protect agricultural uses of adjacent properties; and • create a diverse array of native vegetative communities.

A fundamental premise of the Fisher Slough restoration project was that reconnection of fluvial and tidal processes will lead to the development and enhancement of freshwater tidal habitats with native vegetative communities that support juvenile salmon rearing. Prior to restoration, levees, a culvert crossing, and antiquated floodgates precluded or limited a number of stream and estuarine processes within the restoration site, including: stream and tidal hydrology, natural channel scouring, transport and deposition of suspended sediments, and nutrient exchange. Replacement of the floodgates and removal of the levees and culvert crossing restored these processes to the site, creating estuarine wetland and tidal channel habitats in the near-term and ensuring that habitat is maintained in the future. Another project premise was that by moving infrastructure out of the way of natural processes, additional flood storage would be created, fish passage barriers would be removed and the cost of maintenance and repair of the infrastructure would be reduced. Levees located in close proximity to the channel have limited the amount of available flood storage. Setting back a levee creates more flood storage so that floods are less frequent and severe. Floodgates and a concrete box culvert have been fish passage barriers. Replacing the floodgates so that they open more of the time and removing the concrete box culvert reduced fish passage barriers. In the past, dredging due to sediment accumulation and levee repairs due to erosion near constriction points have been costly to DD3 on the project site. Flooding and levee overtopping upstream of the project site have also required repairs to levees and roads in the past. Concentrating infrastructure and moving it back from the slough alleviates hydrologic and sediment constrictions, thereby reducing maintenance and management costs and effort.

II. Methodology

A. Project Design A feasibility study for the project was completed prior to this award. During the grant period, an alternatives analysis for each project element was completed to evaluate project feature design options to maximize outcomes toward the multiple project objectives and minimize costs. The project was divided into three basic elements: Element I – Floodgate Replacement; Element II – Drainage Ditch Relocation; and Element III – Levee Setback and Marsh Restoration. For Element I, a performance specification design was completed by Tetra Tech, Inc., TNC’s project design contractor, and the final design was completed by Nehalem Marine Manufacturing (NMM). For project Elements II and III, Tetra Tech, Inc. prepared final design plans and specifications.


TNC employed an inclusive and transparent process to plan, design and implement the project from its inception. Extensive coordination and communication was built into the plan in order to obtain and maintain the support of partners, tribes, stakeholders, neighboring landowners, funders and permitting agencies, and to make sure project construction went smoothly. Several useful tools TNC employed for the Fisher Slough project included:

Convening a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and providing regular updates – An advisory committee was assembled representing fisheries and farming interest groups as well as funders and permitting agencies [see Table 1 for a list of Fisher Slough TAC member organizations]. The TAC was convened during the design process to provide input and give feedback on design issues that could affect their organizations and interest groups. This involvement also allowed TNC and the design consultant access to the members’ technical expertise and knowledge of existing infrastructure and how it effects and integrates with surrounding properties. TNC provided the TAC with updates on progress and opportunities to ask questions and share information. Photo updates were provided once construction started. All photo updates are located in Appendix A. Table 1: Fisher Slough Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) membership

US Army Corps of Engineers Skagit County Dike District 3 Skagit County Drainage and Irrigation District 17 Washington State Dept. Ecology US Environmental Protection Agency National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Natural Resources Conservation Service Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office Seattle City Light Skagit Conservation District Skagit County Skagit River System Cooperative (Swinomish and Sauk-Suiattle tribes) Skagit Watershed Council Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland US Fisher and Wildlife Service Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Western Washington Agricultural Association

Regular communication with project partners – Recognizing that DD3 and DD17 would ultimately own and operate the infrastructure being built as part of the restoration project, TNC staff brought issues to their attention and actively sought input on issues that could affect them. TNC staff actively engaged them in conversations to develop design criteria, problem solve and trouble shoot, and incorporated their input. TNC also conducted additional analysis


and design work to address the concerns of project partners DD3 and DD17 related to potential impacts on adjacent properties, and made decisions with them on issues related to their long-term ownership and operation of the structures. During construction, project partners were welcomed onto the project site at any time to stay abreast of emerging issues and see how their infrastructure was being built. Property ownership of the project site included TNC and seven other landowners. TNC owned the land where the new setback levee was built and a majority of the tidal marsh that was restored. However, in order to complete all the project elements, a larger project footprint was needed. The entire project site involved seven landowners other than TNC, necessitating easements for permission to complete construction. In addition, dike and drainage infrastructure was relocated so easements for the new alignment of a large drainage ditch, siphon and new levee were secured and recorded. TNC helped develop an agreement that transferred ownership of land under the new levee from Skagit County to DD3. TNC also entered into an agreement with project partners, DD3 and DD17, which outlined the roles and responsibilities of each partner organization during design and implementation of the project. The agreement also included how ownership of the infrastructure would be transferred at the end of the project.

Photo Credit: TNC

B. Contractor Selection TNC used competitive bidding processes to select contractors for most construction activities at Fisher Slough. Bid announcements were published in local and regional newspapers and business journals. Bid documents were issued to interested contractors and the owner arranged for site tours in order to answer, bidders’, questions and produce informed bids by the established deadline. Bids were evaluated by a qualified review team consisting of engineers, dike and drainage district commissioners and Conservancy project management staff

Left: Polly Hicks (NOAA, project technical monitor) and Dave Cline (Shannon and Wilson, Owner’s Representative) tour Fisher Slough just as floodgate replacement is being completed.


using pre-established criteria including qualifications, previous experience and price, and the best value contractor was selected for the job. The only exception to the competitive bid process was that the floodgate designer/fabricator was hired via sole source to install the floodgates.

C. Project Construction In order to restore natural processes and meet project objectives, three project elements were completed (see Figure 2). Each element addressed a particular piece of infrastructure that limited the project layout and/or was constricting natural processes. See Figure 2 for a map of restoration activities, Figure 3 for project element summary photos and Appendix A for complete construction photos.

• Element I - Replacement of the existing side-hinge floodgates at the mouth of Fisher Slough with contemporary regulated floodgates allowed increased tidal exchange and fish accessibility during critical times of the year.

• Element II - Relocation of a large drainage and irrigation ditch known as “Big Ditch” and the associated culvert system eliminated a partial fish passage barrier and provided additional space for levee setback.

• Element III – Levee setback and marsh restoration restored natural stream and tidal processes to approximately 60 acres.

Project Element I Prior to project completion, the old floodgates limited fish passage and tidal exchange. During the winter and spring the gates swung freely and closed when water on the downstream side of the gates was higher than water upstream of the gates, often at high tide and/or during Skagit River floods. When the gates were closed, fish could not move upstream or downstream past the gates. A new floodgate system, designed to keep floodgates open until water levels reach a specified height upstream of the floodgates, allowed for increased tidal exchange and fish passage to the marsh and 15 miles of tributary habitat. Project Element II Big Ditch provides drainage for several square miles of agricultural land between the city of Mount Vernon and the project site, as well as agricultural land located south of the project site. Big Ditch flowed under Fisher Slough through a box culvert that limited levee setback configurations and was a partial fish passage barrier in Fisher Slough during late summer and fall low flows. Relocation of Big Ditch to cross under Fisher Slough near a County road consolidated infrastructure, made it easier for the drainage district to manage Big Ditch and replaced a culvert system built in the 1930s. From a habitat perspective, relocating Big Ditch allowed for the south levee to be set back to the maximum extent possible, thereby increasing the area where fluvial and tidal processes were restored, and also removed a fish passage barrier. Additionally, four bridges were constructed across the new Big Ditch channel in order to maintain access to farm fields and infrastructure access roads.


Project Element III When the Skagit River rises higher than water level in Fisher Slough, the floodgates close to protect upstream areas from river flooding. While the floodgates are closed, tributary runoff continues to enter the Slough, filling up the area between the levees. The previous levee alignment limited floodplain and tidal marsh habitat area adjacent to Fisher Slough to just under 10 acres and cut off natural hydrologic and geologic processes that would otherwise create and maintain alluvial fan and tidal marsh habitat. The limited flood storage available between the levees prior to project completion resulted in frequent and costly flooding of farmland and damages to infrastructure (including a County road) upstream of the site. The levees also constricted flows in such a way that during high stream flows it created a “fire hose” effect, which caused bank and levee erosion. Removal of the levee on the south side of Fisher Slough and construction of a new setback levee along the southern boundary of the site provided the following benefits:

1) increased the area exposed to stream and tidal processes that create and maintain habitat ideal for juvenile Chinook rearing from 10 to 60 acres;

2) increased the flood storage capacity to contain five-year flood events, thereby reducing the damage and cost of flooding on upstream farmland and infrastructure;

3) eliminated the damage and costs associated with bank and levee erosion; and 4) reestablished natural sedimentation regimes so that gravels that clogged previously

constricted channels now deposit in tributary alluvial fans. In addition, a number of restoration activities were employed in order to meet ecological restoration objectives as quickly as possible. Marsh restoration included: 1) channel realignment of tributaries flowing onto the site in order to decrease erosion on levees and to put creeks back onto their historic alluvial fans, 2) construction of pilot channels in order to speed the development of blind tidal channels (juvenile salmonid habitat) in the marsh plain, 3) filling and grading at the levee toes in order to provide positive drainage away from the levees and towards pilot channels, 4) management of invasive reed canary grass in order to ensure the success of native plantings, and 5) planting native woody species at appropriate elevations.


Figure 2: Fisher Slough restoration activities map.


Figure __: Fisher Slough project elements Figure 3. Fisher Slough Restoration Project Elements. Photo credits: all by TNC except pre-project floodgates, Tetra Tech

Project Element I - Floodgate Replacement

Project Element III - Levee Setback

Project Element II - Drainage Re-route

Fisher Slough Freshwater Tidal Marsh Restoration – NOAA Recovery Act Final Report

D. Monitoring and Adaptive Management

TNC developed a monitoring and adaptive management plan (MAMP) in coordination with state agencies that funded pre-project monitoring, NOAA, consultants and local experts. The plan calls for seven years of monitoring from pre-project monitoring in 2009 to post-project monitoring through 2015 to measure project outcomes. The complete MAMP is included as Appendix B. NOAA Recovery Act funding allowed monitoring to continue through 2012 and additional funding sources have now been secured for monitoring through 2013 including a NOAA Estuary Habitat Restoration Program grant. Funding for monitoring in 2014 and 2015 is currently being sought. The Fisher Slough restoration monitoring program is based on a conceptual model linking restoration actions to restored processes and ecological responses. Built into this conceptual model are structural changes and functional responses that are expected as a result of restoration actions. Hypotheses were developed to measure the functional responses and structural changes necessary to evaluate if the project was meeting identified objectives. In addition, restoration targets were developed for each hypothesis. The conceptual model and complete list of project hypothesis are included in the MAMP. Note that hypotheses were only developed for the ecological and flood control responses and not for other project outcomes. Non-ecological responses and benefits are discussed as part of sections E, F and G below titled: Jobs and Employment, Socioeconomic Outcomes and Outreach. Specific Recovery Act performance objectives that are included in the MAMP as hypotheses to measure project success include:

• increased acres of freshwater marsh, • stream miles improved for fish passage by removing the Big Ditch box culvert, • increased tidal amplitude during spring Chinook migration upstream of the floodgates, • increased abundance of Chinook salmon (0+ yr class) above the floodgates, • improved fish passage for spawning salmon by increasing the time floodgates are open

during the winter, and • Increased flood storage capacity by completing the levee setback.

A summary of the hypotheses and methods used to evaluate if each Recovery Act performance target has been met is included below. More detailed descriptions of methods are included in the MAMP. The MAMP calls for more monitoring than is required to evaluate Recovery Act performance targets. Additional hypotheses and monitoring parameters are monitored in order to better understand the effects of restoration practices in Puget Sound. Some of these additional parameters and monitoring activities are included in this narrative. However, channel area, sedimentation and vegetation monitoring are not included in this report. A complete list of hypotheses evaluated and parameters monitored can be found in Table 4-1 of the MAMP.


D1. Freshwater Marsh Area

Hypothesis: Levee relocation will restore 50 acres of tidal marsh which will result in a total of 60 acres of freshwater tidal marsh - tidally inundated freshwater marsh area will increase. Restoration target: Increase in the area inundated at MHHW of 9.5ft NAVD88 upstream of the floodgates by 2015. Water surface elevations and elevation of the marsh were measured to determine how much of the available marsh was inundated and for how long each day. Surface water levels are recorded every 15 minutes using pressure transducers at five locations:

• immediately downstream of the floodgates, • immediately upstream of the floodgates, • upstream in Fisher Slough were historically Big Ditch crossed under Fisher Slough and • one pressure transducer in each of the two blind channels in the restored marsh area.

As-built topographic surveys generated when construction was completed were used in conjunction with the water surface elevation data in order to determine how many acres of land are inundated at various water surface elevations. The acres of restored marsh were determined as the acres inundated when the water surface is 9.5ft NAVD88 at the floodgates.

D2. Stream Miles Improved for Fish Passage – Big Ditch Barrier Removal Hypothesis: Removal of the passage barrier at Big Ditch will result in more natural channel profile through this area. Restoration target: Mean water depth increases at location where the fish passage barrier was removed. The longitudinal channel profile was surveyed with survey grade GPS before and after the infrastructure was removed to document that the channel bed had returned to a more natural channel profile. Measurements were recorded at intervals of 1ft - 2.3ft through the stream reach where the box culvert was located before it was removed and averaged 3.1ft intervals after it was removed (2012) (Figure 4).

D3. Tidal Amplitude Hypothesis: Replacement/revised operation of the floodgate (post-project condition) will result in increased tidal amplitude and water elevations upstream of the new floodgate, compared to pre-project conditions.


Restoration target: Tidal amplitude immediately upstream of floodgates will match amplitude downstream of floodgates when gates are open. Surface water elevation above and below the floodgates was used to evaluate tidal amplitude pre- and post-restoration. Surface water levels were recorded every 15 minutes using pressure transducers.

Figure 4. Location of longitudinal channel profile measurements before and after removal of the Big Ditch box culvert.

D4. Chinook Salmon Abundance

Hypothesis: Chinook salmon abundance (0+ year class) will be similar above and below the floodgates (post-replacement) during peak migration periods. Restoration target: By 2015, trends suggest higher relative density of age 0+ Chinook above floodgates compared to pre-2010 conditions. Monitoring fish passage opportunity through the floodgates (via floodgate openness, see below), in addition to how fish utilize the newly available habitat and development of channels within the marsh provides information on how restoration actions have effected fish populations that utilize Fisher Slough. Fish monitoring began in 2009 before floodgates were replaced and have occurred annually through 2012.


To capture the entire juvenile Chinook migration period each year, fish sampling occurs twice a month from February to August using fyke nets and beach seining at locations throughout the site, both upstream and downstream of the floodgates (Figure 5). However due to construction and maintenance activities, fish sampling ended in July in 2010 and 2012, and in June in 2011. In 2012, sampling sites were added in the new areas created by the levee setback. All fish and amphibians caught were recorded at each sampling location. Complete monitoring methods for post-restoration sampling are located in the 2012 monitoring report (available April 2013).

Figure 5 Fish sampling locations at Fisher Slough Restoration area. In 2009-2011, fish sampling was limited to the Fisher Slough channel (yellow dots). In 2012 after the levee setback was completed, sampling in the marsh (random locations selected for each sampling date) and blind channel 3 were added (blue dots).

D5. Fish Passage for Spawning Salmon – Floodgate Replacement

Hypothesis: Floodgate operation will improve fish passage opportunity for coho and chum compared to pre-project conditions.


Restoration target: Floodgate doors will open at least once per day from October 1st to February 28th or 29th. The angle openness of the floodgate doors is monitored using potentiometers that are mounted on the hinges of each of the three floodgate doors and data was recorded every 1 minute. The doors were considered open when the gates were open at least 5 degrees from the floodgate headwall. The difference in surface water elevation upstream versus downstream of the floodgates was used to estimate when the old barn-door style floodgate doors would have been open. Since the old floodgates operated on a gravity system, any time the downstream water level was higher than it was upstream, the floodgate doors were considered closed. D6. Flood Storage Hypothesis: Levee setback and restoration of tidal exchange will result in 310 acre-feet available for flood water storage (i.e. greater floodplain and channel area) during high flows. Restoration target: At least 247 acre-feet of new flood storage capacity (about 310 acre-feet total). One of the four overall project goals was to increase the flood storage capacity of the site to reduce the threat of flooding in the neighboring community and surrounding agricultural fields. In order to measure the change in the flood storage capacity of the site, prior to restoration work the flood storage capacity was calculated starting at the muted tidal peak (MHHW) elevation of 8.8 feet NAVD88 up to the spillway of elevation of 14.0 feet NAVD88 using pre-restoration LiDAR data. Post restoration flood storage was calculated using the same elevation range and was measured using post-restoration as-built survey data.

E. Jobs and Employment In order to understand the impacts of the project on employment, TNC tracked the number of hours worked and types of jobs created at TNC and for each contractor. Contractors submitted quarterly hours reports which included the number of hours worked on the Fisher Slough project and the type of work being done by each individual worker. TNC tallied numbers for the project as whole and reported total number of contractors hired, total number of hours worked and the number and type of individual jobs touched by the project.

F. Socioeconomic Outcomes In addition to measuring on-site project outcomes, TNC and NOAA worked with local community members to identify and value other community benefits resulting from the project as part of a socioeconomic study. NOAA provided supplemental monitoring funds specifically to address this issue. A group of partners, stakeholders and neighbors were convened to identify project outcomes that positively or negatively affected the community and neighboring


lands, and ECONorthwest was hired to determine the short and long-term value of these project components to the partners and community. A detailed methodology is outlined in their report, located in Appendix C.

G. Outreach Tours were provided for funders, permitters, the TAC, legislators, other restoration practitioners, and other dike and drainage districts in order to provide an opportunity to show progress and construction realities/logistics, and to discuss lessons learned. School groups used the site as a learning lab where they heard information about restoration, took water quality samples and planted native trees and shrubs. Tours for the media during the project and at completion allowed the project story to be shared with the local community and beyond. TNC organized an end of project celebration to thank all our partners, funders, permitters and other supporters who made the project possible and to highlight the multiple-benefit approach.

III. Condensed Project Timeline A detailed timeline from project inception to completion is included in Appendix D. A condensed timeline is provided below in Table 2. Cultural resources finds, weather and on-site conditions forced work scheduled for 2011 to be moved into 2012, as shown on the table. These items, their effect of the schedule, and methods to adjust the schedule are explained in more detail below.

IV. Results

A. Project Design Design issues were complex and required significant coordination, modeling and design expertise to complete. For example, the drainage infrastructure carrying Big Ditch under Fisher Slough had to be replaced. The Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) era concrete structure from the 1930s was replaced with an inverted siphon. TNC worked with DD17 to identify functions the structure needed to provide to the agricultural community while also working with permitters to make sure the necessary regulations for fish were met. The structure needed to provide optimal drainage capabilities, be able to back water up for irrigation and be passable to fish. The broad expertise housed at Tetra Tech, Inc. allowed them to address all of these issues and make sure that appropriate design standards were used. The process of working closely with project partners took time and in several instances resulted in additional design work and associated costs, as well as adding tasks into an already tight timeline. However, the end result was stronger support for the project and a better overall


Table 2. Condensed Project Timeline 2009 2010 2011 2012

TASKS/MAJOR MILESTONES Jul-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sept

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sept

Oct-Dec

Award Date

Construction - Project Element I (Floodgates)

Design - Project Elements II/III

Permitting - Project Elements II/III

Construction - Project Element II (Drainage Reroute) Construction - Project Element III (Levee Setback and Marsh Restoration) Contract Management Coordination with Project Partners Monitoring Outreach Reporting Central Support Team Activities


design. The following two examples demonstrate the types of issues that were encountered, overcome and ultimately helped strengthen the design and partner support. TNC’s collaborative process with its project partners, DD3 and DD17, resulted in changes to the levee design that reduced risks to adjacent lands and improved the final product. For example, during the preliminary design phase, winter flooding was thought to be the most concerning flood scenario. Because of this, seepage modeling for winter floods was completed as part of the levee design. However, DD3 expressed concerns about late spring and early summer floods that could potentially have negative impacts on crops that were already in the ground. This concern was brought up fairly late in the design process, and without the continuous dialogue and clearly established collaborative process this concern may not have been properly addressed. However, TNC took this concern seriously and additional seepage modeling was completed. The modeling indicated that during spring and summer flood events ground water in the adjacent field could be high enough to prevent plowing, drown crops that were already in the ground and may even cause ponding on the field. As a result, the design was altered to include installation of drain tiles in the field adjacent to the new setback levee to reduce negative groundwater impacts to acceptable levels. In addition, an agreement between TNC and the landowner was reached where TNC would be responsible for adding additional drain tiles over time if seepage and drainage becomes a problem, for an agreed upon period of time. The effectiveness of the new levee and drainage system was tested in late spring and early summer of 2012 when river and tributary flooding inundated many area fields and left them too wet to farm. In contast, the field adjacent to Fisher Slough supported a vigorous crop of potatoes, and the farm’s owner has voiced his satisfaction with the levee design to other farmers and community members. This was considered a big project success. At the time the final design at Fisher was being completed, a nearby estuary restoration project that had been completed the previous year was not performing well and was having negative impacts on neighboring farm fields. DD3 and DD17 were nervous about embarking on a similar project at Fisher Slough. The agreement between DD3, DD17 and TNC allowed for either of the Districts to hire a third party engineer to review design products. TNC worked closely with DD3 and DD17 on the 50% and 90% designs. In fact, TNC hired an engineer to be a member of TNC’s design review team for Fisher Slough that DD3 and DD17 had hired for their own previous projects. So it was somewhat unexpected when DD3 elected to have a third party engineer review the final design. This additional review, coupled with the additional response work required, further compressed an already tight timeline. However, the review was helpful in pointing out several areas where the design could be strengthened and assured DD3 that they would be receiving a good product when the project was finished. The time taken for this “extra” step was time well-spent and provides a valuable lesson in managing future projects.


Photo Credit: TNC Photo Credit: TNC

B. Contractor Selection

After floodgate fabrication, NMM was further contracted to fabricate and install the floodgates. Interwest Construction Inc. (ICI) was selected to complete project elements II and III during 2010 and 2011. Strider Construction was selected to complete final construction activities in 2012.

C. Project Construction Construction was complex and required careful planning, coordination, specialized construction methods and sequencing. Some of the constraints adding to the complexity included: permit work window limitations, complex hydrology and dewatering conditions, working with fine grained and moisture-sensitive soils, wet weather, deep excavations under stream channels, several feet of settlement under the new levee, and unanticipated cultural resources discoveries.

Left: Modeling to address DD3’s concerns showed a need for additional seepage protection measures, so drain tiles were added to the design. Right: Brian Olson, DD17 Commissioner (left), and Dave Olson, DD3 Commissioner (right), visited the site regularly during construction. This ensured any concerns they had could be addressed quickly and they were familiar with the details of the infrastructure being built. DD3 and DD17 will own and operate the infrastructure.


Project Element I The floodgate was fabricated and installed by NMM during the summer and fall of 2009. Once the floodgates were fabricated, consulting engineers, DD3 commissioner Dave Olson and TNC staff visited the shop for a bench test. During the bench test NMM demonstrated that the gates met certain specifications. New casings, floodgates and a regulation mechanism [Muted Tidal Regulator (patent pending)] were installed during the fall of 2009 in the existing headwall. In early 2010 the final adjustments were made to the Muted Tidal Regulator and the gates were held opened as designed during the juvenile Chinook migration period in March. An operation and maintenance manual was developed for the floodgate. Floodgate operations were monitored in 2010, 2011 and 2012 to ensure that the floodgates were opening and closing as planned, and will continue to be monitored until 2015.

Photo Credit: TNC Photo Credit: TNC Project Element II The rerouting of Big Ditch began in summer 2010. ICI dug the new channel and started excavation for the inverted siphon, which would eventually carry Big Ditch under Fisher Slough in its new location, as soon as permits would allow and wet weather decreased. Due to the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources, a portion of the work was stopped while appropriate steps were taken to consult with the Tribes and state archaeologist. Once the

Left: Dave Olson, DD3 Commissioner (left), and Leo Kuntz, owner of Nehalem Marine Manufacturing (right), discuss floodgate operations during the 2009 floodgate construction final inspection. Right: Leo Kuntz (left) and a consulting engineer (right) discuss details of the design during bench test.


site had been cleared for work to begin again, approximately four weeks later, construction commenced. However, because of this delay, critical path work planned for 2010 on the Big Ditch re-route could not be completed and the schedule had to be reconfigured to fit more work into the 2011 work window. By the end of 2010, most of the new channel had been excavated and the siphon pipes and inlet and outlet structures had been completed. Early in 2011, ICI completed excavation of the new channel and secondary drainage ditches, and constructed all parts of the siphon and four bridges that provided access over the new channel. With these components completed, water was re-routed into the new channel, portions of the old channel were filled and the CCC-built box culvert from the 1930’s was removed. Project Element III Beginning in 2010, ICI began constructing the setback levee at the southern edge of TNC property. Topsoil was stripped away so that a solid base for the levee was exposed, and a combination of imported soil and soil from onsite construction activities was used to build the new levee. In some areas, up to six feet of topsoil and gravels had to be removed to get to a suitable base. In areas where soils were soft, geotextile was placed below the levee to provide a solid base. Onsite soils for levee building were wetter than allowed by the design specifications and had to be dried. To do this, wet soils were spread out on any available

Photo Credit: TNC Photo Credit: TNC

Left: The new inverted siphon was installed under Fisher Slough using open trench construction. Below: The structure was designed to provide optimal drainage and be fish passable, and was fitted with screwgates (red gates below) allowing water to be backed up for irrigation.


surface and tilled regularly to facilitate drying. When wet weather was forecasted, soils were sealed with a roller to keep them from getting wet again. Unpredictable western Washington weather made it a challenge to dry onsite soils, so a large proportion of the early summer levee-building work was done with imported soils. However, time was wasted trying to dry onsite soils, which delayed the schedule, and imported soils are more expensive than onsite soils so, building the setback levee with imported soils increased the project budget. The original schedule required the majority of the setback levee to be built in 2010 and the old levee to be removed in 2011. The main reason for this was to allow a full winter for settlement of the new levee to occur. If the levee settled (and it was expected to settle 2-3 feet in places), it could be built up to final design elevations in 2011 and large adjustments in levee height would not be needed in future years. Since many of the project activities were interrelated, delays re-routing Big Ditch in combination with poor weather resulted in delays in levee building. As a result, only a portion of the setback levee was built in 2010 and the schedule for 2011 had to be revised to accommodate: 1) completion of the Big Ditch re-route, 2) completion of the setback levee, and 3) deconstruction of the old levee. This meant that the setback levee would not be completed before the old levee was torn down, posing a risk to the community if an unexpected flood occurred during construction. DD3 was not initially comfortable with both activities occurring in the same year, but because of the trust and good working relationship with TNC agreed to it with the provision that a certain setback levee height had to be met by a certain date before the old levee could be removed. Additionally, because the setback levee was not completed until 2011, final levee settlement adjustment work was pushed back into 2012, a full season past the expected completion of the project.

Photo Credit: TNC Photo Credit: TNC By the end of the 2010 construction season, cost increases due to delays, the need to extend work into 2012, and other changes to the project based on unexpected conditions

Left: Interwest Construction staff worked closely with TNC during 2010 and 2011 construction.


encountered in the field, caused TNC to expect that the project could close well over budget. In response to this, the project team looked for cost savings measures in the remaining work. The design engineer made changes to the levee height at various locations to limit how much grading would be needed in 2012 and worked with the construction contractor to streamline 2011 work and find cost-savings. One of the benefits of removing the old levee and building the setback levee in the same year was that soils from the old levee could be used in the setback levee and only be handled once, which reduced costs. Also, soils from the old levee that didn’t meet specifications could be blended with imported soil and incorporated into the setback levee, further reducing costs. In 2011, after Big Ditch had been re-routed, ICI built the setback levee to design height. Additional imported soil and onsite soils from the old levee and newly excavated stream and tidal channels were used to build the levee. A sheetpile key was installed along the waterward side of the levee to prevent seepage of groundwater under the levee into the adjacent farm field, and drain tile was added in the field to drain water that did seep through. In addition, a number of restoration actions were completed in summer and fall 2011 in order to meet ecological restoration objectives as quickly as possible, including:

• realigned tributaries flowing onto the site in order to decrease erosion on levees and to put creeks back onto their historic alluvial fans,

• constructed pilot channels in order to speed the development of blind tidal channels in the marsh,

• filled and graded at the levee toes in order to provide positive drainage away from the levees and towards pilot channels,

• seeded disturbed areas with native marsh or riparian seed mixes depending on elevation,

• planted and maintained native woody species at higher elevations, and • managed reed canary grass in order to ensure the success of native plantings.

Photo credit: TNC Photo credit: TNC Left: Streams were re-routed into historic and more unconstrained alignments.

Right: Native trees and shrubs were planted at higher elevations to establish riparian forests.


In 2012, Strider Construction Inc. was hired to complete final construction activities. The setback levee, which had settled for nearly one year, was graded to design height and surfaced with a drivable rock surface. Also in 2012, operations and maintenance manuals were developed for all infrastructure other than the floodgates.

D. Monitoring and Adaptive Management Monitoring project outcomes was another important aspect of this project. This project restored 60 acres of freshwater tidal marsh habitat, improved fish access to 15 miles of tributary habitat and created an additional 250 acre-feet of flood storage by installing new floodgates, relocating and consolidating drainage infrastructure and setting back levees. Recovery Act performance measures for the restoration project include an increase in:

• acres of freshwater marsh, • stream miles improved for fish passage, • tidal amplitude during spring juvenile Chinook migration upstream of the floodgates, • juvenile Chinook salmon abundances upstream of the floodgates, • amount of time floodgates are open during winter, and • amount of flood storage capacity.

Table 3 provides a summary of site performance related to these measures based on monitoring results to date and more detailed information is provided below. Completed monitoring reports are provided in Appendix E. One final report on the remainder of the 2012 data will be available in late April 2013. Early results from 2010 and 2011 before the project was finished indicated that the site and the floodgates were not on a trajectory that would meet the target for increase juvenile Chinook salmon above the floodgates. Additional funding from NOAA Estuary Habitat Restoration Program was provide to monitor the site in 2013 in order to help get a more complete picture of post construction function and inform any adaptive management actions that may be needed. A monitoring report will be completed at the end of calendar year 2013 once two years of post-construction data is collected.

D1. Freshwater Marsh Area Restoration target: Increase in the area inundated at MHHW of 9.5ft NAVD88 upstream of the floodgates by 2015. As a result of the levee setback, the area inundated at MHHW of 9.5ft NAVD88 increased from 9.8 acres to 55.7 acres, an increase of 45.9 acres.


Table 3. Recovery Act performance measures and actual performance for the Fisher Slough restoration project. Objective/Goal

Description Measure Baseline Project Target Actual Notes

Freshwater marsh acres 10 60 55.7 Levee setback is completed and new marsh is inundated regularly.

Stream miles improved for fish passage miles n/a 15 15

Replacement of the floodgates (2009) and removal of the existing Big Ditch culvert (2011) completed.

Increase tidal amplitude during spring migration

upstream of the floodgate

tidal amplitude/ 6-7 ft NAVD88 9.5 ft NAVD88 9.5 ft NAVD88

Water levels were measured from March 1 – February 29th 2012 during the Spring Migration Period. water level

Chinook salmon (0+ yr class) abundances will

increase above the floodgates

fish abundance

Chinook salmon (0+ yr class)

abundances are equal above and

below floodgates

Increase in relative density of 0+Chinook

above floodgate compared to

below

Chinook salmon (0+ yr class) density was

slightly greater upstream of the floodgate than

downstream (diff. not statistically significant).

The first year of post-restoration monitoring was in 2012. The intent of this hypothesis is that the floodgate has no effect on fish passage so that measured fish densities are equal above and below the floodgates.

Restore fish passage for spawning access by

increasing time floodgates are open during winter

time floodgates are open

during winter

Gates closed for more than one

day during adult migration

Gates open at least once per day between

October 1 and February 28

At least one of three floodgate doors was open once per day

between November 1 and February 28.

Construction was ongoing through October 2011 as construction was nearing completion.

Increase the amount of available flood storage

capacity acre-feet 64 acre-feet 310 acre-feet 309.1 acre-feet


D2. Stream Miles Improved for Fish Passage – Big Ditch Barrier Removal Restoration target: Mean water depth increases at location where the fish passage barrier was removed. Removal of the concrete box culvert at Big Ditch during construction in 2011 eliminated a fish passage barrier for spawning chum and Coho salmon (Figure 6). By removing the box culvert (and altering floodgate operations – see “Fish Passage for Spawning Salmon – Floodgate Replacement” below) 15 miles of tributary habitat is now more accessible for fall and winter spawning salmon. In addition to removing this passage barrier, the results from the survey indicate that the stream bed is returning to a more natural profile. After the box culvert was removed the profile deepened significantly, and the mean water depth increased by 0.78 feet compared to 2010 conditions before the concrete box culvert was removed.

Figure 6. The elevational profile of the bottom of Fisher Slough before (2011) and after (2012) removal of the Big Ditch concrete box culvert, which was a fish passage barrier at low flows.

D3. Tidal Amplitude Restoration target: Tidal amplitude immediately upstream of floodgates will match amplitude downstream of floodgates when gates are open. The new self-regulating floodgates are open more of the time than the old ones, allowing greater tidal exchange upstream of the floodgates in Fisher Slough. Before floodgate replacement the old barn-door style gates would close any time the downstream water level was higher than the upstream water level. After the self-regulating floodgates were installed the gates close only when the water exceeds a certain elevation. For instance, during the spring juvenile Chinook migration the floodgates are set to close when the water reaches

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Elev

atio

n (ft

, NAV

D88)

Profile distance (ft)

2012

2011

Downstream Upstream

Box culvert footprint

Area too deep to survey


9.5 ft NAVD88. Therefore, regardless if the downstream water is higher or lower than the upstream water level the floodgate doors remain open as long as the water level is at or lower than 9.5 ft NAVD88. After dike setback was complete the hydraulics of the system changed so that the floodgate doors were closing before 9.5ft NAVD88 in the spring of 2012. TNC worked closely with Dike District 3 and the floodgate manufacturer to change the floodgate settings so that the floodgate doors would close at the seasonally appropriate water elevation. During the Spring Migration Period in 2012, the mean tidal amplitude upstream was nearly equal to the downstream mean tidal amplitude (1.02 and 1.04 ft NAVD88, respectively). Figure 7 and Figure 8 show surface water elevations above and below the floodgates before and after floodgate replacement. Before floodgate replacement the gates were closed at the peaks of the high tides. Conversely, after the floodgates were replaced the surface water level upstream matched that of downstream conditions anytime the water level was at or below 9.5ft NAVD88 and sometimes also when water levels were higher than 9.5ft. upstream of the floodgates as well. The increase in tidal exchange and the amount of time the floodgate doors are open allow for greater fish passage opportunity during the critical spring juvenile Chinook migration while still providing flood protection above 9.5ft NAVD88.

D4. Chinook Salmon Abundance Restoration target: By 2015, trends suggest higher relative density of age-0+ Chinook above floodgates compared to pre-2010 conditions. It was estimated that prior to replacement, the old floodgates were open approximately 40% of the time during the spring when juvenile Chinook are trying to access Fisher Slough. The new floodgates are open approximately 90% of the time during spring, allowing greater opportunity for Chinook and other fish to access to Fisher Slough. Fish monitoring results to date are as follows:

• 2009: Before floodgate replacement show no significant difference between upstream and downstream juvenile Chinook salmon abundance when gates were estimated to be open 40% of the time.

• 2010: After floodgate replacement and before levee setback there were significantly more juvenile Chinook salmon below than above self-regulating floodgates despite gates being open 90% of the time.

• 2011: After floodgate replacement and before levee setback there were more juvenile Chinook salmon below than above self-regulating floodgates, although this difference was not significant, despite the gates being open 90% of the time.

• 2012: After floodgate replacement and dike setback there were more juvenile Chinook salmon above the self-regulating floodgates than below, although this difference was not significant. There were deviations to floodgate operations due to change in


Figure 7. The old floodgates closed as soon as the tide came in, cutting off the top of the tidal peaks.

Figure 8. The new floodgates stay open allowing tidal inundation upstream of the gates up to mean higher high water.


hydraulics after dike setback, maintenance, and repairs. As a result, the floodgates were only open 85.25% of the time during the Juvenile Chinook Spring Migration period.

There several ideas about why fish abundance upstream of the floodgates was lower after floodgate replacement despite the gates being open more of the time. Construction activities were ongoing during 2010 and 2011 upstream of the floodgates, and could possibly have affected fish numbers upstream of the floodgates. There are other potential factors which could be affecting fish passage such as how open the floodgate doors are (i.e. available channel width for fish to pass through), shading caused by the floodgate doors, and/or water velocity. Water velocities through the gates are meeting criteria set for the project, but the criteria may be too high to allow juveniles to swim against the current during ebb tides. Velocities on flood tides should not affect juvenile Chinook passage since they are able to effectively “ride” the incoming tide. Results from 2012, the first year of fish monitoring after dike setback was complete, show that there were more fish upstream of the self-regulating floodgates than below. However the difference was not statistically significant. It was originally estimated that the Fisher Slough restoration project would improve Chinook production by 16,431 smolts annually. Following restoration, the estimated carrying capacity for juvenile Chinook salmon was recalculated using the 4.8 acres of tidal channel habitat that is now available. Based on landscape connectivity calculation metrics it is estimated that Fisher Slough has the capacity to support between 23,935 and 38,773 smolts annually. In 2012, the point estimate for juvenile wild Chinook salmon was 37,999. This is within 98% of the higher carrying capacity estimate.

D5. Fish Passage for Spawning Salmon – Floodgate Replacement Restoration target: Floodgate doors will open at least once per day from October 1st to February 28th or 29th. The new self-regulating floodgates allow for increased passage opportunity for spawning Coho and chum salmon. The floodgate doors were open at least once per day during the winter flood control period from November 1, 2011 to February 28, 2012. Construction was ongoing through October 2011 and the floodgates were set to the Fall/Winter setting on October 31, 2011. Before the floodgates were regulated, the gates would often close during low early fall flows, and the lack of water to pop them open would mean they stayed closed for days to weeks during adult salmon migrations, preventing fish access to spawning grounds upstream. D6. Flood Storage Restoration target: At least 247 acre-feet of new flood storage capacity (about 310 acre-feet total).


The flood storage capacity of the site increased from 64 acre-feet to 309.1 acre-feet after the levee setback was completed and the size of the available “bathtub” was increased (Figure 9). The additional 245 acre-feet is predicted to contain a five-year event, which is the size event that is the most frequent and costly for local jurisdictions and landowners in Fisher Slough and its tributaries.

Figure 9. Above - Prior to restoration Fisher Slough was confined to 10 acres, Below – After restoration approximately 60 acres are available for flood storage and daily tidal inundation.


E. Jobs and Employment Recovery Act funding provided more than 47,000 labor hours, and directly touched more than 300 jobs. These jobs included 16 contracting companies as well as jobs within TNC, and included scientists, engineers and construction workers. Most of the companies that worked on the project are based in the local area, between Seattle and Bellingham. The construction company that completed project elements II and III, ICI, is located in Burlington, just 12 miles from the project site. In addition to the jobs that were tracked, at least 60 other companies provided materials, supplies and services directly to the project (pumps, pipes, portapotties, etc.) and multitudes more have realized business as a result of the Recovery Act funds.

Photo Credit: TNC

F. Socioeconomic Outcome The Socioeconomic study done by ECONorthwest in collaboration with TNC and NOAA found that the net present value of the socioeconomic benefits resulting from Fisher Slough amount to between $9.1 and $20.6 million over the next 50 years. The range in those numbers is based on assumptions that were applied in the study and does not include benefits from improved ecosystem function, including improved salmon production. The study focused only on benefits to the agricultural community and the surrounding communities. Initial data for the study was collected at a stakeholder meeting with project partners, neighboring landowners and farmers, commissioners from the Dike and Drainage Districts and others. Benefits from the Fisher Slough project were discussed and ranked at this meeting and additional research and individual interviews were done later to quantify these benefits. Benefits included reduced operations and maintenance costs for infrastructure, abated cost

“This job has kept my family in employment for three years. I’ve had up to 20 employees (at a time) work the job throughout plus subs so you’re looking at 50+ guys just on my end. It’s a pretty big impact in the community because 90% of us live locally and we’ve lived here all our lives. It’s fun to work close to home and be able to do something to help the community and the fish.” - Craig Holmgren, Project Superintendent, Interwest Construction Inc.

Above: five of the 100+ people who worked for Interwest Construction, Inc. as part of this project.


of new infrastructure, reduced costs of flood damage, reduced dredging costs, increased crop value, as well as other benefits. ECONorthwest’s full study, titled “Socioeconomic Benefits of the Fisher Slough Restoration Project” dated November 2012, can be found in Appendix C. In particular, project partners, DD3 and DD17, should now experience reduced maintenance and operations costs. New and updated infrastructure has resulted in reduced future capital costs for DD3 and DD17. Flood control and drainage capabilities of agriculture infrastructure were maintained or improved, which is expected to result in decreased costs for levee maintenance and repair. Setting back levees and re-establishing the floodplain for the tributaries is expected to eliminate costs for levee erosion repair and channel dredging and result in additional flood storage. This is expected to decrease flood-related damages and costs for landowners resulting from the most frequent and costly five-year flood events. Other long-term benefits from the project that were not addressed as part of the socioeconomic study include increased fisheries resources and buffered climate change impacts. According to the Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan, the increase in amount of habitat and improved fish passage at Fisher Slough is expected to result in up to an additional 16,431 Chinook smolts annually. Calculations of carrying capacity based on field data indicate that newly created habitat has the capacity to support up to 38,773 smolts, and 98% of that capacity has been realized. The resulting increased fish abundance might ultimately lead to increased fisheries opportunities (tribal, recreational and commercial) and associated income generating opportunities for local businesses. Reconnecting Fisher Slough and existing high-quality habitat in the Skagit Delta may also act as a buffer to more frequent and intense storm surges and sea level rise, which are the predicted effects of climate change.

G. Outreach Outreach activities resulted in multiple stories in the media, numerous tours for a variety of audiences, presentations at regional and national conferences, volunteer events and educational events for local school groups. Media outlets included ten printed articles (newspaper/magazine/online article), three radio pieces and two television stories. A summary of media stories is included in Appendix F. Tours for legislators, County commissioners, journalists, educators, students, and other restoration practitioners informed a large audience about the project, helped maintain a broad base of support for the project, and spread the word about the multiple benefits approach that was used to plan and implement the project and other lessons learned. Presentations about the project were made at seven regional and national fisheries- and ecosystem-restoration-focused conferences. A summary of presentations is included in Appendix G. The end of project celebration, which was attended by approximately 80 people, highlighted the multiple benefits approach that was used to plan and implement the project providing both fish/habitat and flood/drainage outcomes to the community. Speakers from a number of stakeholder groups, including a DD17 representative, voiced support for this project and


for future potential projects like it. Regional and state planners and policy makers were in attendance.

Photo Credit: Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group

V. Lessons Learned and Unexpected Outcomes

Engage partners, trustees and stakeholders early and often to gain their trust and support. TNC engaged stakeholders in an inclusive and transparent process at Fisher Slough from the inception of the project. We worked hand-in-hand with DD3, DD17, and the Tribes on development of the mission statement and project goals and objectives. We established the understanding that all project goals would be treated equally during project planning and we maintained that “rule” throughout the feasibility and design work. For instance, Chinook rearing habitat, an important ecological goal, was not weighted more heavily during alternatives analyses than flood storage or other goals; the issues associated with flood and drainage management and potential benefits were never overshadowed by habitat/fish issues. Equally-weighting the project objectives and upholding the “rule” throughout the project created trust that no one would be left out, which resulted in support and input from all parties. DD3 and DD17 were involved in review of the feasibility and design documents, and we asked for and incorporated their input at each step of the process. We also solicited technical and stakeholder input throughout the feasibility and design process via the TAC, which included our partners as well as Tribes, agricultural interest groups, permitters and funders. This kind of process takes time and resources but yields tangible benefits.

Students from Conway School plant willow and cottonwood stakes in the riparian restoration area.


Incorporating local knowledge and the specific needs of the adjacent landowners strengthened the project design and prevented potential negative impacts. We received valuable insights and were able to respond to concerns early in our process resulting in a technically stronger project, more rapid permitting, a broader base of support, and stronger relationships from which new projects have now emerged than if we had not solicited input from this diverse group.

Completing up-front investigative work is worth the time and money. Due to limited funding available for ecosystem restoration at the scale that was planned at Fisher Slough, we felt pressure to lower project costs especially during the design phase. We learned that this can cause the project owner and participants to take on additional risks. We also learned that upfront investigations during the feasibility and design phase often end up saving money in the long term, can increase the likelihood of project implementation and can prevent project and construction delays, which can be expensive. Examples from Fisher Slough include:

1. On-site soils testing. Initially we tried to reduce costs on design work by reducing the soils testing effort. We got to a point in the design where we needed more detailed information about on-site soils and then struggled to obtain the additional testing and information within our set budget and short timeline.

2. Soils availability. We made assumptions about what kinds of soils were available at local pits. It was challenging to find soils locally that met the intent of our specifications within our set budget and short timeline.

3. Permits. Initially we tried to reduce costs on permitting work due to funding agency

budget concerns, so we scoped out the effort associated with the most bare-bones permit requirements we thought possible, including the use of streamlined permit processes. We ended up not being able to use the streamlined processes and instead needed permits that were more costly and time consuming to prepare and submit.

4. Ground-based survey. Another measure we used to save money during design work

was to use LiDAR as the basis for our design plans. As soon as the construction contractor was hired and began checking elevations, they found discrepancies between their ground-based data and the design elevations. It was costly and time consuming to fit a full ground-based survey into a set budget and short timeline before construction began.

Know your risk of encountering cultural resources and plan accordingly. Cultural resources investigations were scoped to provide the bare minimum required and the project team didn’t understand the high risk of finding cultural resources on our project site. During 2010 construction, cultural resources were encountered at a location where specific construction activities could not be relocated. As a result significant construction delays and


additional costs were incurred. The archaeologist who provided support during construction provided the following recommendations:

• Although not every cultural resources site will be found through testing, any site that is found and can be dealt with ahead of time will reduce potential for delays during construction.

• Because the entire site cannot be sampled, it is important to focus on areas that cannot be avoided by relocating or adjusting construction activities.

• In order to save time and money, consider having an archaeologist on site any time there is exposure of buried sediments during the pre-construction phase (after disking in farmed areas, during geotechnical excavations/borings, etc.)

• Levees preserve archaeological sites really well. Thorough testing should be done on levee removal projects.

• Develop a cultural resources contingency mitigation plan for unanticipated discoveries that details where project construction activities can be adjusted to allow for preservation in place and what mitigation actions will occur in the construction locations where activities cannot be adjusted.

Photo Credit: TNC After 2010 delays, additional sampling was done in the spring of 2011 to try and identify if additional unanticipated discoveries were likely. While only one archaeological site was located, it was determined that there was a high potential for even more to be found during construction. For 2011 construction in concert with all parties, we developed a cultural resources contingency mitigation plan (Appendix H) that outlined how different types of resources would be handled if encountered during construction. This plan was one of the first of its kind in Western Washington. The plan also identified locations where construction activities could be adjusted to allow for protection in place and where construction activities could not be adjusted. During the 2011 construction four additional unanticipated discoveries were made including one that contained some of the most sensitive cultural

Equinox Research and Consulting International staff document an unanticipated cultural resources discovery during 2010. This discovery resulted in project delays and additional costs. For 2011 construction, a contingency mitigation plan protected resources, minimized delays and saved money.


materials. These agreed-upon procedures protected cultural resources and reduced delays during 2011 construction, saving the project valuable time and money. The plan and its implementation was widely regarded as a success from the construction standpoint as well as from the stand point of the tribes and state historic preservation office, the entities that are concerned with the protection of cultural and historic resources. Determine liability responsibilities prior to commencing design. Liability associated with changes in the layout and ownership of drainage, irrigation and flood protection infrastructure was a challenging issue. Working out the details of bonding and insurance coverage during construction and long term ownership and maintenance of new levees, drainage infrastructure and the restoration area took longer than expected and required significant legal consultation. Before the design was started, TNC entered into an agreement with project partners to outline roles and responsibilities. During design and construction, TNC took on liability and managed risk using contract terms, insurance and bonding. When construction was completed, ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the new infrastructure will be transferred to the Dike and Drainage Districts. TNC also addressed liability beyond the project area such as groundwater effects on neighboring lands. TNC completed additional modeling and added drainage infrastructure on a neighboring property, and also entered into an agreement that clearly outlined drainage liability responsibilities in the future. We recommend this work be completed simultaneously with final design work. An owner’s representative reduces risk associated with large construction projects. Construction projects that include flood protection and drainage infrastructure can be technically complex and associated with a large degree of risk (flooding, drainage, etc.), as is the case with Fisher Slough. TNC hired an owner’s representative to provide daily, on-site construction observation and construction contract management services. These services enabled us to catch problems early and correct them before they were literally buried and invisible, efficiently and fairly negotiate change orders, and reduce risks and liability associated with the construction.


Photo Credit: TNC The true costs of large construction projects are difficult to estimate. It is difficult to know how much a construction project will cost when applying for funding, which is typically a year or more in advance of actually implementing a project. Due to funding cycles, organizations may need to submit proposals for construction funds based on estimates at the 30% or 60% design stage but the best estimates are not known until the design is completed and bids have been received. For Fisher Slough, we applied for funding at the time the 50% design was being completed. Additional project features were added and the engineer’s estimate increased by approximately 25% between the time TNC applied for ARRA funds and the time the project went to bid. As a result, TNC was limited in the amount of funds available to complete the project and was forced to consider cost above nearly all other factors when selecting a contractor. It also left TNC with very few funds for potential changes during construction. Despite thorough planning and close coordination with our project partners, we encountered changes that required additional resources. Primarily, construction and construction management costs increased due to an unusually wet construction season, unanticipated cultural resources discoveries, and other changed conditions in the field. This project benefited from close coordination with our funders and partners who were able to provide additional funding to cover these increased costs, and from creative thinking about how to cut costs with the construction contractor and Owner’s Representative. Still, for some time, TNC was concerned about running a deficit, which would have had a significant effect on our organization’s finances. Throughout the project, TNC was forced to make decisions about continuing a project with increasing costs without any assurance that those additional costs would be covered. A smaller organization may not have been able to proceed with

The Owner’s Representative on-site observer (Xiaohui Liu of Shannon and Wilson) and Construction Contractor project manager (Caleb Armstrong of Interwest Construction) review materials delivery tickets together to ensure specifications are met before the materials are incorporated in the project.


construction in such circumstances. Organizations and their funders interested in completing similar projects should carefully consider the full costs of these projects, which are most solid when the design phase budgets are completed, and develop adaptive funding mechanisms to address changes in costs as projects are developed and designed. Don’t underestimate staffing needs Dedicated project management staff are critical to tracking all the details of a complex project such as Fisher Slough. Project management staff are needed throughout the life of a restoration project for project planning, grants procurement, management and reporting, landowner agreements, contractor hiring and management, monitoring, and a high level of partner and landowner coordination. TNC started with a half-time project manager from 2004 through 2007. In 2008 a full-time project was hired and by 2009, when construction started, an additional half-time project manager was employed to cover the workload. Additional part-time staff provided critical support related to monitoring and stewardship in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Project managers also had support from grants, contracts and legal specialists at TNC who were involved throughout the life of the project. In order to be most proactive and efficient, it is important to have sufficient staff time allocated to address the myriad of issues that come up. Funding networks need to be developed for large, multiple benefits projects. We need to work with single issue funders, such as those interested in salmon recovery, to help them understand that in built environments such as the Skagit, flood and drainage infrastructure costs may be a necessary component to achieve fish benefits. Some funders wouldn’t pay for certain elements of the Fisher Slough project because those elements didn’t have direct fish benefits. NOAA paid for all project elements because the project couldn’t be completed and fish benefits couldn’t be realized without doing so. Not only is this key to implementation, its critical for buy in from the local stakeholders and communities that will have needs and interests that intersect with restoration work and will need to be incorporated into planning and design. A coordinated investment strategy that brings together local, state, federal agencies and NGOs to provide funding and technical assistance for a diverse array of community priorities (e.g. flood and farmland protection) is critical to the longer term success of Puget Sound recovery and restoration of ecosystems in other geographies. Sufficient pre- and post-project data provides a basis to evaluate outcomes and adaptive management actions. Having enough data to characterize pre- and post- project conditions is critical in answering questions about project outcomes and in adaptively managing the site to maximize these outcomes. We had funding to collect one year of pre-project data. Now that we are comparing pre-project data with post-project data, it is difficult to determine if the pre-project data is representative of average conditions. More than one year of pre-project data would have given us some indication if the pre-project data from 2009 was typical for Fisher Slough. The importance of multiple years of pre-project data can be the difference between


being able to say whether project objectives have been met or not. For example, post-project fish densities at Fisher Slough are the same upstream and downstream, which is the same as pre-project conditions. We believe that there are uncertainties regarding the ability of the new floodgate design to provide fish passage improvements because we cannot confirm if the one-year of pre-project monitoring data is representative of the pre-project fish densities or was an anomaly.

Photo credit: TNC Sufficient pre- and post-project data can also be important in informing adaptive management actions. TNC has had to conduct multiple rounds of solicitations in order to cobble together the funding needed to conduct post-project monitoring that will support adaptive management. For projects that have high visibility and employ relatively new techniques, such as the Muted Tidal Regulator flood gates (patent pending), it is important that enough post-project funds are available to understand if these designs are working and if the adaptive management actions to these designs are successful. A well-developed monitoring plan targets funds to the most critical questions The detailed monitoring plan we developed early in the design phase of the project minimized monitoring costs, and helped us more successfully communicate what is being monitored and why when we applied for funding. During development of the monitoring plan we evaluated which items needed to be monitored on an annual basis and which only required periodic evaluation at certain project milestones. In doing so we were able to minimize cost while producing results that would answer the most critical questions regarding project outcomes.

Fish monitoring at Fisher Slough


VI. Summary Within the community, TNC and our project partners demonstrated that it is possible to advance fish recovery and agricultural viability goals on a single project site. TNC embarked on this project when local politics around restoration were negatively charged. Relationships built during this project established trust between unlikely and previously adversarial stakeholders. Today DD3 and DD17 publicly support the project, and the agricultural community is engaged in a delta-wide effort to identify other multiple benefits projects that address agricultural land protection, flood risk reduction and estuary restoration. The relationships built during the Fisher Slough project which helped lead the community to this new initiative are now moving us towards the Chinook recovery target that once seemed out of reach. This was the most important outcome of the project.

“In all of my experience in the Skagit Valley as a farmer, and all of the conflicts that have come around, I have a whole new outlook. This is one of the best things that’s ever happened in this valley. I look forward to the time the next project comes along.”

- Keith Morrison, farmer and DD17 Commissioner, speaking at the Fisher Slough project completion celebration.

Restored marsh at Fisher Slough; Photo Credit: Polly Hicks ......Fisher Slough drains a total...

Documents

Transcript of Restored marsh at Fisher Slough; Photo Credit: Polly Hicks ......Fisher Slough drains a total...