Channel and Habitat Channel and Habitat Monitoring in the Countyline Monitoring in the Countyline

Reach of the Lower White Reach of the Lower White RiverRiver

Presented by Sarah McCarthy and Terry ButlerPresented by Sarah McCarthy and Terry Butler

River and Floodplain Management SectionRiver and Floodplain Management Section King County Water and Land Resources King County Water and Land Resources

DivisionDivision

November 01, 2012November 01, 2012King County Science SeminarKing County Science Seminar

Monitoring QuestionsMonitoring Questions

Have the projects:Have the projects:1.1. Met the design specifications?Met the design specifications?2.2. Improved riverine processes and Improved riverine processes and

functions?functions?3.3. Reduced or maintained current Reduced or maintained current

levels of flood risk?levels of flood risk?4.4. Reduced the need for remedial Reduced the need for remedial

actions?actions?

Implementation Monitoring

Project Effectiveness Monitoring

Project Effectiveness Project Effectiveness Monitoring CategoriesMonitoring Categories

Channel DynamicsChannel Dynamics Aquatic HabitatAquatic Habitat Riparian ProcessesRiparian Processes FishFish & Amphibians & Amphibians Flood RiskFlood Risk

Aquatic Habitat Aquatic Habitat MonitoringMonitoring

Hypothesis Monitoring Objective

AH1: The area of slow-water rearing habitat will increase.

Map slow water edge habitat (<1.5 ft/sec).

Aquatic Habitat Aquatic Habitat MonitoringMonitoring

Fish MonitoringFish Monitoring

Hypothesis Monitoring Objective

FA1: Juvenile salmonids will occupy low velocity rearing habitats resulting from floodplain reconnection actions. Density will increase proportional to habitat availability.

Map habitat types and conduct fish surveys.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Chinook Coho Steelhead

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al C

augh

tJuvenile Salmonid Habitat Use

(All Seasons)BackwaterBankBarSide Channel

n=143 n=157 n=17

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al C

augh

tChinook Habitat Use

Backwater

Bank

Bar

Side Channel

Summer 20113000 cfs

n=57

Spring 20111530 cfs

n=73

White White River River SettingSetting

MMD

Countyline Reach

White River Alluvial Fan

Green R

County-line Reach

White R

Buckley

Auburn Source: Chris

Brummer

Channel DynamicsChannel Dynamics

Hypothesis Monitoring Objective

CD1: Channel meandering will increase.

Analyze channel movement using digital airphotos.

1914

Countyline Channel 1914 to Present

Historical Channels 1931-2000;2010 Aerial

Predicted Predicted Left Bank Left Bank Post-Post-Project Project Channel Channel and and FloodplaiFloodplain n EvolutionEvolution

Channel DynamicsChannel Dynamics

Hypothesis Monitoring Objective

CD2: Stream and floodplain heterogeneity will increase.

Map elevation changes using LiDAR and cross section surveys.

LiDAR LiDAR ImagerImagery, Cross y, Cross SectionSectionss

Change in Gravel Bar Elevations(2007-09) by Comparison of DEMs

Channel DynamicsChannel Dynamics

Hypothesis Monitoring Objective

CD3: Distribution of spawning sediments may shift but the overall extent will not decline.

Quantify and map longitudinal changes in substrate particle size distributions.

Substrate Substrate Particle Particle Size Size DistributioDistributionsns

Source:Czuba et al. (2010)

White RM0.0 to 10.6, including CountylineReach.2009 Data

Flood RiskFlood Risk

Hypothesis Monitoring Objective

FR2: Flood risk outside of the project area has decreased or remained the same.

… Survey channel cross sections, calculate changes in sediment volume and rates of deposition, and model changes in flood surface elevations.

Cross Section Data: Cross Section Data: Volumes, Rates and Volumes, Rates and Elevation Elevation CalculationsCalculations

White River cross section 5.621 [Old RM 5.52; W70]

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

2350 2400 2450 2500 2550 2600 2650 2700 2750

Distance (feet)

Ele

va

tio

n (

fee

t) N

AV

D 1

98

8

1974 1977 1984 1986 2001 2007 2009

Example Surveyed Cross Section in Countyline Reach

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1969-1974 1974-1984

1984-2001 2001-2007

2007-2009 2009-2011

Reach-Averaged Rate of Change in Riverbed Elevation (feet/year)

2400 2450 2500 2550 2600 2650 2700

70

75

80

85

2011 Lower White River HECRAS Gravel Plan: 1) 2009 ExCond 2) 2011 ExCond RS = 5.621 River Station 29678.17 ft

Station (ft)

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)

Legend

WS 5000 - 2011 ExCond

WS 5000 - 2009 ExCond

- 2011 ExCond

Ground - 2011 ExCond

Levee - 2011 ExCond

Ineff - 2011 ExCond

Bank Sta - 2011 ExCond

- 2009 ExCond

Ground - 2009 ExCond

Levee - 2009 ExCond

Ineff - 2009 ExCond

Bank Sta - 2009 ExCond

Change in Water Surface Elevation, 2009 to 2011, at 5000 cfs

Hydraulic ModelingIn 1-D HEC-RAS

Monitoring ScheduleMonitoring Schedule

Monitoring Category

Pre-Project Monitoring (2011-2014)

Construction & Implementation

Monitoring (2014-2016)

Post-Project Monitoring:

Years 1, 3, 5, 10 (2016-2025)

Project Implementation (Left and Right Banks)

X

Channel Dynamics X X

Aquatic Habitat X X

Riparian Processes X X

Fish & Amphibians X X

Flood Risk X X

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Monitoring Plan Authors:Monitoring Plan Authors:Sarah McCarthy, Josh Latterell, Terry Butler, Jo Wilhelm, Hans Sarah McCarthy, Josh Latterell, Terry Butler, Jo Wilhelm, Hans

Berge, Chris BrummerBerge, Chris Brummer

Data Collection and Analysis:Data Collection and Analysis:Kate Akyuz, Josh Latterell, Dan Lantz, Chris Gregersen, Chris Kate Akyuz, Josh Latterell, Dan Lantz, Chris Gregersen, Chris

Knutson, Jim Lissa, Jo Wilhelm, Ray Timm, Kyle Comanor, Fred Knutson, Jim Lissa, Jo Wilhelm, Ray Timm, Kyle Comanor, Fred Lott, Bob Black (USGS), Steve Damm (USFWS), Andrew Berger Lott, Bob Black (USGS), Steve Damm (USFWS), Andrew Berger (Puyallup Tribe)(Puyallup Tribe)