Design Team Meeting

Venue:  IDFG Panhandle Office, 2885 W. Kathleen AvenueCoeur d’Alene, ID  83815

When:  December 4-6, 2012

Workshop Goal:  The purpose of the workshop is to develop a 35% engineered design and timeline for a wetland habitat enhancement and restoration project in the Clark ForkRiver delta with a construction start date of November/December 2013, and continuing until March/April 2014.

1.  December 4, 2012 – Field Trip to the Clark ForkRiver Delta

2.  December 5, 2012 – IDFG Panhandle Office

Participants were welcomed and then they introduced themselves to the group.  Cousins reviewed the draft project goal and objectives, noting that these were open to amendment at any time during the workshop.  The desired outcome of the workshop was to produce a 35% engineered design.  The participants were encouraged to think of the design as the master plan, and to provide rationale for the proposals behind the design.  Brian Heck was introduced as the primary contact for developing the design and participants were encouraged to contact Heck directly if they had questions, suggestions, data or concerns.

Heck reviewed plans, maps and provided the participants with handouts of hydrographs showing lake elevations and the timing of the project.  Brengle explained some of the components of the hydrographs, noting that the 2011 drawdown of the lake was a classic graph and likely scenario of what to expect during the construction year.  Thus, a possible start date for construction could be as early as the first week of November.

Participants noted that the lake level for the year is usually set in a late-summer meeting.  A System Operating Request (SOR) could be submitted during this period to request the lake be held at its lowest level during the winter to accommodate the construction period.  (Place submission of the SOR on timeline.)

Heck noted that the first priority for the restoration was protection.  He reviewed some of the observations during the field trip the previous day, such that group saw that there were areas of higher elevation.  The restoration effort could use the LiDAR information to maximize the elevations thereby minimizing the material needed to build protective barriers.

Ray Entz inquired on the possibility of moving the protective breakwaters further out toward the location where the original delta face occurred.  Concern was that once breakwaters were constructed, then this might limit future restoration efforts.  Group discussed this idea and looked at where the access roads might be constructed, noting that perhaps the best way to approach the construction of breakwaters was to build the project access roads and then build up the breakwaters on these roads.  Also, the access roads could have turn-a-rounds that could be built up into island areas.  It was noted that the project could use the A-grade bench located in Area 4.

Discussions continued on what the height of breakwaters should be and what the protection would look like.  Ideas included:

• Planting nodes in breakwater; use pocket plantings
• More heavily armored on the face of the structure
• No straight lines – the protective structure can be built with “scalloped” edge design; the more convoluted and complex the structure, the better; being precise in a messy way
• Large woody debris can be placed in breakwater structures
• Change structure top elevation so it appears less severe
• Keep the backwater behind breakwater structures; have plunge pools behind the breakwater structures, then the breakwater could be at 2,064 ft rather than at 2,069 ft
• Leave the gravel bench in Area 4 alone; build protection on the backside of the gravel bench (see Figure 4)
• Overlap the breakwaters to allow for openings for small boats to enter restoration areas.

The group also discussed options for the drift yard and ACOE boom system.  Craig Brengle noted that the District Office will be making a decision on whether this part of the delta can be in the project.  Brengle plans to write up a report to the District noting the need to address some operation and maintenance issues with the current drift yard and boom system.  Timing might be good to consider alternatives for the drift yard and boom system as these have experienced some high water damage and are in need of attention.  It was briefly discussed if this type of work could be covered under an 1135, noting that this process could lag behind the construction phase.

Next the group discussed the possibility of using pile driven structures (i.e., pile dikes or pile jetties).  These structures have been used for decades to reduce wave fetch.  If the pile dikes reduced wave fetch, then this could reduce the amount of material needed for the breakwater protection.  Also the construction of the pile dikes could occur in the spring/summer months prior to the winter construction.  The pile dikes could be off set in front of the protection, as not to be too intrusive to boating traffic, and also constructed not to introduce new habitat for cormorants.  Sean Welch noted that the Kootenai Tribe might have information on the costs for pile driving, and he said he could help Heck with determining costs and spacing of the piles (Welch will also provide some examples of the contracting for the Kootenai project and some of their regulatory documents).  The pile dikes might also then provide opportunities for future restoration between them and the breakwaters, thus not limiting future restoration possibilities.

Derrick also proposed that a series of Bendway Weirs be constructed along the shorelines of the channel between Areas 7 and 4.  These structures would be about one foot above base flow and would be angled upstream, nothing that the angle is not as important as the roughness.  The group also proposed that the construction extend out from the shoreline at the mouth of the channel.  The group also suggested vegetated rip-rap on the banks in the channel.

The workgroup then discussed the need to provide a map of the proposed restoration area to the cultural resources surveyors as soon as possible.  It was also suggested that another engineer perform a VE (value engineering), as it is always good to have a second look.

Workshop participants then looked at the timeline for the project, and noted that monitoring and management plans would also need to be prepared.  Planning the planting of woody and herbaceous plantings might lag a year or two after the initial construction is completed.  A subgroup will need to be convened to plan monitoring and planting schemes.  Collection of baseline data and establishment of photographic points are needed as early as this winter.

In closing, Heck said he would work up a conceptual drawing from discussion at the workshop and include this in the minutes.  Participants also noted that identifying sources for rock, large woody debris, willows and plants will be a challenge.  Suggestions were to ask BPA if they can assist (i.e., when cleaning areas for power lines) or Northern Lights, as well as the National Forest.  The Hewett Rock Pit at Lightning Creek would be the best rock source.

Project Timeline of Major Events – please review and offer suggestions.