1. Engineered Log Jams in the North and South Fork
Nooksack
Lone Tree Phases I, II,
and IIA
Kalsbeek, Todd and Sygitowicz
Creeks, and Van Zandt
Victor Insera, Watershed Restoration Coordinator

2. Why Engineered Log Jams?

3. Why Engineered Log Jams?
1. The South Fork Chinook population is
considered to have the highest extinction
risk of the 22 Puget Sound populations.

4. Why Engineered Log Jams?
1. The South Fork Chinook population is
considered to have the highest extinction
risk of the 22 Puget Sound populations.
2. Both Chinook populations have cultural
importance and are essential for recovery.

5. Why Engineered Log Jams?
3. Degraded habitat through in-stream
wood removal and other detrimental
factors over past 100 years.
1. The South Fork Chinook population is
considered to have the highest extinction
risk of the 22 Puget Sound populations.
2. Both Chinook populations have cultural
importance and are essential for recovery.

6. Why Engineered Log Jams?
3. Degraded habitat through in-stream
wood removal and other detrimental
factors over past 100 years.
4. Reduced wood recruitment from removal
of large riparian trees throughout the
watershed.
1. The South Fork Chinook population is
considered to have the highest extinction
risk of the 22 Puget Sound populations
2. Both Chinook populations have cultural
importance and are essential for recovery.

7. Project Goals and Objectives

8. Project Goals and Objectives
1. Address the limiting factors affecting
spawning and incubation in the North
Fork and adult holding in the South Fork.

9. Project Goals and Objectives
1. Address the limiting factors affecting
spawning and incubation in the North
Fork and adult holding in the South Fork.
2. Protect existing channel islands (North Fork).

10. Project Goals and Objectives
1. Address the limiting factors affecting
spawning and incubation in the North
Fork and adult holding in the South Fork.
2. Protect existing channel islands (North Fork).
3. Enhance side channel habitat (North Fork).

11. Project Goals and Objectives
1. Address the limiting factors affecting
spawning and incubation in the North
Fork and adult holding in the South Fork.
2. Protect existing channel islands (North Fork).
3. Enhance side channel habitat (North Fork).
4. Create scour pools with cover for cold
water refugia (South Fork).

14. Layout of Log Jams and Side Channel

15. Tim Abbe (Entrix) Overseeing Placement
of Uprights for Four-Sided Structure

16. Construction of One-Sided Structure

20. October 2008 - Enhanced Side Channel

21. Phase I
Phase II
Phase IIA

27. Staging Area August 2008
(Peak Flow of 500 CFS)

28. Staging Area November 2008
(Peak Flow of 4000 CFS)

29. Staging Area February 2009
(Peak Flow of 220 CFS)

30. Staging Area August 2009
Peak Flow (430 CFS)

35. South Fork Nooksack River Valley
Issues
• Pool frequency is low, and existing pools are
generally rip-rap formed and lack complex woody
cover.
• Summer water temperatures regularly approach
lethal limits for chinook.
• Riparian corridor is predominantly private
agricultural property.
Restoration Approach
• Create scour pools with complex cover for adult
holding and juvenile rearing.
• Increase availability of temperature refuges by
promoting pool formation in areas of cool water
influence.
• Provide immediate benefit while habitat-forming
processes recover.

38. Gus Kays (Herrera) & Treva Coe (NNR)
Staking Pile Locations

46. July 21, 2008

47. July 31, 2008

48. Nov 12, 2008
Peak Flow 8,500 CFS

49. Temperature Measurements along surface and bottom of South Fork
along backwater reach associated with ELJ’s, July 17, 2009

50. Sygitowicz Creek Reach
•Constructed 7 structures to
promote pool development
and increase wood cover
near the confluence of
Sygitowicz Creek.
•Removed over 100 feet of
rip-rap.

51. Van Zandt Reach
Constructed 14 structures to
promote pool development and
add wood cover.

52. Kalsbeek Reach
• Constructed 11 Structures to promote pool
development and increase wood cover
while improving side channel connectivity
• Placed 14 3-log structures in side channel
to improve instream habitat

54. Funding Provided By:
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
Pacific Salmon Commission
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Environmental Protection Agency

55. Lessons Learned

56. Lessons Learned
Designs need to be constructible and within
budget and equipment capabilities.

57. Lessons Learned
Designs need to be constructible and within
budget and equipment capabilities.
Important to have on site support from
engineers to field fit designs.

58. Lessons Learned
Important to have on site support from
engineers to field fit designs.
Designs need to be constructible and within
budget and equipment capabilities.
Plan storage areas for salvaged vegetation.

59. Lessons Learned
Designs need to be constructible and within
budget and equipment capabilities.
Important to have on site support from
engineers to field fit designs.
Plan storage areas for salvaged vegetation.
Be prepared with additional materials
essential in construction process – slash,
cable, logs.

60. Continuing Challenges
Zero rise constraint (FEMA flood).
Creating designs that satisfy the expectations of
funding agencies.
Building structures that promote habitat benefits
while not increasing risks to landowners.
Finding landowners willing to provide access and
support for salmon habitat restoration projects.

61. Superstar Operator Harlan Harvey

62. Acknowledgements
Tim Abbe, Arthur Flemming, and the team from Entrix
Gus Kays, Michael Spillane, and the team from Herrera
Nooksack Tribal Works including Mike Watson, Roy Nicol, Mike
Ivie, Leo Redfox, Harlan Harvey, Kraig Harvey, and Vincent
Cisneros
Nooksack Natural Resources Department including Jim Bura,
Sindick Bura, Tom Cline, Treva Coe, Ned Currence, Llyn Doremus,
Tim Hyatt, Gary MacWilliams, Michael Maudlin, Jenni Pelc, Loren
Roberts, Russ Roberts, and Roman Swanaset
Special Thanks to Erica Capuana
And many others…