1. PROJECT PLANNING & SCHEDULING - RESOLUTION OF CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS & DISPUTES - GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS
ENGINEERING DESIGN - PROJECT MANAGEMENT - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS & DESIGN - SITE CLEANUP PLANS
598-Report-09-Updated.doc
PHIL MARTINSON ENGINEERING, INC.
PO Box 544 Phone 503-557-1555
Marylhurst, OR 97036 Fax 503-210-0360
October 14, 2006
Jerry Christensen – Chief Geotechnical, Civil & Environmental Engineer
US Army Corps of Engineers – Portland District Phone: 503-808-4906
PO Box 2946 Contact via Lei Lum
Portland, OR 97208
Colonel Thomas O’Donovan Phone: 503-808-4502
US Army Corps of Engineers – Portland District Contact via Diane Shepherd
PO Box 2946
Portland, OR 97208
SUBJECT: Trout Creek Emergency Bank Repair
Columbia Empire Farms
Design Details
ATTACHMENTS:Exhibit A - Ineffective Solution used to Facilitate Permit Approval
Exhibit B - Effective Solution to the Problem
Exhibit C – Summary of Information from NMFS’ Experts
Exhibit D – Memo from Retired General Robert Jenkins who
experienced a similar problem on the Rapidan River
in Madison County, Virginia
Dear Jerry Christensen & Colonel O’Donovan,
This report addresses an erosion problem in Trout Creek, which is located just north
of Madras, Oregon. The specific location is just west of the Highway 97 bridge,
where Trout Creek flows under Highway 97. Following is a summary of the current
erosion conditions and design details describing how we proposed to mitigate the
erosion problem and enhance the creek bank protection to promote fish habitat.
Instead we were directed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to install
J-Hooks as a remedy to stop the erosion problem and prevent any further erosion.

2. Page 2 of 7
Our concern is with erosion at two sites – Site A-B located near the Boulder House
and Site C located near and just upstream from a point referred to as POD 5. Site A-
B is of critical concern due to its proximity to the Drain Field and the main farm
houses. Site C is of critical concern due to its encroachment on the infiltration
gallery located at POD 5.
PROBLEM: In 1964, the highway 97 bridge was destroyed from a flash flood
(common occurrence in this area). The Bridge was rebuilt in 1964
and berms were installed in the flood plain by the Corps of
Engineers. These berms are one of the major factors that have
contributed to this present and ongoing erosion problem. These
berms also need to be removed to prevent further damage to the
creek bank and mitigate the erosion problem.
During times of high water and increased creek flows, the banks
along the creek bed have eroded and caused damage in two critical
areas described as location A-B and location C. The total length of
the creek bed in this area is approximately 60,000 feet, however the
only critical areas (that is sites A-B and C) cover less than 1500 feet.
Thousands of Cubic Yards of material have been lost due to this
erosion which has had a detrimental impact on the farm soils,
irrigation systems, fish population and aquatic habitat in Trout Creek
(which is a tributary to the Deschutes River).
Presently Columbia Empire Farms is looking at losing tens of
thousand of dollars due to this erosion problem not being rectified in
a timely manner. In addition, the State of Oregon is faced with
damage to the fish population and aquatic habitat because of this
unabated erosion from uncontrolled flash flooding. This problem
with flash flooding was made apparent again in Trout Creek on April
2, 2006 when the creek flows went from 300 CFS to over 1,000 CFS
in a 2-hour time period (per the Sage Brush gauging station). What
precious little topsoil there is in this area is being lost to the effects
of flash flooding on unprotected stream banks with detrimental
impacts on the aquatic habitat and fish population. It is imperative
that the soils, private property and fish habitat be protected from
these flash floods before additional irreparable damage occurs.

3. Page 3 of 7
EROSION CAUSED
BY REDIRECTED
FLOW AGAINST
THE CREEK BANK
CREEK FLOW
LOCATION OF SITE A-B (Looking Downstream)
SOLUTION: Columbia Empire Farms has proposed a plan to repair the damage
done to the creek bank and protect the creek bank from further
damage by using Vegetated Riprap. Vegetated riprap is a proven
and effective solution for this type of creek – which is subject to
severe flash flooding. This solution not only corrects the damage
and protects the creek bank from further erosion, it promotes the
growth of natural vegetation to enhance the creek bank and provide
further protection of the fish habitat.
Drawings and additional information describing an effective solution
to the problem are attached as Exhibits B.1 and B.2.

4. Page 4 of 7
VOLUNTEER WILLOWS
WHICH GROW
NATURALLY ON
PROTECTED BANKS
STAGNANT WATER
POOL CAUSED BY
EROSION OF THE
BANK
EROSION
AREA TO BE
REPAIRED
REPAIR AREA OF SITE A-B (Looking Upstream)

5. Page 5 of 7
MAIN TROUT CREEK
CHANNEL
EROSION AREA
TO BE REPAIRED
REPAIR AREA OF SITE C (Looking Upstream)

6. Page 6 of 7
EXAMPLE SITE: The following photograph describes another site that was built
40 years ago that uses rip-rap to protect that bank from erosion.
It enhances the growth of natural vegetation to promote the
aquatic habitat and enhance the fish population. The vegetation
at this site consists of volunteer plantings and natural growth of
the plant life. The repairs we have proposed would follow this
same design, with a specific planting schedule to assure
immediate growth of the vegetation.
MAIN TROUT
CREEK CHANNEL
PAST EROSION AREA
REPAIRED WITH RIPRAP
& SELF VEGETATED WITH
NATURAL VOLUNTEER
PLANTS
RIP-RAPED BANK
PROTECTS FROM EROSION
AND ALLOWS NATURAL
GROWTH &
PROLIFERATION OF
AQUATIC HABITAT
EXAMPLE SITE (Looking Upstream)
REPAIR PROBLEM: We are being prevented from proceeding with effective
repairs due to the approval procedure. Specifically NMFS
(National Marine Fisheries Service) is requiring the use of J-
Hook structures in Trout Creek. Although J-Hooks may
work in typical creeks and streams, Trout Creek is non-
typical with its Flash Flood events and its typical low flows.
The design required by NMFS is attached as Exhibit A.1
and A.2 (please note the designs in these exhibits has been

7. Page 7 of 7
modified slightly prior to final permit approval and field
directives from NMFS). We are proceeding to install the J-
Hooks according to the NMFS’ design criteria, however we
believe this design is a recipe for disaster. The creek bank
will remain unprotected and a flash flood event will again
cause irreparable damage to the creek bank, private property,
permanent loss of fish habitat and further damage to the fish
population. Our experience and investigation of similar sites
which are affected by flash-flood events has confirmed our
fears of the J-Hook design failure. It leaves the creek bank
and the associated vegetation unprotected.
This concern is further supported by two attached reports
which specifically address this problem. Please refer to the
attached reports:
Exhibit C - Summary of Information Received from
the experts recommended by NMFS
Exhibit D - Memo from Retired General Robert
Jenkins who experienced a similar problem on the
Rapidan River in Virginia
This is a potentially serious situation and we are requesting a directive from you to
allow us the permitting approval (in the form of an amendment to the current permit)
that will allow us to install Vegetated Riprap to mitigate any further damage at Sites
A/B and C (less than 1500 feet). Without this approval, we cannot take the necessary
steps to prevent further damage to the creek bank and protect the vegetation along the
creek bank. The erosion that will result from a flash flood will not only damage these
immediate sites but the silt released by a flash flood event will cause irreparable
damage to this fish population and fish habitat located downstream of these sites –
which includes not only Trout Creek but also the Deschutes River.
Your assistance in issuing an amendment to our permit is greatly appreciated. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Philip O. Martinson, P.E.
Civil Engineer & Biochemist

12. EXHIBIT C.1 of 5
MEMO
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) gave the following
recommendations and design criteria for the J-Hook design:
1. Scott Hoefer of NMFS recommended we contact a consultant to assist in
the J-Hook design.
Don Reichmuth
Geomax
1023 West 30th Avenue
Spokane, WA 99203-1324
We contacted Don and discussed the NMFS design recommendations.
Don recommended not using J-Hooks since “J-hooks do not work in the
creeks and streams of the Pacific Northwest.” He said the J-Hooks will all
be washed out and will not work at all.
This will be especially true of Trout Creek with its common Flash Flood
Events.
2. The NMFS staff recommended a website that we use as a resource in
designing a solution to the erosion problem. “I wanted to provide you with
an excellent on-line resource for stream bank protection and would
encourage you to check it out. It includes almost every technique that has
been successfully used. It even includes a section on riprap. If you check
that out it will help you understand why we discourage the use of riprap.
It also includes a section on barbs and their orientation. The link is:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/ispgdoc.htm.”
That website does in fact give design criteria for Vegetated Riprap – which
would be ideal for this site due to the flash flooding events that occur in
Trout Creek.
Page 96 of this report discusses using Vegetated Riprap (as we proposed):

13. EXHIBIT C.2 of 5
Vegetated Riprap - Riprap is typically vegetated by applying soil in
the joints of the rock and planting seed, cuttings or rooted, woody
species. Care must be taken in arranging the soil to make sure it fills
the voids between rocks but does not hold the rocks apart from one
another. Rocks held apart by soil will settle when the soil is washed out
by floodwaters or surface runoff, which may result in destabilization of
the riprap layer. Because a small amount of this settling is inevitable,
the riprap/soil layer should be slightly thicker than it would have been
had no soil been used. The soil should not be installed by pouring it
over the surface of the rocks; doing so will only cause the soil in this
location to be readily washed away by stream flow or surface runoff.
Instead, the surface of the soil should lie about one half of the mean
rock diameter below the top of the rock.
Once the soil is in place, live cuttings can be planted in the soil-filled
joints between the rocks (see the discussion in this chapter addressing
the technique, Woody Plantings). On existing riprap banks, stakes can
be driven through the rock layer and soil can be placed in the voids
created. If the rock is large, a pilot hole should first be created using a
steel rod. Often an apparatus called a “stinger” (a large, steel rod
connected to the arm of an excavator or backhoe) is required to
penetrate the rock layer. Details regarding the stinger are included in
the technique discussed in this chapter called Woody Plantings.
In new riprap installations, live cuttings are inserted in conjunction
with rock placement. Planting in joints creates a more aesthetically
pleasing bank and more terrestrial habitat. Vegetation planted this way
can offer shade, cover and nutrient input to the stream. Woody plants
will provide additional roughness and encourage deposition of fine
sediment on the bank surface. The fine sediment, in turn, will foster the
establishment of additional vegetation

14. EXHIBIT C.3 of 5
3. The J-Hook design was developed by Dave Rosgen. We reviewed his
design criteria and contacted his office.
He told us “In reviewing the site, the radius of curvature is too tight (90
degree bend) and the bank height ratio is too great (bank height above
bankfull stage).”
He also sent us the following drawing showing us we would need to
rechannel the creek to make J-Hooks work.

15. EXHIBIT C.4 of 5
From reviewing the information provided by The National Marine Fisheries
Service and talking with their experts regarding the use of J-Hooks to
stabilize the bank and stop the erosion; we are convinced the only logical
solution is to use Vegetated Riprap to repair the current damage and prevent
a catastrophic event from occurring that will cause irreparable harm and
damage to Trout Creek and to the Deschutes River (located downstream from
Trout Creek).
Following is a summary of our reasons to use Vegetated Riprap:
1. The only way to protect the Creek Bank is with Riprap. We need the
riprap due to the erosion from high waters. We believe the fish are
unaffected since the normal low flows of Trout Creek keep the fish away
from the riprap.
2. In order to address the protection of the vegetation necessary for Fish
Habitat, we have incorporated a design utilizing Vegetated Riprap that
addresses fish habitat and bank protection. It provides bank protection to
stop the erosion and provides protection of the vegetation necessary for
Fish Habitat.
3. Trout Creek is a non-typical watershed since it is known for extreme
fluctuations in water levels associated with flash flooding. Without proper
protection of the creek bank and the vegetation growing on the creek bank,
both the creek bank and the vegetation on the creek bank will be lost
during high flows - causing irreparable damage to the property and the
fish habitat.
4. This is clearly evidenced in the damage caused at sites A-B and C. Both the
vegetation and the creek bank were lost during the high flows at these
locations. There is no doubt this will occur again with a high water event.
The Vegetated Riprap we have proposed addresses both of these concerns.
5. With the Vegetated Riprap design, the only times the creek will be in
contact with the Riprap, is during the flash flood events which normally
subside after a few hours. For this reason the Vegetated Riprap will not
affect the fish habitat. In addition, the vegetation we are incorporating in
the design will enhance the fish habitat by adding shade to the creek and

16. EXHIBIT C.5 of 5
the riprap will protect this added vegetation during these flash flood events
– therefore enhancing the fish habitat and promoting the fish population.
6. We are convinced (from the NMFS experts and the recognized design
criteria standards) the J-Hooks will not work and will be washed out in the
first flash flood event after their installation. We also believe the fish will
have little contact with these J-Hooks because the Trout Creek Flows are
normally very low.

17. EXHIBIT D.1 of 6
MEMO [Reformatted to Simplify Reading]
From: Robert Jenkins Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 7:21 PM
To: Floyd Aylor
Subject: Stream Restoration
Floyd,
I am sorry it has taken me this long to get back to you on your stream restoration questions. I
have been traveling a lot with my job and wanted to look at the section of the Rapidan [a River
located in North-Central Virginia] again (the river I spoke of when I was in Portland). Just got
that done last weekend. When we worked with all the numerous agencies (including the Army
Corps of Engineers) on the stream restoration project, they insisted on putting in J-hook
structures as a means of slowing down the water during times of high water from heavy rain.
Other restoration techniques used were creating turns in the river where none previously existed
and using "root wads" to reinforce the outer stream banks in the turns. Unfortunately, very little
reinforcement [Riprap] of the river banks was done, even when knowing that the original
problem in this area was erosion and eventual collapse of the river bank that allowed the river to
flood the area and threaten a sizeable bridge there. The J-hooks were built of very large stone
(boulders) in a number of places along the river bank, but without any stone reinforcement
[Riprap] along the stream bank, the river simply washed out the bank behind the J-hook and
nullified any effect it may have had. There is a strong belief that the J-hook exacerbated the
bank erosion by channeling the water against and into the bank. One thing is clear; without
reinforcement [Riprap] with very heavy stone (boulders) the dirt banks, where the J-hooks are
located, will wash away with the first significant high water and render the J-hooks useless. The
section of the Rapidan to which I refer, has river banks, where the J-hooks were, that have been
moved by river erosion as much as 25 yards from where they were originally. I noticed this past
weekend that the project managers have gone back in and reinforced some of the turns in the
river with heavy quarry boulders but there still is not enough reinforcement [Riprap] to stop the
severe bank erosion. Having known of and been familiar with the Rapidan River all of my life, I
seriously doubt that we will ever stabilize the section of the river where this project took place
without a major reinforcement [Riprap] of the river banks with heavy stone or some other
material that is equally erosion resistant--particularly on the outer banks of the turns. (Root wads
help but are not very readily available and tend to not last very long.)
The following pictures [the pictures and corresponding descriptions were moved to the end of
this memo] show the area where the restoration project took place.
I believe these pictures clearly show that most of the original project has been destroyed by high
water primarily because we did not sufficiently reinforce the stream banks to prevent erosion.
If you get back to Virginia any time in the future, I will take you to see this section of the
Rapidan. Hope this helps clarify the discussion we had in Portland in August.
Bob

18. EXHIBIT D.2 of 6
The first picture shows where a J-hook was located - but is totally
washed out and the river has moved to the right.

19. EXHIBIT D.3 of 6
The second picture shows a J-hook further up the river that was added
after the original project. It is damaged from high water and the bank
behind it has been severely eroded.

20. EXHIBIT D.4 of 6
The third picture shows a section of the river looking upstream, where
several J-hooks were originally placed. The stream has moved about 25
yards left at the apex of the turn.

21. EXHIBIT D.5 of 6
The fourth picture shows how the stream has migrated to the right by
eroding the unreinforced dirt and gravel stream bank--there was also a J-
hook in this area originally.

22. EXHIBIT D.6 of 6
The fifth picture shows the same as the previous picture from the bridge
above the river. The stream was initially lined up with the bridge to the
left of where it is now located (that is, on the left side of the rock and
gravel bar).