2. 1-11-08 River Road Silt Bench North Levee Puyallup River Lower Puyallup River

3. 1932 Channel and floodplain confinement in the early 1900s

4. Problem: Bank erosion threatening critical levee

5. Project Site 2004 (Figure 3, CHE 2005) Original shoreline Snag

6. Project Site 9/27/07 Original shoreline Snag River up to ordinary high water owned by Puyallup Tribe. “ silt bench” North Levee

7. 2004 2007 & 2008 10 yr, 41,000 cfs, 24.25 ft 100 yr, 48,000 cfs, 26.5 ft 2 yr, 22,000 cfs, 14.75 ft 1 yr, 11,000 cfs, 7.0 ft

8. Predicted 10 year flood velocities (RMA2) at the project site are between 6 to 7 fps.

9. Historic North Levee Structure

10. Construction of a “silt bench” along inboard side of historic levee was critical element in protecting toe of levee Silt Bench Problem: Erosion of Silt Bench Goal: Protect Silt Bench

11. Historic elements: concrete slope

12. Historic elements: Cedar brush matting underlying silt bench It is unclear regarding the extent of this work – there is no direct evidence from corings or bank stratigraphy it was done at site.

13. Eroding bank into historic concrete armoring Right Bank of Puyallup River 01/11/08: GOAL – Prevent this from occurring at project site.

14. Existing Bank Conditions along Lower Puyallup River

15. 1-30-08 1-30-08 Smooth, no cohesion Rough, lots of cohesion High basal and bank shear stress Low basal and bank shear stress

16. Natural bank evolution

17. Bank Erosion, slumping

18. Project Site 01/11/08: looking upstream at bank slump Submerged trees increase bank roughness

19. 1-30-08 Deposition of woody debris along slumped trees

20. 1-30-08 Sand deposition along bank due to increased roughness

21. Right Bank of Puyallup River 01/11/08: Naturally re-constructed silt bench shoreline Naturally reconstructed shoreline, note buried trees along bank

23. Conceptual Model Illustrating the Geomorphic Evolution of Silt Bench or the ‘natural’ evolution of an inset floodplain in an oversized channel

24. Geomorphic Evolution of Puyallup Silt Bench Flood conveyance channel oversized relative to dominant flows

25. Geomorphic Evolution of Puyallup Silt Bench Sedimentation and bar formation resulting from over-sized channel

26. Geomorphic Evolution of Puyallup Silt Bench Plant colonization and sedimentation

27. Geomorphic Evolution of Puyallup Silt Bench Plant growth, accelerated sedimentation, and first signs of toe erosion

28. Geomorphic Evolution of Puyallup Silt Bench Toe erosion under-cuts bank, tension cracking and slumping

29. Geomorphic Evolution of Puyallup Silt Bench Tree falls into channel forming snag that adds toe roughness. Fallen tree straightens out getting “pistol butt trunk”, snag and vegetation reverses erosion

30. Geomorphic Evolution of Puyallup Silt Bench Colonizing vegetation further roughens bank, adds root cohesion and accelerates bank re-construction

31. Geomorphic Evolution of Puyallup Silt Bench Without cohesion and roughness provided by trees bank erosion continues - channel shifting occurs similar to historic changes in location of point bar With no riparian trees, bench is at elevated risk of erosion

32. Evidence is mounting that riparian vegetation is effective in slowing erosion Allen, Stephen B., John P. Dwyer, Douglas C. Wallace, and Elizabeth A. Cook, 2003. Missouri River Flood of 1993: Role of Woody Corridor Width in Levee Protection. J. of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 39(4):923-933. The presence of woody corridors played a significant role in preventing damage to levees and reduced failure lengths by half along a 353-mile segment of the lower Missouri River during the flood of 1993.

33. Normalized Erosion Rates for old and young forest classes Abbe et al. 2004. Data from Queets and Hoh river valleys of Olympic Peninsula indicate that larger riparian trees result in slower erosion rates. Large Trees (>21”) Small Trees (<21”) median 75% tile 25% tile maximum minimum

34. Micheli, E.R., J.W. Kirschner, and E.W. Larsen 2003. Quantifying the effect of riparian forest versus agricultural vegetation on river meander migrations rates, Central Sacramento River, California, USA. River Research and Applications. 19. 1-12. Central Sacramento River channel migration rates (Agricultural erosion rates) = 2 * (Forest erosion rates)

35. Developing levee protection alternatives that work emulate natural processes in the Lower Puyallup

36. * Erosion Protection Measure: complex dynamic revetments, engineered logjams Vegetated buffers offer additional protection and environmental benefit Traditional levee protection a Armored vegetated buffer

39. Solution: A complex dynamic revetment emulating natural riparian shoreline Silt Bench Levee River

41. Relatively easy to incorporate wood debris

42. Construction visualization Construction can be accomplished all with single large excavator

43. Silt Bench River Levee

48. Construction Ground delivery Crew of 2 1 450 Excavator

49. Pile placement

50. Dolo and timber placement

51. Dolo and timber placement

52. Dolo layer one

53. Dolo layers two and three

54. Dolo layer four

55. Completed revetment

56. Completed revetment

57. Questions? Project completed on time and on budget, saving over $1M compared to other alternatives.