Steelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation Study 6/19/00 Steelhead Haven Landslide: The Steelhead Haven Landslide (SI-IL) is located at approximately river mile (RM) 20 on the North Fork Stillaguamish (NF S) river. Investigations into the cause and effects of (1969) documented the massive failure of January 7, 1967 that damned the NFS for approximately 4 hours. Williams (1975) noted the implications of the slide on the ?sheries in a catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization. The following is an excerpt ?orn that report. ?The principal factor limiting salmon production within the section is sedimentation resulting from a major mud and clay slide on the river?s right bank, at approximately mile 20.4. Below that point, heavy silt deposits cover most of the gravel rif?es, making them unsuitable for successful spawning and egg incubation. This condition also inhibits natural cycles of aquatic insect growth, reducing food production, and consequently lowering the rearing capacity of the stream below?. The factors affecting SI-IL have also been the subject of more recent reports (Benda 1988, Miller and Sias 1997). Benda (1988) identi?ed the groundwater recharge area of the slide and providing timber harvest recommendations Within these areas. Miller and Sias (1997) more rigorously identi?ed the factors a??ecting the slide and documented historical changes. Miller (1999) provided an update on the status of the slide and estimated the current failure potential of the slide. Tracy Drury Steelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation smdy A 6/1 9100 A summary of status quo conditions for the landslide is listed below. For detailed analyses, please see the afore-mentioned reports. Status Quo: Slope instability 0 Fine sediment source - Turbidity and temperature concerns: ie 303 list 0 Located within an area considered habitat limited 0 pool ?lling and redd entombing - Catastrophic failure concerns - Floodplain encroachment Overview: Steelhead Haven landslide is primarily composed of lacustrine clays underlying glacial? ?uvial outwash. Post-glacial ?uvial incision through these deposits has resulted in large- scale mass wasting over time and is the precursor to the landslide?s current unstable conditions. Near vertical scarp faces can be seen sandwiched between intact slumps of forest as a result of multiple failure planes within the slide (?gure 1). There are 3 main spring-fed streams that drain the slide as well as several other signi?cant seeps. These streams deliver a steady ?ux of ?ne sediment to the river, which is integrated into the river?s ?ow and transported Turbidity is greatly increased of the slide which can lead to an increase in temperature during summer months and smothering of salmon eggs due to ?ne sediment intrusion into redds. Turbidity has also prevented monitoring e?'orts from conclusively determining habitat use below the slide. The NFS has been characterized as ?habitat limited? through the Hazel Watershed Analysis (1996). This designation suggests that any and all in-stream work on the NFS should be completed in a fashion consistent with habitat rehabilitation e?'orts. Hence, projects must address the current limiting factors to salmonid stock recovery. Tracy Drury 2 Steelhead Haven landslide: Remediation Study 6/ 1 9! 00 Steelhead Haven Landslide Low ?ow water surface elevation Landslide Failure Planes Figure 1: status quo for Steelhead Haven Landslide. The current interaction of the river and SHL raises concerns about catastrophic failure. The river is currently located at the base of the slide and is actively cutting the toe. This toe cutting removes materials currently buttressing the slide and promoting the dormant state of several failure planes within the slide (?gure 1). Continued toe cutting will undoubtedly result in reactivation of one or more of these failure planes. Miller (1999) estimated the current runout potential of the slide to be 900 it south from the toe of the slide through an area which is currently owned and occupied by private citizens. The development of the ?oodplain has encroached on the river?s natural channel migration and places current residents at risk. Prior to 1967, the river?s location and landslide?s condition were remarkably similar to the current state. The failure event of 1967 temporarily damned the river and runout ?'om the landslide extended several hundred feet south of the livers current location. This resulted in a new river channel running through the historical ?oodplain. Based on the available data, and assuming the future resembles TracyDnuy 3 Steelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation Study 6/19/00 the past, SI-IL poses a signi?cant risk to human lives and private property, since human development of the ?oodplain in this area has steadily increased since the 1967 event. The persistence of this landslide, failure potential, and detrimental effects it induces emphasizes the assertion that immediate attention is given to addressing the current conditions. The objectives developed for potential project remedies range ?om interruption of the imminent geomorphic processes and rehabilitation aimed at historical reconstruction to alteration of embedded human demographic patterns. These objectives aim to address the overall goal of restoring salmonids to healthy harvestable levels. Objectives are summarized below. Objectives: a. Eliminate toe cutting of slope b. Reduce slope failure hazard Stabilize slope Create local holding habitat and increase cover 9-9 Create off-channel rearing habitat Reduce ?ne sediment inputs g. Reduce ?oodplain encroachment Five alternative courses of action are evaluated based upon: ability to meet objectives, technical merit, and feasibility of implementation. Alternatives are labeled 1 through 5 and are listed below. Alternatives: No action Stabilize toe of the slide Provide storage area for landslide materials Protect area equivalent to landslide runout potential Floodplain buyout Tracy Drury 4 Steelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation Study 6119/00 oaavi? Alternative 1: no Action. Selecting the ?No Action? alternative implies that status quo conditions are deemed acceptable or that no other alternative possesses technical merit and feasibility of implementation. In considering the acceptability of status quo conditions one must take into consideration that: a Large, persistent, deep-seated landslides don?t just go away 0 Current slide activity has a detrimental e?'eet on ?sheries habitat 0 Listing of Chinook under the Endangered Species Act mandates action 0 Catastrophic failure potential places human lives and properties at risk The remaining alternatives should be judged individually on the basis of technical merit and feasibility. Alternative 2: stabilize toe of the slide. Stabilization would be achieved by installing large wood debris at the base of the slide. The con?guration of this debris would be in the form of a large wood revetment. This revetment would isolate the river ?om the toe of the landslide and would be constructed in a manor where scour pool development of the active channel would be acceptable (?gure 2). Additional revetment components would be placed to promote entrainment of landslide materials within and behind the revetment. The immediate results of this installation would be the elimination of the toe cutting of the slide and the development of pools and cover for ?sheries habitat. However, slopes are near vertical and cannot be maintained in their current form. Mass wasting and ?uvial sediment transport would continue and the expected habitat bene?ts may be short lived. Landslide materials would quickly overrun this structure resulting in status quo ?ne sediment delivery to the river. Any medium or large scale slumping of the slide would be delivered directly to the river similar to status quo conditions. Further development of the existing failure potential may be curtailed, but this alternative does not address long?term major failure concerns. Tracy Drury 5 Steelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation Study 6/19/00 Steelhead Haven Landslide Log Revetment Landslide Failure Planes Figure 2: log revetment designed to eliminate toe cutting of the slide. Alternative 3: provide storage area for landslide materials. This alternative proposes a series of revetments to eliminate toe cutting of the slide and create settling ponds for ?ne materials that would otherwise be delivered to the mainstem from the multiple streams that drain the slide area. In addition, these structures will create adult Chinook holding habitat similar to that of the NFS Engineered Log Jams (ELJs) and mainstem off-channel habitat currently lacking in the NFS. Revetment A would isolate the landslide from the mainstem NFS and eliminate the toe cutting (Appendix A). The interaction of this structure with the NFS will also create deep pools critical for adult Chinook holding. Revetments B, C, and will create a series of settling ponds to help decrease the magnitude of ?ne sediments delivered to the mainstem NFS. These revetments will also create a pseudo beaver-pond network providing mainstem off? TraeyDrury 6 Steelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation Study 6/19/00 channel habitat. Initially the area created between the landslide and revetment A will be quite expansive and largely a habitat component. As the creeks drain the slide and deliver ?ne sediment, an increasing volume of this area will be converted to ?ne sediment storage. Over time it is possible that the entire area between revetment A and the landslide will be converted to ?ne sediment storage. It is also possible that stabilization of the landslide will occur prior to ?lling the entire storage area and that some off channel habitat will remain over time. Uncertainty remains with respect to the eventual equilibrium condition as well as the time frame of development. An additional habitat component that will develop is a log rail in the stagnation point that will be created by the interaction of the river and revetment A. This will result in an excellent feeding zone with cover for juveniles and adult stream ?shes. Alternative 4: protect area equivalent to landslide runout potential. Miller (1999) estimated the current runout potential of the slide to be 900 ft from the toe. The design for alternative 3 can be altered to accommodate the full runout potential of the slide. This alternative would provide very similar habitat bene?ts as alternative 3, while providing greater storage area for mass wasting materials. Theoretically, even a worst- case failure scenario would be captured within the storage area. Alternative 5: ?oodplain Buyout. This alternative suggests ?oodplain buyout and excavation of a new channel through the ?oodplain. This would move the river approximately 2000 it away from the slide effectively isolating the slide from the river. Revetments discussed in alternatives 3 and 4 would not be constructed. However one revetment would be constructed across the current channel to insure that re-occupation of the current channel did not occur (Appendix A). Construction of the new channel would include the installation of several LWD structures similar to those built on the NFS during 1998 and 1999. These structures would assist in initial channel training and provide in?stream habitat Tracy Drury 7 smelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation Study 6/19/00 components. The new channel could be multi-threaded providing both mainstem and off- channel habitat. Discussion: As a ?rst order evaluation, the ability of these alternatives to meet the designated objectives was considered. For purposes of clarity, objectives and alternatives were compiled into a decision matrix where inputs into the matrix represent ful?llment of the objective (table 1). Table l: objectives meet by alternatives. Objedives a 1 2 Alternatives 3 4 5 From this matrix it can be seen that Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 meet all objectives. Therefore only these alternatives will be further evaluated for technical merit. Technical Merit: Alternative 3: provide storage area for landslide materials. Initially, a ?rst order approximation of the cross-sectional width currently being used by the river was delineated. From ?gure 3 it can be seen that the river currently uses approximately 500 it and an additional 500 it of ?oodplain is available before a ?oodplain terrace is encountered. Private properties, including some full time residences, are located on this ?oodplain terrace. It would be the objective of this alternative to isolate SHL from the river without increasing the ?'equency and magnitude of ?ood inundation on the ?oodplain terrace. Hence, it is suggested that the log revetment be located 500 ft ?om the slide (?gure 3). Tracy D11er 8 Steelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation Study 6/ 1 9/00 . ?ip-Ii Terrace 200 al?rl Figure 3: existing conditions and proposed log revetment placement. This provides the river with approximately 500 ft of cro ss-sectional width matching its current use. The post construction expected conditions are shown in ?gure 4. New river channel Terrace 200 ft 500 ft Figure 4: expected post project conditions. In order to provide a more technical justi?cation for this alternative?s con?guration, data collected and results determined through the study of the 1998 NFS ELI project (Drury 1999) will be drawn from and applied to this site. The 1998 NFS ELI project site is located approximately 1.0 miles upstream (approx. RM 21) from SI-IL. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that hydrologic and hydraulic conditions at the 1998 NFS ELJ project site are representative of conditions at Steelhead Haven. In addition, the effects induced by the installation of the 1998 NFS ELI project can be drawn ?'om when forecasting the expected post project conditions at Steelhead Haven. Tracy Drury 9 Steelhead Haven landslide: Remediation Study 6/19/00 Figure 5 shows actual conditions for the cross-section depicted in ?gures 3 and 4 from the base of the landslide (on the right of ?gure 5) to the edge of the vegetated ?oodplain. These data were collected August 1999 during low ?ow conditions. . . .255 Figure 5: actual current conditions of NFS at Steelhead Haven Landslide. It is shown that the actual cross-sectional width currently used by the river during high ?ow conditions is approximately 550 ft. It is also shown that the high?energy core of the river is located at the base of the slide. Figure 6 showscross?sections for pre and post project conditions associated with the installation of #4 of the 1998 NFS ELI project. The translation of the left bank of the river, ?'orn left to right in ?gure 6, is due to placement of The deepening of the thalweg is a direct result of installation and can be expected in the proximity of log revetment A, suggested as part of this alternative. The width #4 was approximately 34 it while the width of the cross? section was 410 it- This reduced the width of the channel but no effects of this reduction were felt on the right bank. In fact, it is shown that e??ects were only felt approximately 200 from ELJ placement and that conditions at the right bank were not altered. In addition, data collected suggests no detectable change in water surface Tracy 10 Steelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation Study 611 9/00 elevation for a given ?ow between pre and post ELI placement conditions once channel alterations occurred. 235 . o#4_pre const 98 A 99 data 200 300 400 500 600 700 ft Figure 6: pre construction and 1-year post construction at 4, 1998 NFS ELI project. If one applies this 8.3% reduction in cross-section width observed at #4 to the current width at Steelhead Haven, one could infer that a post project channel width of approximately 504 it would be suf?cient to insure conveyance without impacting the far bank. It can also be inferred that water surface elevation will not detectable be altered do to project installation. Therefore the 1999 cross?section data for Steelhead Haven was analyzed to determine water surface elevation for post project conditions. Using data from the 1998 NFS ELJ project and the Manning?s Equation (simpli?ed using the wide channel approximation): Tracy Drury ll Steelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation Study 6/19/00 1.486 A a value for roughness (Manning?s n) of 0.022 was derived. The appropriate values and results are shown in table 2. Table 2: determination of Manning?s 11. Area 4.1 0 0.0023 16339 1962 0.02 Using this roughness value and other site-speci?c parameters, the average depth of ?ow at Steelhead Haven was determined. These data are shown in table 3. Table 3: average ?ow depth at Steelhead Haven. Area ls 0.022 0.0023 1 6339 2073 3.77 This resulted in a water surface elevation cf261.2 ft for this particular discharge. Keep in mind that this is for the largest ?ow recorded during the study period of the 1998 NFS ELJ project. Referring back to ?gure 4, the elevation of the terrace is approximately 264 ft. Therefore, post project conditions for this altemative at the given ?ow would result in a water surface elevation approximately 3 it below that of the ?oodplain terrace. Since there are ?rll time residences located on this ?oodplain terrace, the magnitude of ?ow required for inundation is of interest. Using a water surface elevation of 264 it and backing out the other parameters, Manning?s equation was used again to solve for the discharge that would induce the results. The discharge required was found to be in excess of 40,000 cfs. Results are shown in table 4. Tracy Drury 12 Steelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation Study 9/00 Table 4: discharge resulting in ?oodplain terrace inundation. Area ls 40461 0.0023 0.022 3571 6.50 The likelihood of a discharge of this magnitude at Steelhead Haven is poor. Based on a 66-year hydrologic record at the NFS gauge near Arlington (U SGS 12167000), the 100- year reoccurrence discharge at Arlington is 403 00 cfs. This gauge is located approximately RM 5 compared to Steelhead Haven at approximately RM 20. The basin area at Arlington is approximately 262 square miles compared to 144 at Steelhead Haven (Drury 1999). In summary, deriving a reoccurrence interval for a 40,000 discharge at Steelhead Haven would be speculation, but it can be shown that it would be in excess of 100 years. Alternative 4: protect area equivalent to land slide runout potential. As shown previously in this document, the speci?cations of this alternative are very similar to those of alternative 3 although the location is different. Therefore, technical evaluation and results would be like those for alternative 3, but would be translated an additional 400 ft away from the toe of the slide. One difference between the two alternatives is the location and quantity of private properties that would need to be purchased in order to accommodate the proposed actions. This distinction is discussed in the feasibility section. Alternative 5: ?oodplain buyout. Alternative 5 involves the translation of the river south approximately 2000 ft and would require the excavation of a new river channel. This new channel could be designed with multiple threads and incorporate vegetated islands into the plan form. A speci?c design would be developed once all barriers to implementation are overcome and would be subject to a more detailed topographic map than curreme available. In order to approximate the cross-sectional width of the new channel, a single thread channel was Tracy Drury l3 Steelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation Study 6/19/00 DRAFT evaluated using similar methods as previously outlined. An average ?ow depth of 5.5 it and discharge of 30,000 were assumed. Roughness and slope were assumed to be identical to previously used values. The approximate channel width to accommodate this ?ow was 540 ft. Results are shown in table 5. Table width of new excavated channel. Discharge Slope Depth Area (?nals) (ft) (ft) 30.000 0.0023 5.50 0.022 2960 538 This channel width provides a ?rst order approximation of the area that should be designated for a new channel. The results most likely oversize the channel and are to be used to delineate the appropriate properties that would need to be purchased in order to implement this alternative. More detailed analysis including justi?cation of design ?ow is needed for ?nal channel sizing. Feasibility: It has been shown that in order to successfully address the problems that Steelhead Haven landslide presents, the NFS river?s course must be altered to some degree. In any case, private citizens own the majority of land in the vicinity of the slide. Therefore, the feasibility of implementing an alternative is evaluated based upon ability to secure the private properties required for each installation. There are approximately 100 separate properties local to SHL. Many of these properties have common owners, but it may still be necessary to secure properties ?'om over 30 landowners for a given alternative. Appendix provides a summary of properties, landowners, landuse, and assessed values for these properties. In addition, each property has been given a buyout priority level. These levels represent the following: I. Purchase property: no action required 11. Purchase required for alternative 3 Purchase required for alternative 4 IV. Purchase required for alternative 5 Tracy Drury l4 Steelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation Study 6/19/00 Level I buyout priority is given to land that is currently interacting with the river. Much of this land is host to the active channel at low ?ow, while some is ?oodplain with high connectivity and is within the ordinary high water mark. In all cases properties with level I buyout status are considered vacant, undeveloped, unused land and purchase of these properties most likely would be met with little resistance. Level II buyout includes property that would need to be purchased in order to implement alternative 3. In each case buyout requirements are cumulative in that level II requires that level I property be acquired. Level requires that levels I and II properties are secured and so on. Therefore, level priority adds the additional property needed for alternative 4 and level IV for alternative 5. Alternative 3: provide storage area for landslide materials. As noted prior, implementation of this alternative is contingent on securing the rights to properties with buyout priorities 1 and 2. The approximate cost to purchase level 1 properties is $181,500. Level 2 properties are estimated at an additional $94,500. Total buyout costs for this alternative are estirnated to be $276,000. Construction related costs are approximately $1.0 million. (Appendix C). Therefore, the total cost estimate for this alternative is $1.3 million. Alternative 4: protect area equivalent to landslide runout potential. This alternative requires the additional purchase of level properties at a cost of $832,500. Construction related costs are approximated to be on the order of $1 .0 million. This brings the total cost of this course of action to approximately $2.1 million. Alternative 5: ?oodplain buyout. Tracy Drury 15 Steelhead Haven Landslide: Remediation Study HQ A 6/19/00 The additional cost to purchase level IV properties is estimated at $547,500, making total land purchases $1,656,000. However, construction related costs for this alternative are reduced to $586,760. Grand total for this alternative is approximately $2.2 million. Cost estimates are summarized in table 6. Table 6: cost estimates for alternatives 3, 4, and 5. Alternative 3 4 5 Construction Costs $1.0 $1.0 $0.6 Land Acquisition Costs $0.3 $1.1 $1.6 Total Cost (million) $1.3 $2.1 $2.2 In can be seen ?-om table 6 that alternative 3 is the most cost effective of the three remaining alternatives. Perhaps more important is that securing properties required for implementing this alternative requires that the rights to only vacant, undeveloped, unused land be purchased. Each of alternatives 4 and 5 require that properties used as fulltime residences be bought out. The probability that all property owners within the areas needed for alternative 4 or 5?s plan form are willing sellers is low. Therefore the feasibility of implementation of alternatives 4 and 5 is low. Hence, it is recommended that implementing alternative 3 be pursued. Tracy Drury 16 Appendix A Schematic Plans for Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 DRFT Alternative 3 Log revetment 3' Al Log revetmentA Log revetment Log revetment Existing Channel . 6) en ss?l Project: Steelhead Haven Landslide. North Fork Stillaguamish river approximately RM 20.0 Typical: Plan view of existing conditions and proposed project placement: Alternative 3. Design By Tracy Drury Notes Date Drawn By Tracy Drury 1119100 Current vegetated area . md?d?pigi Terrace Steelhead Haven Landslide Log revetment A . Low flow water surface elevation 500 Cross-section 1250 ft Project: Steelhead Haven Landslide, North Fork Stillaguamish river approximately RM 20.0 Typical: Proposed placement of log revetment A and existing conditions for cross-section A - Design By Tracy Drury Notes Date Drawn By Tracy Drury 1119100 Future vegetated area Steelhead Haven landslide Log revetment A Storage for landslide materials New river Channel Low ?ow water surface elevation 200 Cross-section I 1250 ft Project: Steelhead Haven Landslide, North Fork Stillaguamish river approximately RM 20.0 Typical: Expected post project conditions for cross-section A - Design By Tracy Drury Notes Date Drawn By Tracy Drury 1I19100 Right Bank Log revetment Log revetment Log revetment Series of ?ne sediment settling ponds Flow g? Existing rip rap gag-Cross-section 1500 ft Project: Steelhead Haven Landslide, North Fork Stillaguamish river approximately RM 20.0 Typical: Placement of log revetments B, C,and and expected conditions for cross-section - Design By Tracy Drury Notes Date Drawn By Tracy Drury 1123/00 Steelhead Haven Landslide Mobile debris accumulation If; in stagnation point Landslide material storage Pseudo beaver dam complex Project: Steelhead Haven Landslide, North Fork Stillaguamish river approximately RM 20.0 Typical: Plan view of- expected post project conditions Design By Tracy Drury Notes Date Drawn By Tracy Drury Alternative 4 Log revetment Log revetment A Log revetment Log revetment Existing Channel A '33 .4 Project: Steelhead Haven Landslide, North Fork Stillaguamish river approximately RM 20.0 Typical: Plan view of existing conditions and proposed project placement: Alternative 4 Design By Tracy Drury Notes Date Drawn By Tracy Drury 4122/00 Alternative 5 . Revetment A New Channel Project: Steelhead Haven Landslide, North Fork Stillaguamish river approximately RM 20.0 Typical: Plan view of existing conditions and proposed project placement: Alternative 5. Design By Tracy Drury Notes Date Drawn By Tracy Drury 4I25100 Appendix Property Information for Steelhead Haven owe? Summary of Properties, Landowners, Landuse, Assessed Value, and Buyout Priorities Landuse Key DRAFT VUU: Vacant. Unused. Undeveloped Land Res: Residential Forest: Designated Forest MOSG: Miscellaneous, Open Space. General Estimated Buyout Assessed Buyout Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority Lot Owner Landuse Value Cost Level 1 2 3 4 0 017 Thompson, John VUU $1.000 $1,000 1 1.000 0 018 Moore. Carlos VUU $100 $1,500 1 1.500 0 019 Cheffer. Kim Sue VUU $100 $1,500 1 1.500 0021 Hopkins. Sally VUU $100 $1.500 1 1,500 0 022 Braden, William VUU $100 $1,500 1 1.500 0 023 Welch. Isabel VUU $100 $1,500 1 1.500 0 024 Cohen, Norma Mans?eld VUU $100 $1 .500 1 1.500 0 025 Mursar. Altura VUU $100 $1.500 1 1.500 0 026 Cohen. Norma Mans?eld VUU $100 $1,500 1 1.500 0 027 Cohen, Norma Mans?eld VUU $100 $1,500 1 1.500 0 023 Cohen. Norma Mans?eld VUU $100 $1,500 1 1.500 0 029 Winstead. Leslie VUU $100 $1.500 1 1.500 0 030 Harris. John VUU $100 $1,500 1 1.500 0 031 Click, Edith VUU $100 $1,500 1 1.500 0 032 Cohen. Norma Mans?eld VUU $100 $1,500 1 1.500 0 033 Anderson. Fritz VUU $100 $1 .500 1 1.500 0 034 Anderson. Fritz VUU $100 $1 .500 1 1.500 0 035 Sparecho VUU $100 $1,500 1 1.500 0 036 Sparecho VUU $100 $1 .500 1 1.500 0 037 Harb. Alice VUU $100 $1,500 1 1,500 0 039 Francis, Jay VUU $100 $1,500 1 1.500 0 042 Harb. Alice VUU $100 151.500 1 1.500 0 043 Howell. waiter VUU $100 551.500 1 1.500 0 044 Philips, Anthony VUU $100 $1,500 1 1.500 1 001 Hawkins, Larry VUU $1,900 $1,900 1 1,900 1 008 Larsen. James VUU $2.700 $2.700 1 2.700 1 009 Hawkins, Larry VUU $36,300 $36,300 1 36.300 1 015 Read. Rodney VUU $35,300 $35,300 1 35.300 1 023 Larsen. James VUU $25,900 $25,900 1 25,900 2 006 Keller. Ward VUU $100 $1 .500 1 1.500 2 008 Lavender Moon Society Res $42,400 $42,400 1 42,400 0 012 James. Morris VUU $4,500 $4,500 2 4,500 0 013 James. Morris VUU $4,500 $4,500 2 4.500 0 014 Sparecho VUU $4,500 $4,500 2 4.500 0 015 Taylor. Genevieve VUU $4,000 $4,000 2 4.000 0 016 Thompson. John VUU $1.500 $1.500 2 1,500 0 055 Philips. Anthony VUU $4,000 $4,000 2 4.000 0 056 Woods. James VUU $4,000 $4,000 2 4.000 0 057 Norman. Leon VUU $100 $1,500 2 1.500 0 058 Slauson, Lon VUU $400 $4,000 2 4,000 0 059 Slauson, Donald VUU $400 $4,000 2 4.000 0 060 Slauson, Donald VUU $400 $4,000 2 4.000 0 061 Slauson. Donald VUU $400 $4,000 2 4,000 0 062 Slauson. Donald VUU $400 $4,000 2 4,000 0 063 Kilian. John VUU $400 $4,000 2 4.000 0 064 Kilian, John VUU $400 $4,000 2 4.000 0 065 KilianLJohn VUU $400 $4,000 2 4.000 0 066 Kilian. John VUU $400 $4.000 2 4.000 0 067 Kilian. John VUU $400 $4.000 2 4.000 0 068 Kilian. John VUU $400 $4.000 2 4,000 0 069 Thompson. John VUU $400 $4,000 2 4.000 0 070 Thompson, John VUU $400 $4,000 2 4.000 0 071 Thompson. John VUU $400 $4,000 2 4.000 0 072 Thompson. John VUU $400 $4.000 2 4.000 0 073 Thompson, John VUU $400 $4,000 2 4,000 2 007 Reed. Clyde VUU $2.000 $2.000 2 2.000 0 007 Munsch. Twyla VUU $15,000 $15,000 3 15.000 0 006 Munsch. Twyla VUU $13,000 $13,000 3 13,000 0 009 Wood. Irvin VUU $11,000 $11,000 3 11.000 0 010 Brennan, Michael VUU $9,000 $9,000 3 ?00 0 011 Oster. Herbert VUU $7.000 $7,000 3 7.000 0 045 Phillps, Anthony Res $62600 $62,600 3 62.600 0 046 Forsman. Larry Res $74,900 $74,900 3 74.900 0 047 Parker. Lewis VUU $12,000 $12,000 3 12,000 0 048 Sewell. Emma Res $46,300 $48,300 3 48,300 0 049 Lee. Bruce Res $17,000 $17,000 3 17,000 0 050 Goodrich. Donald Res $63,200 $63,200 3 63,200 0 051 Pearson. Michael Res $75,200 $75,200 3 75,200 0 052 Hargrave, Davis Res 567,800 $67,800 3 67.800 0 053 Gustafson. Mark Res $20,300 $20,300 3 20.300 0 054 Gustafson. Mark Res $20,300 $20,300 3 20.300 1004 Slauson. Donald Res $117,000 $117,000 3 117.000 1 005 Gustafson, Mark VUU $11,500 $11,500 3 11,500 1017 Kilian. John Res $144,300 $144,300 3 144.300 1 018 Lee, Bruce VUU $43,100 $43,100 3 43,100 0 001 Harrell, Kenneth Res $81,700 $81.700 4 81.700 0 002 Jefferds, Seth Res $122,300 $122,300 4 122.300 0 003 Sullivan. John Res $23,600 $23,600 4 23.600 0 004 Dunshee. Dale VUU $16,000 $16,000 4 16,000 0 005 Dunshee. Dale Res $25,600 $25,600 4 25.600 0 006 Dunshee. Dale Res $29,800 $29,800 4 29.800 0 074 Miller. Reed Res $47,200 $47,200 4 47.200 0 075 Bird. Carrol VUU $4.500 $4,500 4 4.500 0 076 Bird. Carrol VUU $4.500 $4,500 4 4,500 0 077 Bird. Carrol VUU $4,500 $4,500 4 4.500 0 078 Bird. Carrol VUU $4.500 $4,500 4 4.500 0 079 Bird, Carrol VUU $4.500 $4,500 4 4,500 0 080 Bird, Carrol VUU $4,500 $4,500 4 4.500 1 007 Larsen. James VUU $43,000 $43,000 4 43,000 1 019 Bird, Carrol VUU $42,900 $42,900 4 42.900 DRAFT 1 022 Larsen. James Res $75,900 $75,900 4 75,900 2 003 Paulson. Thomas MOSG $100 $1,500 4 1.500 2 004 93.001995 VUU $6.500 $6.500 4 6.500 2 010 Paulson. Westey MOSG $100 $1.500 4 1.500 2 011 Paulson. Thomas MOSG $100 $1.500 4 1,500 2 012 Paulson. Ethel MOSG $100 $1,500 4 1.500 0 020 NO INFO 0 038 NO INFO Totals 547.500 Vacant, Undeveloped, Unused Land Project: Steelhead Haven Landslide, North Fork Stillaguamish river approximately RM 20.0 Typical: Property listed as "Vacant, Undeveloped, Unused land" Notes Date 3/1 4100 Drawn By Tracy Drury om? Multiple Properties with Common Owners Project: Steelhead Haven Landslide, North Fork Stillaguamish river approximately RM 20.0 Typical: Multiple properties with common owners Date 3113100 Drawn By Tracy Drury Notes Property?s Buyout Priority Priority 1 I Priority 2 Prion'ty3 Priority4 Project: Steelhead Haven Landslide, North Fork Stillaguamish river approximately RM 20.0 Typical: Property designated by buyout priority Drawn By Tracy Drury Notes Date 4/3l00 Appendix Cost Estimates Quantity Takeoffs Alternative 3 Steelhead Haven Cost Estimates Material Costs: Cost of Key Cost of members 2500 Stackers 2000 of Key of of Length (ft) members Stackers Rackers Revetment A 1200 80 240 240 Revetment 500 85 Revetment 500 85 Revetment 100 1 8 Equipment and Labor. Cost of Rackers Total Cost: Key members 200.000 0 0 0 200,000 Total Material Costs Cost per Cost per Estimated Estimated Months Cost Units hour month Hours 145 240 140 240 140 240 100 240 8600 8000 49 240 30 240 D8 Dozer Track Grapple 1 Track Grapple 2 Track Grapple 3 Track hoe Skidder Tubs Laborers Total Equipment and labor costs 1.5 1.5 34.800 33.600 33.600 24.000 12.900 12.000 35.280 21 .600 207,780 Total Project Costs 250 Total Cost: Stackers 480.000 0 0 0 480.000 Total Cost: Rackers 60.000 21 .250 21 .250 4.500 107,000 $787,000 $994,780 Alternative 4 Steelhead Haven Cost Estimates Material Costs: Cost of Key Cost of Cost of members 2500 Stackers 2000 Rackers 250 of Key of of Total Cost: Total Cost: Length (ft) members Stackers Rackers Key members Stackers Revetment A 1200 80 240 240 200.000 480.000 Revetment 900 150 0 0 Revetment 900 150 0 0 Revetment 500 85 0 0 200.000 480.000 Total Material Costs Equipment and Labor. Cost per Cost per Estimated Estimated Units hour month Hours Months Cost DB Dozer Track Grapple 1 Track Grapple 2 Track Grapple 3 Track hoe Skidder Tubs Laborers 1 45 240 34.800 140 240 33.600 140 240 33.600 1 00 240 24.000 6600 1 .5 12.900 8000 1 .5 12.000 49 240 35 .280 30 240 21 .600 Total Equipment and labor costs 207.780 Total Project Costs Total Cost: Rackers 60.000 37.500 37.500 21 .250 156.250 5836.250 $1 ?44,030 Alternative 5 Steelhead Haven Cost Estimates Material Costs: Cost of Rackers Cost of Stackers Cost of Key members 2000 2500 Total Cost: Key members of Key of of Length (ft) members Stackers Rackers Revetment A 450 30 90 100 75.000 Revetment 450 12.500 15 50 12.500 100,000 Total Material Costs Equipment and Labor: Cost per Estimated Estimated month Hours Months Cost per hour Cost Units 240 240 240 240 34.600 33.600 33,600 24.000 12.900 12.000 1 1.760 21,600 145 140 140 100 D8 Dozer Track Grapple 1 Track Grapple 2 Track Grapple 3 Track hoe Skidder Tubs Laborers 1.5 1.5 8600 8000 49 80 30 240 Total Equipment and labor costs 184,260 Total Project Costs 250 Total Cost: Stackers 180.000 0 30.000 30.000 240.000 Total Cost: Rackets 25.000 12.500 12.500 12.500 62.500 402.500 586.760 Log and Revetment Parameters DR: Diameter of Rootwad DB5 Basal Diameter 01-: Diameter LB: Length of the rootwad Project: Steelhead Haven Landslide, North Fork Stillaguamish river approximately RM 20.0 Typical: Definition of log characteristic metrics Design By Tracy Drury Notes Date Drawn By Tracy Drury ?25/00 Log revetment A Low flow water surface elevation Stacked members I - 25ft Key member Project: Steelhead Haven Landslide, North Fork Stillaguamish river approximately RM 20.0 Typical: Cross-section of revetment A Design By Tracy Drury Notes Date Drawn By Tracy Drury Typical for Log revetments B, C. Low flow water surface elevation Settling Pond for fine sediments 30-40ft $5 ?74. A Project: Steelhead Haven Landslide, North Fork Stillaguamish river approximately RM 20.0 Typical: Cross-section of revetments B, C, and Design By Tracy Drury Notes Date Drawn By Tracy Drury 6/17/00 Log Speci?cations for revetment A and Log Jams Key Members Stacked Members Racked materials Max Min Max Min Max Min DR (ft(inTotal Length (ftLog Specifications for revetment B, C. Key Members Stacked Members Racked materials Max Min Max Min Max Min Total Length (ft) 0 DRAFT