Des Moines City Council Environment Committee members on Jan. 9 reviewed preliminary designs for the Des Moines Creek Estuary Restoration Project, hearing staff and consultants describe options to expand estuary habitat, reduce frequent tidal flooding of the meadow and retain public access and a connection to the Des Moines Marina.

The presentation, led by Surface Water Manager Tyler Beakley and project manager Alex Johnson, described a staff-preferred alternative that would open the mouth of Des Moines Creek, remove sections of hard armoring and create intertidal marsh and backshore planting while raising portions of the upland meadow so park features remain usable more often.

The plan responds to sea-level projections and recent tidal events that flooded the park. Project engineer Nikki Redden said modeling that accounts for sea-level rise to the year 2100 shows a range of future flood frequencies: an elevation similar to a December 2022 king tide is expected annually at the site in 2100, a higher band similar to December 2024 could occur once a month every other year, and a still-higher band could inundate areas past the pedestrian loop “once a month for seven months of the year.” That outlook, she said, makes a low- or no-action alternative unlikely if the city wants to keep current park uses.

Consultant Paul Fendt (Parametrics) described four project subareas—bulkhead/viewpoint, the estuary mouth, Des Moines Creek channel and the meadow—and outlined constraints including steep slopes, a private beach-access agreement that provides neighboring property owners a shoreline route, and existing subsurface utilities. The project footprint also overlaps a National Register of Historic Places boundary; Nikki Redden said work inside that boundary will likely be restricted and require approvals.

Staff showed alternatives that ranged from elevating the meadow in place to a larger, maximum-estuary option. The staff-preferred alternative would keep roughly the same park square footage at the bulkhead, add a gravel or mixed-sediment beach and backshore habitat plantings, and allow a portion of the lawn to transition to estuary habitat while moving the pedestrian loop and raising the meadow to an elevation near 14 feet to reduce frequent inundation. Project team members reported existing meadow elevations vary (about 11 to 13 feet at different points), so raising parts of the meadow could require as little as about 1 foot on one edge and up to roughly 3 feet on the lower edge to reach the target.

Matt Goring, representing Ryan 9 (the regional salmon-recovery partnership created under an interlocal agreement), framed the estuary work within watershed-scale salmon recovery, noting the Marine Nearshore subwatershed’s role in juvenile salmon rearing and foraging. He said nearshore restoration is intended to improve prey availability and shelter for juvenile fish by restoring sediment delivery and nearshore habitat that has been reduced by shoreline armoring.

Committee members asked about effects on parking, park buildings and the private beach-access agreement. Staff said the preferred alternative aims to preserve parking and protect the park access road, but noted the city would not alter private residences or the private access easement; one councilmember asked staff to confirm whether the easement is in perpetuity. On historic structures, staff said they are tracking preservation discussions and that one building raised earlier would likely require further review to determine whether additional elevation or other actions are needed.

On funding and schedule, staff said the city currently has about $500,000 in grant funding to advance design to roughly 30% and is applying for additional grants; they estimated an additional ~$500,000 might be needed to reach 100% design. Staff gave a very rough program timeline that, if grants and permitting align, could see final design in early 2028 and construction in 2029–2030. Staff emphasized that construction funding has not been programmed from city or surface-water utility funds and that the project relies on external grants.

The committee asked for public engagement materials, including more detailed 3-D renderings; staff said they can produce additional renderings and target presenting those at the Feb. 13 environment committee meeting. Staff also outlined next steps for broader community engagement in 2025: a project website, surveys and potential open houses to gather public feedback before narrowing to a preferred design for final grant applications.

Votes at a glance: the meeting recorded routine procedural motions (approval of Dec. 12 minutes earlier in the meeting) and a motion to adjourn at the close; neither had a roll-call tally in the transcript and both were recorded as approved.

Why it matters: The project aims to deliver multiple, sometimes competing objectives—salmon habitat, flood resilience and continued public use of a popular shoreline park—while working within historic-preservation, easement and utility constraints and seeking outside grant funding for design and construction. With sea-level rise projections showing substantially more frequent tidal inundation by 2100, staff presented a design pathway intended to make the park’s core amenities more resilient while restoring nearshore habitat for juvenile salmon.