DOCSLIB.ORG

DFT SMP Restoration Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DFT SMP Restoration Plan JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE PROJECT ECOLOGY GRANT #G0600343 Final Shoreline Restoration Plan October 2008 Prepared by: ESA Adolfson in association with Searun Consulting LaRoche+Associates Coastal Geologic Services Prepared for: Jefferson County Department of Community Development Jefferson County SMP Update Restoration Plan Cover Photo: Chimacum Beach Restoration, by Al Latham. October 2008 Page i Jefferson County SMP Update Restoration Plan ACRONYMS ALEA Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account BMPs best management practices Cfs cubic feet per second CD Conservation District DNR Wahington Department of Natural Resources Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GIS Geographic Information Systems LWD large woody debris MHHW Mean Higher High Water MHT Mean High Tide MRC Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee NGO Non-governmenta1organization NOCS North Olympic Salmon Commission NRC Nodal Riparian Corridor NRCA Natural Resource Conservation Area NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark ONF Olympic National Forest ONP Olympic National Park PNPTC Point No Point Treaty Council PSAT Puget Sound Action Team October 2008 Page 1 Jefferson County SMP Update Restoration Plan PSNERP Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project PSP Puget Sound Partnership PUD Public Utility District RCW Revised Code of Washington RM river mile SASSI Salmon and Steelhead Inventory SCSCI Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative SSHEAR Salmonid Screening, Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Section SMA Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) SMP Shoreline Master Program SWS Society of Wetland Scientists SPAC Shoreline Policy Advisory Committee STAC Shoreline Technical Advisory Committee SICR Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDOH Washington Department of Health WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WSU Washington State University Page 2 October 2008 Jefferson County SMP Update Restoration Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was prepared with guidance from a Shoreline Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) and Shoreline Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC). The County gratefully acknowledges the committee members for contributing to this effort. STAC Members: SPAC Members: Hans Daubenberger Al Bergstein (alt. Cyrilla Cook) Hugh Shipman, Al Latham Jeffree Stewart Aleta Erickson (alt. Randy Johnson) Jill Silver Bill Mahler (alt. Bill Brock) Jim Brennan Bill Miller John Cambalik Connie Muggli Marty Ereth David Roberts (alt. Hugo Flores) Michael Adams (alt. Anne Murphy) Dick Broders Peter Bahls (Jude Rubin) Eveleen Muehlethaler (alt. Frank Espy/Alice Peter Best McConaughy) Randi Thurston (alt. Jeff Davis) Hans Daubenberger (alt. Steve Todd) Richard Brocksmith (alt. Scott Brewer) Jeffree Stewart Stephen Stanley (alt. Susan Grigsby) Jerry Gorsline Steve Allison John Cambalik Steve Todd Johnathon Ciesla Yvonne Dettlaff Judy Surber Karen Best (alt. Kevin Tuuri) Keith Dublanica Larry Crockett (alt Eric Toewes) Margie Shirato (alt. Randi Thurston/Jeff Davis) Marty Ereth Mike McHenry Peter Downey Ross Goodwin Sarah Krueger (alt. Reed Waite) Scott Brewer (alt Richard Brocksmith) Steve Allison (alt. Bob Howell/Tim Snowden) The County also gratefully acknowledges the following staff from Ecology and the Battelle Marine Science Laboratory for their contributions to this effort: • Battelle’s Marine Sciences Laboratory - Heida Diefenderfer and her colleagues for providing detailed information on the ecology of the nearshore environment as part of their effort to rank and prioritize nearshore restoration opportunities. • Ecology - Stephen Stanley, Susan Grigsby for contributing information, maps, and data and providing technical guidance in assessing and characterizing watershed conditions in eastern Jefferson County. October 2008 Page 3 Jefferson County SMP Update Restoration Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Plan Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................1-1 1.1.1 Format and Content – How to Use this Plan...................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Defining Restoration ..................................................................................................................1-3 1.2.1 Difference between Restoration and Protection................................................................................. 1-3 1.2.2 No Net Loss and Restoration ............................................................................................................. 1-5 1.3 Need for Additional Study and Feasibility Assessment.............................................................1-6 1.3.1 Role of the Marine Resources Committee (MRC)............................................................................. 1-6 1.3.2 Data Gaps .......................................................................................................................................... 1-6 2.0 RESTORATION VISION AND GOALS .....................................................................................2-1 2.1 Restoration Vision......................................................................................................................2-2 2.2 Restoration Goals .......................................................................................................................2-2 3.0 WATERSHED OVERVIEW.........................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Watershed Descriptions..............................................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 WRIA 16 (Skokomish-Dosewallips) .................................................................................................3-8 3.1.2 WRIA 17 (Quilcene-Snow) ............................................................................................................. 3-10 3.1.3 WRIA 18 (Elwha-Dungeness) ......................................................................................................... 3-12 3.1.4 WRIA 20 (Sol Duc-Hoh)................................................................................................................. 3-12 3.1.5 WRIA 21 (Queets-Quinault)............................................................................................................ 3-13 4.0 OVERVIEW OF RESTORATION PRIOIRITIES.....................................................................4-1 4.1 Freshwater Restoration Potential................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Nearshore Restoration Potential.................................................................................................4-6 5.0 RECOMMENDED RESTORATION ACTIONS........................................................................5-1 5.1 Programmatic Actions................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Restoration Recomendations - WRIA 16...................................................................................5-2 5.3 Restoration Recomendations - WRIA 17.................................................................................5-13 5.4 Restoration Recomendations - WRIA 18.................................................................................5-50 5.5 Restoration Recomendations - WRIA 20 and WRIA 21..........................................................5-50 6.0 EXISTING RESTORTION PROGRAMS AND PARTNERS...................................................6-1 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ..............................................................................7-1 7.1 Implementation Process .............................................................................................................7-1 7.2 Timelines and Benchmarks ........................................................................................................7-1 7.3 Potential Funding .......................................................................................................................7-3 7.4 Obstacles and Challenges.........................................................................................................7-11 7.5 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Strategies...................................................................7-12 8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8-1 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Watershed Characterization for Eastern Jefferson County Appendix B – Appendix B Battelle Marine Science Laboratory Multi-Scale Restoration Prioritization for Local and Regional Shoreline Master Programs: A Case Study from Jefferson County, Washington Appendix C – Summary of Existing Restoration Programs October 2008 Page i Jefferson County SMP Update Restoration Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1. Jefferson County, Washington, and WRIA Boundaries ..........................................3-1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Olympic Invasives Working Group 2018 Annual Report
    Olympic Invasives Working Group 2018 Annual Report Bohemian knotweed on Fisher Cove Rd, Clallam County, leading to Lake Sutherland, treated for the first time as part of the Clallam County Road Department Integrated Weed Management Plan. Report Prepared by Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board A patch of knotweed found growing on Ennis Creek in Port Angeles. Report prepared by Jim Knape Cathy Lucero Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board January 2019 223 East 4th Street Ste 15 Port Angeles WA 98362 360-417-2442 [email protected] http://www.clallam.net/weed/projects.html This report can also be found at http://www.clallam.net/weed/annualreports.html CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 7 2018 PROJECT ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................... 7 2018 PROJECT PROTOCOLS ..................................................................................... 11 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 14 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 15 PROJECT ACTIVITIES BY WATERSHED ................................................................... 18 CLALLAM COUNTY ...........................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Rivers - Special Rules
    Puget Sound and Coastal Rivers - Special Rules With various fish populations across the state being listed under the Endangered SpeciesAct, WDFW must provide as much protection as possible for all life stages of these populations, in particular for rearing juveniles. For many years, the standard stream rule opened rivers, streams, and beaver ponds to fishing for Game Fish from the first Saturday in June – October 31, with an 8" minimum size, 2 fish/day limit. Consequently, much of the juvenile rearing habitat for resident trout and Dolly Varden and anadromous salmon, steelhead, cutthroat, and Bull Trout was open for fishing. As a result, these juvenile salmonids were at risk of being incidentally caught and may have not survived being handled and released, especially if bait was used. In 2010 we adopted a new management strategy that offered additional protection to stocks in streams draining into Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In 2012 this strategy was extended to the Coast. The basic rule in these waters is that all rivers, streams, and beaver ponds are CLOSED to fishing unless they are listed in the following tables within the Puget Sound, Strait, and Coastal River sections of the pamphlet (see pages 23-51). These tables detail ALL of the fishing opportunity in these drainages. Areas open to fisheries are presented by river system unless the waters drain directly to salt water. All other waters in these drainages are closed to fishing. Beaver ponds located within or connected to streams listed as open toTROUT and Other Game Fish follow the same rules as the stream unless otherwise listed.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B.Pdf
    Draft Environmental Impact Statement Thorndyke Resource | June 25, 2014 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Appendix B Official Letters and Applicable Regulations T-ROC Substantially Complete Letter B-1 T-ROC 408 Scoping Letter B-2 Jefferson County Ordinance 08-0706-04 B-3 Jefferson County 1989 Shoreline Master Program B-4 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code Explanations B-5 B-1 T-ROC Substantially Complete Letter B-2 T-ROC 408 Scoping Letter B-3 Jefferson County Ordinance 08-0706-04 CC'. D~ S '1-04Q- STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson AN ORDINANCE AMENDING } 08-040706- THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE } PLAN TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE } WITH THE FINAL DECISION AND } ORDER OF THE WESTERN } WASHINGTON GROWTH } MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD } REGARDING MLA 02-# 235,THE FHM } APPLICATION FOR A MINERAL } RESOURCES LAND OVERLAY } WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson CommissionersOrdinance #(" as County the Board")has, required by the Growth Management Act,as codified at RCW 36.OI070A.et seq., annually creates and implements a process by which citizens and entities can propose amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan (or CP")," the CP having been originally adopted via Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998 and as subsequently amended and; WHEREAS, a modified version of the proposed amendment known as MLA 02-# 235 [Fred Hill Materials-Mineral Resource Overlay Designation or "MRLO"]was approved to the extent of 690 acres (the "Approved Alternative")by the Board during December 2002; and WHEREAS, the Board's approval of the CP amendment known as MLA 02-# 235 through Ordinance #14-021213- also(known as "Ordinance 14")was timely appealed to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (or WWGMHB"),said WWGMHB remanding the MLA back to the County for further environmental review.
    [Show full text]
  • Tectonic Geomorphology and the Record of Quaternary Plate Boundary Deformation in the Olympic Mountains
    Geological Society of America Field Guide 4 2003 Tectonic geomorphology and the record of Quaternary plate boundary deformation in the Olympic Mountains Frank J. Pazzaglia Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015, USA Glenn D. Thackray Department of Geosciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho 83209, USA Mark T. Brandon Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8109, USA Karl W. Wegmann Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology & Earth Resources, Olympia, Washington 98504-7007, USA John Gosse Department of Earth Sciences, Room 3006, Life Sciences Centre, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4J1, Canada Eric McDonald Desert Research Institute, Division of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, Nevada 89512, USA Antonio F. Garcia Department of Physics, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California 93407, USA Don Prothero Department of Geology, Occidental College, 1600 Campus Road, Los Angeles, California 90041-3314, USA ABSTRACT We use Quaternary stratigraphy to reconstruct landscape evolution and measure tectonic deformation of the Olympic Mountains section of the Pacifi c Northwest Coast Range. An important motivation for understanding orogenesis here, and throughout the Coast Range, is the concern about the relationship of active deformation to seismic hazards associated with the Cascadia subduction zone. There is also much interest in apportioning the nature of the deformation, whether cyclic or permanent, whether it involves mainly shortening parallel or normal to the margin, and how the deformation on the pro- versus retrowedge sides of the orogen compare. Pre-Holocene stratigraphy and structure provide the only records of suffi cient duration to separate long-term permanent deformation from earthquake-cycle elastic deformation.
    [Show full text]
  • Pazzaglia2002 a Fluvial Record of Plate-Boundary
    Pazzaglia, F. J., Brandon, M. T., and Wegmann, K., 2002, A fluvial record of plate-boundary deformation in the Olympics Mountains, in Moore, G., ed., Field Guide to Geologic Processes in Cascadia: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Special Paper 36, p. 223-256 A fluvial record of plate-boundary deformation in the Olympics Mountains Frank J. Pazzaglia Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences Lehigh University Bethlehem, PA 18015 Mark T. Brandon Department of Geology and Geophysics Yale University New Haven, CT 06520-8109 Karl W. Wegmann Washington Dept. of Natural Resource Division of Geology & Earth Resources Olympia, WA 98504-7007 Trip Overview We have constructed a 2-day field trip designed to exhibit the geology, geomorphology, and active tectonics of the Pacific coast of the Olympic Peninsula. The trip is organized around the following three major topics that should generate lively discourse on how to use and interpret basic field relationships in tectonic geomorphology research: (1) What is a river terrace, how is it made, and what do river terraces tell us about active tectonics? (2) What is driving orogenesis for the Olympic Mountain segment of the Cascadia Subduction Zone? Is it shortening parallel to the direction of plate convergence, shortening normal to the direction of plate convergence, or some combination of both? Are there any geomorphic or stratigraphic field relationships that can actually be used to track the horizontal movement of rocks and thus interpret the shortening history over geologic time scales? (3) We know that uplift along Cascadia includes the effects of cyclic earthquake-related deformation, and long-term steady deformation.
    [Show full text]
  • Clearwater River Wild Steelhead Spawning Timing
    CL EARWATER R IVER WILD STE ELHEAD SPAWNING TIMING C. J . Cederholm Washington State Department of Natural Res our ces Rural Route 1, Box 1375 Fo rks, Washington 98331 ABSTRACT: Steelhead spawning timing in the mainstem and tributar­ ies of the Clearwater River was monitored from 1973 t o 1980. Gen­ erally, spawning begins in Janua ry and lasts until late June with mos t tributaries peaking i n Mar ch and April, and the main river peaking in e arly Ma y . Th e spawning timing in the t r ibutaries is more protracte d whe n compared to the main rive r which is sharply peaking . Spawning genera lly occurs in the spring, well after the ma jor annual freshets of No vember through February . It is sug­ gested that this spring spawning timing is an adaptation to avoid egg l oss caused by streamb ed scour, and to e l i minate competition with salmon spawners. Commencement of spawning co inc ides with springtime dec lining streamflows and increasing water tempe ratures . Spawning escapements in the Clearwater Ri ver have increased stead­ ily over the study peri od, due mainly to r educ tions in the Quinault Tribal commercial gil l ne t fi shery catch at Quee ts , and possibly due to an ove rall improvement in l ogg ing road construc­ tion and maintenance pract i ces in the watershed . Th e l argely ind i genous na tive steelhead spawning populations of the Clearwater Ri ver ma y also be influenced by straying adults r e t urning from extens i ve hatchery smol t plants in the Qu eets and c losely adjoining rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update Project Ecology Grant # G0600343
    JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE PROJECT ECOLOGY GRANT # G0600343 Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008 Prepared for: Jefferson County Department of Community Development Prepared by: ESA Adolfson in association with Coastal Geologic Services, Inc. Shannon & Wilson, Inc Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 This document was prepared with guidance from a Shoreline Technical Advisory Committee 3 (STAC) and Shoreline Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC). The County gratefully 4 acknowledges the committee members for contributing to this effort. STAC Members: SPAC Members: Hans Daubenberger Al Bergstein (alt. Cyrilla Cook) Hugh Shipman, Al Latham Jeffree Stewart Aleta Erickson (alt. Randy Johnson) Jill Silver Bill Mahler (alt. Bill Brock) Jim Brennan Bill Miller John Cambalik Connie Muggli Marty Ereth David Roberts (alt. Hugo Flores) Michael Adams (alt. Anne Murphy) Dick Broders Peter Bahls (Jude Rubin) Eveleen Muehlethaler (alt. Frank Espy/Alice Peter Best McConaughy) Randi Thurston (alt. Jeff Davis) Hans Daubenberger (alt. Steve Todd) Richard Brocksmith (alt. Scott Brewer) Jeffree Stewart Stephen Stanley (alt. Susan Grigsby) Jerry Gorsline Steve Allison John Cambalik Steve Todd Johnathon Ciesla Yvonne Dettlaff Judy Surber Karen Best (alt. Kevin Tuuri) Keith Dublanica Larry Crockett (alt Eric Toewes) Margie Shirato (alt. Randi Thurston/Jeff Davis) Marty Ereth Mike McHenry Peter Downey Ross Goodwin Sarah Krueger (alt. Reed Waite) Scott Brewer (alt Richard Brocksmith) Steve Allison (alt. Bob Howell/Tim Snowden) 5 The County also gratefully acknowledges the following for their contributions to this effort: 6 • Battelle’s Marine Sciences Laboratory - Heida Diefenderfer and her colleagues for 7 providing detailed information on the ecology of the nearshore environment as part of 8 their effort to rank and prioritize nearshore restoration opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Olympic Invasives Working Group 2019 Annual Report
    Olympic Invasives Working Group 2019 Annual Report Bohemian knotweed on the sand spit at the mouth of the Hoko River. Report Prepared by Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board A patch of knotweed contiguous to a previous treatment site (dead stalks visible in the foreground) that CCNWCB staff was finally able to treat in 2019 with new permission. Report prepared by Shea McDonald Cathy Lucero Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board January 2020 223 East 4th Street Ste 15 Port Angeles WA 98362 360-417-2442 [email protected] http://www.clallam.net/weed/projects.html This report can also be found at http://www.clallam.net/weed/annualreports.html CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 7 2019 PROJECT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 7 2019 PROJECT PROTOCOLS ................................................................................................. 11 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 14 2020 PROJECT PRIORITIES INCLUDE ................................................................................... 15 RECOMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 16 PROJECT ACTIVITIES
    [Show full text]
  • A Fluvial Record of Long-Term Steady-State Uplift and Erosion Across the Cascadia Forearc High, Western Washington State Frank J
    [American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, April/May, 2001,P.385–431] A FLUVIAL RECORD OF LONG-TERM STEADY-STATE UPLIFT AND EROSION ACROSS THE CASCADIA FOREARC HIGH, WESTERN WASHINGTON STATE FRANK J. PAZZAGLIA* and MARK T. BRANDON** ABSTRACT. Six late Quaternary river terraces, preserved along the Clearwater River in northwestern Washington State, provide a ϳϳ140 ka record of long-term incision and uplift across the western side of the Cascadia forearc high. Terrace ages are constrained by weathering rind and radiocarbon dating and by correlation to dated coastal glacio-fluvial deposits and the global eustatic curve. The terraces overlie flat bedrock surfaces, called straths, which represent uplifted segments of the river channel. Bedrock incision is measured by the height of a strath relative to the adjacent modern river channel. The straths along the Clearwater show an upstream increase in bedrock incision, ranging from ϳϳ0 at the coast to a maximum of 110 m in the headwaters. The incision at any point along the profile increases systematically with strath age. The calculated incision rates range from <0.1 m/ky at the coast, to ϳϳ0.9 m/ky in the central massif of the Olympic Mountains. These rates are in close agreement with published long-term erosion rates estimated from fission-track cooling ages. The coincidence between bedrock incision rates and erosion rates suggests that over the long term (>ϳϳ10 ky) the Clearwater River valley has maintained a steady-state profile defined by a long-term balance in the rates of incision and rock uplift. Upstream divergence of terraces is best explained by an increase in the rate of rock uplift from the coast toward the central part of the range.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Steelhead Abundance: Washington NW Coast and Puget Sound (With Particular Emphasis on the Hoh River)
    Historic Steelhead Abundance: Washington NW Coast and Puget Sound (With Particular Emphasis on the Hoh River) Bill McMillan Field Biologist, Wild Fish Conservancy 40104 Savage Rd. Concrete, WA 98284 (360) 826-4235 Determining Escapement Goals to Rebuild Wild Steelhead Populations: What Role Should Stock Recruit Analysis Have? Nick Gayeski Resource Analyst, Wild Fish Conservancy P.O. Box 402 Duvall, WA 98019 (425) 788-1167 Prepared for the Wild Salmon Center May 2006 Acknowledgments This paper was the vision of Pete Soverel, founder of the Wild Salmon Center. He was concerned that recent Hoh River land purchases made on Washington's Olympic Peninsula (through the coordinated efforts of the Western Rivers Conservancy and Wild Salmon Center with the support of Washington Department of Natural Resources through Section 6 funding under the supervision of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) may ultimately fail to help restore Hoh River steelhead populations back to anything like historic numbers. He felt one reason for this may be the lack of an appropriate history from which to assess the present status of Hoh River steelhead, and for want of that history steelhead managers may not provide sufficient escapement for effective restoration to occur even if all available habitats were returned to a high level of salmon and steelhead productivity. Knowing that Puget Sound steelhead were petitioned for listing with growing evidence its steelhead populations were but small fractions of their former abundance, he felt comparisons with Puget Sound rivers and other Olympic Peninsula rivers may help to fill in historic gaps in the Hoh River historic record.
    [Show full text]
  • Olympic Peninsula
    A Paddler's Guide To The OLYMPIC PENINSULA A comprehensive guide to 7S river runs on Washington's beautiful Olympic Peninsula By Gary Korb '*' otin\~ on recycled paper The Olympic P e ninsula is a la nd of rivers, a land that owes its shape. its beauty, and the incredible richness of its natural systems to the power offal ling wa ter. Peninsula rive rs radiate oul fl'Om the heart of its mountainous core in t hunderous rapids and quiet blue pools only to thread like bright dancers through the deep green fOre8ts of the lowland valleys. Each Olympic river has itS own character. its own navor and mood. The Duckabush like a coiled spring as it c uts through its narrow gorge below Big Hump, or the quiet powe r of the Elwha 88 it s lows against its rock walls above the temporary nuisance of Glines Canyon Dam .. _ TIle Soledtlc k In fall whe n wild Coho mng t hemseh es against the boiling waters of Salmon CascadCflj or the Queets in winter flood as it pulls down a centuries-old spruce or calves orr a section of road as if th€'! la nd were its plaything. I've found no other pis ...... whcre the wealth, diversity. and wild free-flowing character of rlvE"J"8 is more abundant t han the Olympic Pe nins ula. And I can think I r no one more intimate with the Olympics' dazzling waters than Gary K h l' • Gury's knowledge of Pcn.i.R8ula rivers is extens ive, and the personal storks that accompany his descriptions or runs first rate.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Olympic Invasives Working Group
    Crews from Quileute Natural Resources, North Cascades Exotic Plant Management Team with the National Park Service, and Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Program treating knotweed on Quillayute River. 2017 Olympic Invasives Working Group Report Prepared by Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board A patch of knotweed found growing on Ennis Creek in Port Angeles. Report prepared by Rachel Bowen Cathy Lucero Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board December 2017 223 East 4th Street Ste 15 Port Angeles WA 98362 360-417-2442 [email protected] http://www.clallam.net/weed/projects.html This report can also be found at http://www.clallam.net/weed/annualreports.html CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 8 Project Goal ........................................................................................................................ 8 Project Overview ................................................................................................................. 8 2017 Overview .................................................................................................................... 8 2017 PROJECT ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 7 2017 PROJECT PROTOCOLS ..........................................................................................11 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
    [Show full text]