DOCSLIB.ORG

Riverbend Levee Setback and Floodplain Restoration Cedar River Alternatives Analysis Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Riverbend Levee Setback and Floodplain Restoration Cedar River Alternatives Analysis Report Riverbend Levee Setback and Floodplain Restoration Cedar River Alternatives Analysis Report 10/5/2016 Prepared by: Jon Hansen, Project Manager Sarah McCarthy, Senior Ecologist Kate Akyuz, Senior Ecologist Todd Hurley, LEG, Senior Geologist Jay Smith, PE, Senior Engineer Alex Hallenius, PE, Senior Engineer Will Mansfield, PE, Supervising Engineer Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks RIVERBEND ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OCTOBER 5, 2016 Table of Contents Table of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Project Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................. 3 Goal 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Goal 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Goal 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Goal 4 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Location .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 7 Hydrology and Hydraulics ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Geology and Geomorphology....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Habitat and Fish Use ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Recreational Use .............................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Relevance and Urgency ......................................................................................................................... 14 Consistency with regional planning efforts ...................................................................................................................... 14 Urgency ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Project Alternatives ................................................................................................................................... 16 Project Elements .................................................................................................................................... 16 Riverbend Upper Options ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 Riverbend Lower ............................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Herzman Options ............................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Expected Effect of Project Options ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Alternative Descriptions ....................................................................................................................... 20 Alternative 0. No action ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Alternative 1. Full Floodplain Reconnection and Herzman Removal ................................................................. 20 Alternative 2. Moderate Floodplain Reconnection, Herzman Removal, and High Pond Connection 20 Alternative 3. Moderate Floodplain Reconnection, Herzman Removal, and Low Pond Connection 20 Alternative 4. Moderate Floodplain Reconnection, No Herzman Removal, and High Pond Connection .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Alternative 5. Low Floodplain Reconnection, No Herzman Removal, and Low Pond Connection .... 21 Alternative 6. Low Floodplain Reconnection, No Herzman Removal and No Pond Connection ......... 21 Alternatives Analysis Methods ................................................................................................................. 28 Site Investigations/Existing Data Collection ....................................................................................... 28 ii RIVERBEND ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OCTOBER 5, 2016 Hydraulic Modeling ............................................................................................................................... 30 Geomorphic Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 31 Permitting and Stakeholder Consultation ........................................................................................... 31 Alternative Scoring ................................................................................................................................ 31 Screening Criteria ............................................................................................................................................................................ 31 Readiness Criteria ........................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Findings ...................................................................................................................................................... 39 Habitat .................................................................................................................................................... 39 Flood ....................................................................................................................................................... 39 Recreation .............................................................................................................................................. 40 Cost Effectiveness .................................................................................................................................. 40 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 41 Rating of Project Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 41 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 41 Future Considerations Related to the Recommended Alternative .................................................... 42 Project design development ...................................................................................................................................................... 42 Additional analyses required to advance project .......................................................................................................... 42 Risks and Constraints .................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Permitting ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 43 Project sequencing .......................................................................................................................................................................... 43 Funding and Acquisitions ..........................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (General Insurance
    8, 1909. 8 THE SEATTLE REPUBLICAN FRIDAY, JANUARY and the defects of NORTHWEST BRIEFS. achievements Scandinavian American Bank. the Brother in Black. In a few A resolution was introduced at Write Today straight-forward, clean-cut re- a copy meeting the city for of the recent of marks, free from partiality or "THE BANK ACCOUNT" council asking Mayor John E. prejudice, he pointed out to his a new, neat little 8-page paper aa full Philadelphia, of good things as an egg is of meat. Reyburn of to send auditors the shortcomings of the MAILED FREE. the Liberty Bell to the Alaska- Negro and deplored the fact there The Scandinavian-American Bank, Yukon-Pacific Exposition. was such a general impulse with Alaska Building, Seattle, Wash. d'Oreille River Navi- them to rush to the already over- The Pend E. N. BROOKS & CO. gation Co. has just inaugurated crowded cities where the cost of For Frills For Men. the best river service which the living is the highest and competi- HXQK traveling 1 public has ever enjoyed tion the" greatest. With Booker CLASS HABEBDASEEBT on that river. T. Washington, Mayor Miller 1331 Second Aye., Seattle, Wash. agreed life of the agri- The teachers' institute held in that the culturist is the most independent Spokane is being well attended. • Albert Hansen. existence in the world. He men- Eyes Carefully Examined and Two-thirds of the Columbia riv- tioned the fact that along many Properly Fitted With Glasses er bridge is completed and about lines the Negro had already at- 706 First Avenue.
    [Show full text]
  • Cedar River State Water Trail
    A WATER TRAIL GUIDE TO THE CEDAR RIVER Iron Horse Prairie BLOOMING S.N.A. 2 2 24 PRAIRIE 16 20 STEELE CO. DODGE CO. 15 9 FREEBORN CO. MOWER CO. 56 34 218 Cr eek 36 30 WALTHAM 1 1 NEWRY 20 Mud 16 25 1 SARGEANT 105 Creek CEDAR 34 103 57 Deer 218 RIVER MAPLE ISLAND CORNING MAYVILLE 251 Roberts HOLLANDALE 36 25 Cr eek LANSING 20 CORNERS 2 25 2 34 LANSING BROWNSDALE 2 RENOVA 16 30 Hickory Lake 61 Wild Indigo Prairie S.N.A. 36 Ramsey Mill 19 Pond W.M.A. 104 ANDYVILLE 25 Wild Indigo Prairie S.N.A. Carex Ramsey Mill Pond Cr eek W.M.A. Murphy RAMSEY 16 25 218 Creek Moscow Creek Wolf Ramsey Mill Pond 25 Portage (R) 125 Yds Turtle 27 20 J.C. Hormel 56 Nature Center Dobbins 102 Creek 61 34 Austin Mill Pond NICOLVILLE 102 East 90 OAKLAND Schrafel 90 W.M.A. Side 90 HOLLANDALE Lake Mentel 46 46 AUSTIN JUNCTION Portage (L) 250 Yds W.M.A. 218 19 Roosevelt Bridge Creek 90 Driesner Park 15 3 3 30 Orchard 105 Cedar River A.M.A. Rose 28 28 river level development) trail (future gauge Creek Route Description for the Cedar River RIVER NOTE: (R) and (L) represent right and left banks of the river when facing downstream. Cedar River Riverwood Landing A.M.A. 25.0 County Road 2 bridge ROSE River VARCO 4 24-21.6 Ramsey Mill Pond W.M.A. 4 218 CREEK Lyle-Austin W.M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Sockeye Salmon in Lake Washington
    Cedar River Sockeye Past and Present • History of the Watershed and Re-Configuration of the Basin • Baker Lake Sockeye Introductions • Lake Washington Water Quality Clean-Up • Sockeye Adult Returns • Current Limiting Factors for Juvenile and Adult Sockeye • Expectations for Future Returns (WDFW Model) ~17,000 Years Ago Vashon Glaciation Period Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet Waterlines is a project of the Burke Museum. Please visit us to learn more about Seattle’s past landscapes. www.burkemuseum.org/waterlines Captain Burrows Pleasure Resort, 1906 Captain Burrows resort at the mouth of the Black River from 1897 to 1917 [Renton Historical Society note]. Sign in image: Captain Burrows. Summer-Winter Pleasure Resort. Good Fishing-Hunting-Boating . Renton Historical Society collection, UW (648A) • “The only fish in them is a species of trout, very few in number, the largest of which are about a foot in length.” • Hammond 1886, in reference to Lakes Washington and Sammamish. • "A small salmon was said to live permanently in Lake Washington spawning in the creeks which emptied into the lake. The Duwamish of that section were said to prefer this salmon to that which entered the rivers from the Sound.” • Smith (1940), reporting on cultural interviews with local tribal elders. City of Renton created a new waterway in 1912 that diverted the lower Cedar River from the Black River into Lake Washington. (Buerge 1985) The purpose of this 2,000 foot channel was to abate flooding and to provide a “Commercial Waterway” for sea-going vessels after the completion of the ship locks at Ballard.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Impacts on Water Management in the Puget Sound Region, Washington, USA Julie A
    Climate Change Impacts on Water Management in the Puget Sound Region, Washington, USA Julie A. Vano1, Nathalie Voisin1, Lan Cuo1,2, Alan F. Hamlet1,2, Marketa McGuire Elsner2, Richard N. Palmer3, Austin Polebitski1, and Dennis P. Lettenmaier1,2 Abstract limate change is projected to result, on average, in earlier snowmelt and reduced summer flows, patterns that are not well represented in the historical observations used for planning and reliability analyses by water utilities. CWe extend ongoing efforts in the Puget Sound basin cities of Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma to characterize differences between historic and future streamflow and the ability of the region’s water supply systems to meet future demands. We use future streamflow simulations for the 2020s, 2040s, and 2080s from the Distributed Hydrology-Soil- Vegetation Model (DHSVM), driven by climate simulations archived by the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We use ensembles of streamflow predictions produced by DHSVM forced with multiple downscaled ensembles from the IPCC climate models as inputs to reservoir system models for the Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma water supply systems. Over the next century, under average conditions all three systems are projected to experience a decline and eventual disappearance of the springtime snowmelt peak in their inflows. How these shifts impact water management depends on the specifics of the reservoir system and their operating objectives, site-specific variations in the influence that reductions in snowmelt have on reservoir inflows, and the adaptive capacity of each system. Without adaptations, average seasonal drawdown of reservoir storage is projected to increase in all of the systems throughout the 21st century.
    [Show full text]
  • Moose River Plains Wild Forest - South Anc D Little Moose Wilderness Owns
    l r T s e d a Protect Yourself c s ^ ok Hiking trails can be rough and rugged a Bro • Moose River Plains Wild Forest - South anC d Little Moose Wilderness owns ! Br - they are not maintained as park Eighth Lake id E [J!j Sagamore c d walkways - wear boots or shoes See North Map Campground la a ! Lake P o e R designed for hiking. [J!(!G k Indian !9 ! " a ! !j L Lake ] - • Know the weather forecast; plan and e Sag k l am roo l Sugarloaf Fourth o [J!( st B i re Lo v Mtn prepare based on current and [J h Lake !0 R t d r forecasted conditions. !G o !S p N o B L U E R I D G E r • Pack a day pack with items like water, o e Inlet Sixth !0 L W I L D E R N E S S v [J i Lake e ! flashlight, extra clothing, etc. k ra R !0 e a Ko Lak ke Seveth L La • Sign in and out of all trail registers th Mohegan l h n i nth- t Wakely d eve ig Lake M ! that you encounter. a R S ly j! !( r E Pond ?g ke Wak r [J T a ely M Trl a W tn d Respect Others n e t M O O S E R I V E R !A iln k C k M o • Be courteous of all other users e P L A I N S W I L D ro ! im B (10) j! !(!G L F O R E S T ey [J regardless of their sport, speed or e dl ak ra Limekiln L ake L B Cellar Pd t[ skill level.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Washington the Cedar River Watershed Is One of Two
    INTERNAL REPORT 102 FOREST PLANTCOMMUNITIESOF THELOWER CEDARRIVER WATERSHED D.R. M. Scott and J. Long University of Washington INTRODUCTION The Cedar River Watershed is one of two principal sites for the Western Coniferous Biome of the International Biological Program (IBP). Various physical add biological components of the watershed are being intensively studied as part of the Analysis of Ecosystems objectives of IBP. The purpose of this report is to present the results of an initial recon- naissance-level study of the forest vegetation of the watershed. The . tentative delineations and descriptions of this vegetation may be useful in the stratification of the watershed for intensive ecological research. A proposal for an inventory of terrestrial ecosystems of the Cedar River drainage by Scott and Del Moral (1971) was not funded for 1972. However, a half-time graduate student salary for six months and some transporta- tion were made available. This limited funding made possible the initiation of a survey of the forest communities of the watershed. The emphasis during this first field season was placed on the vegetation of the lower watershed. This decision was based on several factors, including the uncertainty of, transportation to the upper watershed and the fact that some study of the upper watershed, specifically the Findley Lake Basin, had already been completed (Del Moral, unpublished). DESCRIPTION OF THE LOWER WATERSHED The lower watershed can be defined, for the purposes of this report, as that part of the Cedar River Watershed below 600 m in elevation. On this basis it represents approximately 14,000 ha or 40% of the total watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashland Post Fire Landscape Assessment 2014 2
    Ashland Post Fire Landscape United States Assessment Forest Depart ment of Service Agriculture Ashland Ranger District Custer National Forest Powder River and Rosebud Counties, MT May 2014 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Ashland Post Fire Landscape Assessment 2014 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Ashland Ecological and Social/Economic Niche .............................................................................. 11 1.1.1 Livestock Grazing ...................................................................................................................... 11 1.1.2 Mixed Prairie and Forest ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Frequent Mass Movements from Glacial and Lahar Terraces
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Frequent Mass Movements From Glacial and Lahar 10.1029/2020WR028389 Terraces, Controlled by Both Hillslope Characteristics Key Points: and Fluvial Erosion, are an Important Sediment Source to • Glacial and lahar terraces deliver sediment to Puget Sound Rivers Puget Sound Rivers primarily via frequent, small mass movements Daniel N. Scott1 and Brian D. Collins1 • Terrace sediment has a substantial coarse-grained fraction, is likely 1Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA resistant to attrition, and is delivered low in river networks • Considerable spatial variation in size and frequency of mass movements Abstract Mass movements from glacial and lahar terraces in the middle and lower reaches of rivers is partly explained by hillslope draining the Washington Cascade Range to Puget Sound may represent a substantial but poorly quantified geometry and failure mechanism portion of those rivers' sediment supply and pose significant mass movement hazards. We used repeat LiDAR elevation data, aerial imagery, and well logs to quantify and characterize terrace sediment delivery Supporting Information: in nine major watersheds over a median period of 12 years. In the 1,946 river kilometers for which repeat Supporting Information may be found LiDAR was available (71% of the 2,736 total river kilometers flanked by terraces), 167 mass movements in the online version of this article. eroded 853,600 ± 19,400 m3/yr. Analysis of mass movement frequency and volume indicates that terrace sediment delivery is dominated by small, frequent mass movements, as opposed to large, infrequent ones Correspondence to: like the 2014 Oso landslide. This sediment source is low in river networks, well connected to streams, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Maple Valley/Cedar River Unincorporated Area Work Plans 2016 - 2017 King County Projects & On-Going Programs
    Greater Maple Valley/Cedar River Unincorporated Area Work Plans 2016 - 2017 King County Projects & On-going Programs Community Service Areas King County’s Unincorporated Communities Greater Maple Valley/Cedar River Area lies east of the cities of Renton and Kent and north of Covington, Maple Valley and Black Diamond and extends east to the border with Kittitas County. The western portion of this CSA has low rolling hills with several lakes, while the eastern portion moves into the Cascade Range, including portions of the Forest Production District and part of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Contents King County Assessor’s Office 4 King County Department of Community & Human Services 4 King County District Courts 7 Executive Office 7 Department of Executive Services 7 Metro Transit 8 King County Department of Natural Resources & Parks 9 Department of Permitting & Environmental Review 18 King County Prosecuting Attorney 19 Department of Public Defense 20 Public Health - Seattle & King County 20 King County Sheriff’s Office 21 King County Department of Transportation 22 Department of Natural Resources and Parks elcome to the King County work plan for the Greater Maple Valley/Cedar River Community Service Area of King W County. Contained in this document are the current work plans, initiatives, ongoing projects, and completed projects of King County departments and separately elected offices available in your community. We include contact information for the projects in case you would like further details on specific projects or initiatives. King County’s Community Service Area (CSA) program brings repre- sentatives of King County government to residents of unincorporated King County.
    [Show full text]
  • Cedar/Ortega River Basin, Florida, Restoration: an Assessment of Sediment Trapping in the Cedar River
    SPECIAL PUBLICATION SJ2004-SP33 CEDAR/ORTEGA RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA, RESTORATION: AN ASSESSMENT OF SEDIMENT TRAPPING IN THE CEDAR RIVER PHASE 2 FINAL REPORT UFL/COEL-2004/001 CEDAR/ORTEGA RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA, RESTORATION: AN ASSESSMENT OF SEDIMENT TRAPPING IN THE CEDAR RIVER PHASE 2 FINAL REPORT By Ashish J. Mehta And Earl J. Hayter Submitted to: St. Johns River Water Management District Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Program Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 February, 2004 SYNOPSIS This report includes the findings of the study, “Remediation/Restoration of Cedar/Ortega Rivers. Phase 2: Scope of Work to Assess Fine Sediment Deposition, Erosion and Transport Rates and Evaluate Dredge Scenarios”, carried out by the University of Florida (UF) for the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), Palatka, Florida. The project objective was to predict the rates of deposition, erosion and transport of fine sediment, to evaluate proposed remedial dredging works (e.g., sediment trap/channel dredging, computation of dredge volumes), and to develop management strategies in the lower Cedar/Ortega Rivers. This objective was met by carrying out physical measurements, modeling hydrodynamics and sediment transport, and evaluate present and future rates of sediment deposition, erosion and transport under selected remediation scenarios provided by SJRWMD. We have examined both on-line and off-line sediment removal approaches, specifically off-line Wet Detention Systems and on-line dredged pits, as well as dredging and sand capping in the Cedar/Ortega River confluence area. Three assessment criteria have been used qualitatively to rank the 11 options; these criteria being – removal of contaminated sediment from its source in upstream Cedar River, improved navigability in the confluence area and water quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Spawning Escapement Update for the Lake Washington Watershed Seattle Public Utilities
    Spawning Escapement Update for the Lake Washington Watershed Seattle Public Utilities King County City of Bellevue Muckleshoot Indian Tribe WDFW 2017 Cedar Chinook Spawning Escapement: 2,048 Fish 2500 Cedar Chinook Spawning Escapement 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Estimating Chinook Spawning Escapement: Boat Surveys and Complete Redd Census Carcass Survey Data 2017 Cedar Chinook Hatchery 24% Natural 76% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Natural-Origin Spawners Hatchery-Origin Spawners Age-5 Age-2 Cedar Chinook Age 1% 5% 2017 Age-3 Age-4 39% 55% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Age-2 Age-3 Age-4 Age-5 Big Bear Creek Issaquah Hatchery Cedar River 2,500 Sammamish Chinook Spawning Escapement 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Foot Surveys Sammamish Chinook 2017 Natural 14% Hatchery 86% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Natural-Origin Spawners Hatchery-Origin Spawners 18,000 Lake Washington Chinook 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Sammamish Chinook Cedar Chinook Hatchery Return Cedar River Coho 800 Coho Count above Landsburg 700 600 Passage 500 above 400 Landsburg 300 200 100 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 140,000 Cedar Coho Production 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 45,000 40,000 35,000 Locks Count 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1,000 800 Freshwater Sport Catch 600 400 200 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
    [Show full text]
  • The Cedar River Salmon Journey
    The Cedar River Salmon Journey See spawning salmon at sites along the Join Cedar River this fall! Learn from volunteer naturalists about the epic journey that takes volunteer place every fall as salmon swim from the ocean...through Chittenden Locks...through naturalists Lake Washington...and up the Cedar River this fall to spawn. along the Learn about the natural and human history of the Cedar River and the life Cedar cycle and habitat needs of the returning fish. Find out how you can help keep these River to see special creatures coming back to the Cedar River! spawning When: October 17, 18, 24, 25, 31 and salmon. November 1. Volunteers will be present 11am - 4pm each day. Where: Renton Library, Cedar River Park, Riverview Park, Cavanaugh Pond and Landsburg Park (see map and directions). Visit one or all five sites! Cedar River Park, see where some Need more info? Bring the family to see salmon make salmon are removed for the hatchery. Call us at 206-245-0143 or email their journey up the Cedar River. At Riverview Park naturalists share [email protected]. Visit us Each site is unique. the human history of the area. At at: Cavanaugh Pond, take a 30 minute www.cedarriver.org At Renton Library tour past wildlife viewing areas to the www.twitter.com see many human river. At Landsburg, learn about the www.facebook.com changes to the greater Seattle area’s water supply and www.blogspot.com Cedar River. At watch how some salmon are allowed to pass into the closed boundaries of Note: School groups interested the municipal Cedar River Watershed.
    [Show full text]