DOCSLIB.ORG

Wallooskee-Youngs Confluence Restoration Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wallooskee-Youngs Confluence Restoration Project B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Wallooskee-Youngs Confluence Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment December 2014 DOE/EA-1974 This page left intentionally blank � Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................................................. i � Tables v � Figures ............................................................................................................................................................... vi � Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................... vi � Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 � Purpose of and Need for Action ............................................................................................................. 1-1 � 1.1 Need for Action .................................................................................................................................. 1-3 ­ 1.2 Purposes ............................................................................................................................................... 1-3 ­ 1.3 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1-4 ­ 1.3.1 Statutory Context .............................................................................................................. 1-4 ­ 1.3.2 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion............................. 1-4 ­ 1.3.3 Project Review ................................................................................................................... 1-5 ­ 1.4 Roles of Other Entities .................................................................................................................... 1-5 ­ 1.4.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ...................................................................................... 1-5 ­ 1.4.2 Clatsop County Board of Commissioners ................................................................ 1-6 ­ 1.4.3 Cowlitz Indian Tribe ........................................................................................................ 1-6 ­ 1.4.4 Astoria Wetlands, LLC ..................................................................................................... 1-6 ­ 1.4.5 Memorandum of Agreement ........................................................................................ 1-6 ­ 1.5 Scoping, Public Involvement, and Issues ................................................................................ 1-7 ­ 1.5.1 Issues Outside the Scope of This EA .......................................................................... 1-8 ­ Chapter 2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 � Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 2-1 � 2.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................................ 2-1 ­ 2.1.1 Project Area ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 ­ 2.1.2 Project Elements ............................................................................................................... 2-5 ­ 2.1.3 Construction Activities ................................................................................................ 2-20 ­ 2.1.4 Environmental Design Features/Mitigation Measures and BMPs Included ­ as Part of the Project .................................................................................................................... 2-26 ­ 2.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................... 2-31 ­ Bonneville Power Administration i Contents 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.................................... 2-31 ­ 2.3.1 Alternate Restoration Configurations and Sites ............................................... 2-31 ­ 2.3.2 Alternate BPA Infrastructure Configurations .................................................... 2-32 ­ 2.3.3 Alternate ODOT Wind-Wave Mitigation Features ............................................ 2-32 ­ 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 2-32 ­ Chapter 3 ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 � Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .......................................................... 3-1 � 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1 ­ 3.2 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................. 3-2 ­ 3.2.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... 3-2 ­ 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative ........................................... 3-3 ­ 3.2.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ............................................................ 3-6 ­ 3.3 Vegetation and Wetlands .............................................................................................................. 3-7 ­ 3.3.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... 3-7 ­ 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative ........................................ 3-13 ­ 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ......................................................... 3-17 ­ 3.4 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................ 3-18 ­ 3.4.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 3-18 ­ 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative ........................................ 3-19 ­ 3.4.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ......................................................... 3-23 ­ 3.5 Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................................................ 3-24 ­ 3.5.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 3-24 ­ 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative ........................................ 3-36 ­ 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ......................................................... 3-41 ­ 3.6 Land Use and Recreation ............................................................................................................ 3-42 ­ 3.6.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 3-42 ­ 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative ........................................ 3-46 ­ 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences - No Action .......................................................... 3-49 ­ 3.7 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 3-49 ­ ii Wallooskee-Youngs Confluence Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment Contents 3.7.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 3-49 ­ 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative ........................................ 3-52 ­ 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ......................................................... 3-53 ­ 3.8 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ............................................................................................. 3-53 ­ 3.8.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 3-53 ­ 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative ........................................ 3-55 ­ 3.8.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ......................................................... 3-57 ­ 3.9 Air Quality and Climate Change ............................................................................................... 3-58 ­ 3.9.1 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 3-58 ­ 3.9.2 Climate Change ............................................................................................................... 3-60 ­ 3.10 Noise, Hazardous Waste, and Public Health and Safety ................................................ 3-62 ­ 3.10.1 Noise .................................................................................................................................... 3-62 ­ 3.10.2 Hazardous Waste ..........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pacific Lamprey 2018 Regional Implementation Plan for the Lower Columbia/Willamette Regional Management Unit Lower Columbia Sub-Unit
    Pacific Lamprey 2018 Regional Implementation Plan for the Lower Columbia/Willamette Regional Management Unit Lower Columbia Sub-Unit Submitted to the Conservation Team August 6th, 2018 Primary Authors Primary Editors J. Poirier, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service This page left intentionally blank I. Status and Distribution of Pacific lamprey in the RMU A. General Description of the RMU The Lower Columbia River sub-unit within the Lower Columbia River/Willamette Regional Management Unit includes watersheds that drain into the Columbia River mainstem from Bonneville Dam at Rkm 235, west to confluence of the Columbia River with the Pacific Ocean. It is comprised of six 4th field HUCs ranging in size from 1,753−3,756 km2 (Table 1). Watersheds within the Lower Columbia River sub-unit include the Lower Columbia-Sandy, Lewis, Upper and Lower Cowlitz, Lower Columbia-Clatskanie, and Lower Columbia River (Figure 1). Figure 1. Map of watersheds within the Lower Columbia/Willamette RMU, Lower Columbia sub-unit. 1 Lower Columbia sub-unit – Regional Implementation Plan August 6, 2018 Table 1. Drainage Size and Level III Ecoregions of the 4th Field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Watersheds located within the Lower Columbia sub-unit. HUC Drainage Watershed Number Size (km2) Level III Ecoregion(s) Lower Columbia-Sandy 17080001 2,263 Willamette Valley, Cascades Lewis 17080002 2,719 Puget Lowland, Willamette Valley, Cascades Upper Cowlitz 17080004 2,654 Puget Lowland Lower Cowlitz 17080005 3,756 Puget Lowland, Cascades Lower Columbia-Clatskanie 17080003 2,349 Coast Range, Willamette Valley Lower Columbia 17080006 1,753 Coast Range B. Status of Species Conservation Assessment and New Updates Current Pacific Lamprey distribution in the Lower Columbia sub-unit is greatly reduced from historical range (Table 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II
    Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II Chum 211 Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II Coastal Chum Existing Populations Chum salmon found along the Oregon Coast are at the southern end of the species’ range. There is limited information on the historic distribution of chum salmon, which has made it difficult to determine how many historic populations there were and where they were located. The identification of thirteen historical populations was based on historical records of commercial landings of chum from bay and river fisheries (Table 80). Only occasional records were found to substantiate the existence of the five most southern populations. In the Alsea and Coos basins, there continue to be occasional sightings of chum salmon during fall chinook and coho spawning surveys. It is possible the occasional historic landings and current sightings in the southern basins were the result of non-native chum entering these bays or misidentification. For this report, we have identified the five southern-most populations as either extinct or presumed extinct (see “Population Details” below). A more thorough examination of the evidence during the development of a conservation plan for the Coastal Chum SMU may determine that there were no historical populations south of the Yaquina River. Effects of historical fisheries on existing populations are unclear but it is possible that the current distribution and status of populations has been shaped by historical fisheries. Table 80. Population list and existence status for the Coastal Chum SMU. Exist Population Description Yes Necanicum Necanicum River basin plus ocean tributaries south to Cape Falcon. Yes Nehalem Nehalem River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • CLATSOP COUNTY Scale in Mlles
    CLATSOP COUNTY Scale In Mlles 81 8 I A 0,6 O 6 Secmide 0 10 6 7 WASV INGTON T I L LAMOOK COUNTY CO Clatsop County Knappa Prairie U. S. Army Fort Stevens, Ruth C. Bishop Dean H. Byrd (1992) Janice M. Healy (1952) Oregon Burial Site Guide Clatsop County Area: 873 square miles Population (1998): 35,424 County seat: Astoria, Population: 10,130 County established: 22 June 1844 Located on the south bank of the lower Columbia River where it enters the Pacific Ocean. Clatsop County was the site of the first white trading post in Oregon and therefore the earliest established cemetery. This was Fort Astoria founded in the spring of 1811 for the fur trade. It was occupied by the British in the fall of I 813 during the War of 1812 and was renamed Fort George. Returned to the Americans in 1818 and once again called Fort Astoria, the name was gradually transferred to a small civilian settlement as Astoria. The earliest burials after 1811 and those dating from the 1850's to about 1878 are now built over. Eventually most of Astoria's known burials were transferred to Ocean View which was established in 1872. The Clatsop Plains Pioneer Cemetery was begun in 1846 and is the earliest organized cemetery outside of Astoria. By the 1870's there were at least four other organized cemeteries. There were many family burial sites and still some Indian burials sites and a United States Military cemetery begun as early as 1868 at Fort Stevens. The most prominent ethnic nationalities from Europe were Finns and Swedes who are scattered through many cemeteries and family burial sites.
    [Show full text]
  • A Geophysical Study of the North Scappoose Creek, Alder Creek, Clatskanie River Lineament, Along the Trend of the Portland Hills Fault, Columbia County, Oregon
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1982 A geophysical study of the North Scappoose Creek, Alder Creek, Clatskanie River lineament, along the trend of the Portland Hills fault, Columbia County, Oregon Nina Haas Portland State University Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geology Commons, and the Tectonics and Structure Commons Recommended Citation Haas, Nina, "A geophysical study of the North Scappoose Creek, Alder Creek, Clatskanie River lineament, along the trend of the Portland Hills fault, Columbia County, Oregon" (1982). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3254. 10.15760/etd.3244 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Nina Haas for the Master of Science in Geology presented December 15, 1982. Title: A Geophysical Study of the North Scappoose Creek - Alder Creek - Clatskanie River Lineament, Along the Trend of the Portland Hills Fault, Columbia County, Oregon. APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE: Chairman Giibett • Benson The Portland Hills fault forms a strong northwest trending lineament along the east side of the Tualatin Mountains. An en echelon lineament follows North Scappoose Creek, Alder Creek, and the Clatskanie River along the same trend, through Columbia County, Oregon. The possibility that this lineament follows a fault or fault zone was investigated in this study. Geophysical methods were used, with seismic 2 refraction, magnetic and gravity lines run perpendicular to the lineament.
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Restoration, a Natural Channel Design
    Stream Restoration Prep8AICI by the North Carolina Stream Restonltlon Institute and North Carolina Sea Grant INC STATE UNIVERSITY I North Carolina State University and North Carolina A&T State University commit themselves to positive action to secure equal opportunity regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. In addition, the two Universities welcome all persons without regard to sexual orientation. Contents Introduction to Fluvial Processes 1 Stream Assessment and Survey Procedures 2 Rosgen Stream-Classification Systems/ Channel Assessment and Validation Procedures 3 Bankfull Verification and Gage Station Analyses 4 Priority Options for Restoring Incised Streams 5 Reference Reach Survey 6 Design Procedures 7 Structures 8 Vegetation Stabilization and Riparian-Buffer Re-establishment 9 Erosion and Sediment-Control Plan 10 Flood Studies 11 Restoration Evaluation and Monitoring 12 References and Resources 13 Appendices Preface Streams and rivers serve many purposes, including water supply, The authors would like to thank the following people for reviewing wildlife habitat, energy generation, transportation and recreation. the document: A stream is a dynamic, complex system that includes not only Micky Clemmons the active channel but also the floodplain and the vegetation Rockie English, Ph.D. along its edges. A natural stream system remains stable while Chris Estes transporting a wide range of flows and sediment produced in its Angela Jessup, P.E. watershed, maintaining a state of "dynamic equilibrium." When Joseph Mickey changes to the channel, floodplain, vegetation, flow or sediment David Penrose supply significantly affect this equilibrium, the stream may Todd St. John become unstable and start adjusting toward a new equilibrium state.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Brochure
    URBAN WATERFRONTS 2010: The City Resurgent THE WATERFRONT CENTER’S 28th ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE Baltimore Marriott Waterfront, Baltimore,Maryland, November 4-6, 2010 Preceded by a Workshop Showcasing Baltimore’s Waterfronts: November 3-4, 2010 An optional Wednesday reception and dinner and all day Thursday in-depth briefing/boat tour. Pre-Conference Workshop requires a separate registration fee. The Waterfront Center wishes to acknowledge and thank the following firms, organizations and agencies for their generous support: URBAN WATERFRONTS 2010 EARLY CONFERENCE SUPPORT Support confirmed as of April 15, 2010 ABEL BAINNSON BUTZ, New York, New York AIA, CENTER FOR COMMUNITIES BY DESIGN, Washington, District of Columbia BALTIMORE COUNTY, OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY, Baltimore, Maryland BEYER BLINDER BELLE, New York, New York CHO BENN HOLBACK, Baltimore, Maryland AECOM, San Francisco, California EDSA, Fort Lauderdale, Florida THE FORKS NORTH PORTAGE PARTNERSHIP, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada HALCROW, New York, New York JJR, LLC, Madison, Wisconsin J.C. MacELROY, Piscataway, New Jersey MOFFATT & NICHOL, Long Beach, California SASAKI ASSOCIATES, Watertown, Massachusetts SF MARINA SYSTEMS USA, Portland, Maine REID MIDDLETON, Everett, Washington WALKER MACY, Portland, Oregon WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania THE WATERFRONT CENTER, Washington, District of Columbia WATERFRONT PARTNERSHIP OF BALTIMORE, Baltimore, Maryland WATERMARK CRUISES, Annapolis, Maryland ZIGER SNEAD, Baltimore, Maryland LOCAL HOST COMMITTEE David Benn, Cho Benn Holback, Baltimore, Maryland David Carroll, Baltimore County, Office of Sustainability, Baltimore, Maryland Laurie Schwartz, Waterfront Partnership of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland Keith Weaver, EDSA, Baltimore, Maryland Steve Ziger, Ziger Snead, Baltimore, Maryland WHY WATERFRONTS ARE IMPORTANT aterfronts are unique and finite areas. They help define a community physically and aesthetically.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Outcomes of Urban Floodplain Restoration
    ECONOMIC OUTCOMES OF URBAN FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION IMPLICATIONS FOR PUGET SOUND JUNE 2020 PREPARED BY BRANDON PARSONS American Rivers LAURA MARSHALL ECONorthwest MARK BUCKLEY ECONorthwest Lower Snoqualmie Valley near Duvall,WA, JONATHON LOOS December 9, 2015 fl ood Dartmouth College Source: King County, WA A Acknowledgments For over 40 years ECONorthwest has helped its clients make sound decisions based on rigorous economic, planning, and fi nancial analysis. For more information about ECONorthwest: www.econw.com. ECONorthwest prepared this report for American Rivers. We received substantial assistance and contributions to the report from Brandon Parsons, PLA with American Rivers, Jonathon Loos (Ph.D. Candidate, Dartmouth College), as well as Spencer Easton and Susan O’Neil with Environmental Science Associates. Other fi rms, agencies, and staff contributed to other research that this report relied on. Signifi cant input and review was provided by the steering committee members, who include: • Doug Osterman, WRIA 9 Salmon Recovery Manager • Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz, WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery • Suzanna Smith, WRIA 9 Habitat Projects Coordinator Manager • Matt Goehring, WRIA 9 Planning and Technical • Weston Brinkley, Principal, Street Sounds Ecology Coordinator • Tracy Stanton, Executive Director, The Emerald Alliance We specifi cally want to acknowledge the former Chair of the WRIA 9 Management Committee and Tukwila City Council Member - Dennis Robertson for his years of service. Dennis has devoted himself to restoring the Green-Duwamish River to benefi t the salmon and people that rely on it. Dennis is a strong proponent of healthy rivers that support healthy communities and tirelessly works to improve the environment for future generations which helped inspire this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Source Water Assessment Report
    Source Water Assessment Report Youngs River-Lewis & Clarl( Water District, Oregon PWS #4100062 December 11, 2000 Prepared for Youngs River-Lewis & Clark Water District Prepared by � rt: I •1 =<•1 Stale of Oregon Departmentof Environmental Quality Water Quality Division Drinking Water Protection Program Department of Human Services Oregon Health Division Drinking Water Program Department of Environmental Quality regon 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-1390 John A. Kitzhaber, ivf.D.,Governor (503) 229-5696 TDD (503) 229-6993 December 11, 2000 Mr. Ric Saavedra - Superintendent Youngs River-Lewis & Clark Water District 810 US Highway IOI Astoria, OR 97013 RE: Source Water Assessment Report Youngs River-Lewis & Clark Water District PWS # 4100062 Dear Mr. Saavedra: Enclosed is Youngs River-Lewis & Clark Water District's Water Assessment Report. The assessment was prepared under the requirements and guidance of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the US Environmental Protection Agency, as well as a detailed Source Water Assessment Plan developed by a statewide citizen's advisory committee here in Oregon over the past two years. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Oregon Health Division (OHD) are conducting the assessments for all public water systems in Oregon. The purpose is to provide information so that the public water system staff/operator, consumers, and community citizens can begin developing strategies to protect your source of drinking water. As you know, the 1996 Amendments to the SafeDrinking Water Act requires Consumer ConfidenceReports (CCR) by community water systems. CCRs include information about the quality of the drinking water, the source of the drinking water, and a summary of the source water assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Warrenton Mooring Basin
    eetion Page ref ace ................... .. ...................................................................................................................VIII ..................... .............................................................................. 1-1 Plans and Policies .............................................................................................................. 1-3 Federal .......................................*..*... ........................................................................1-3 O'P .............................................................................................................. 1-3 Su~lsetEmpire Transit District ............................................................................... 1-4 Clatsop County ........................................................................................................ 1-4 City ...............................................................................................................................1-4 Public Involvement .............................................................................................................."14 1PuL.a~s ,.) .- * and Obje&ves ...................................... ..................... ..............1-5 Goal l .. hlobillty .............................. .....................................................................3-5 Coal 2: Livabilitv ................................................................................................ 1-6 Goal 3: Coordination ................................................................................................1-6
    [Show full text]
  • Johnson Creek Restoration Project Effectiveness Monitoring
    Bureau of Environmental Services • City of Portland Johnson Creek Restoration Projects Effectiveness Monitoring Reporting on data collected from 1997 through 2010 DECEMBER 2012 Dan Saltzman, Commissioner Dean Marriott, Director Dan Saltzman, Commissioner • Dean Marriott, Director Acknowledgements Implementation of the effectiveness monitoring program for restoration projects in the Johnson Creek Watershed has drawn on the expertise, support, and dedication of a number of individuals. We thank them for making this report possible. City of Portland, Environmental Services Staff Jennifer Antak, Johnson Creek Effectiveness Monitoring Program Lead Sean Bistoff Trevor Diemer Mathew Dorfman Steven Kass Theophilus Malone Chris Prescott Gregory Savage Wendy Sletten Maggie Skenderian Ali Young Supporting Organizations and Consultants Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Salmon River Engineering ‐ Janet Corsale, PE CPESC Portland State University ‐ Denisse Fisher Contents Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 Johnson Creek Overview ...................................................................................................1 Project Effectiveness Monitoring Program....................................................................12 Overview ........................................................................................................................12 Monitoring Methods.....................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Columbia/Willamette Regional Management Unit Lower Columbia Sub-Unit
    Pacific lamprey 2015 Regional Implementation Plan for the Lower Columbia/Willamette Regional Management Unit Lower Columbia Sub-Unit First Draft Submitted to the Conservation Team June 1, 2015 Primary Authors Primary Editors XXX C. Wang, YYY H. Schaller, R. Rhew ZZZ This page left intentionally blank I. Status and Distribution of Pacific lamprey in the RMU A. General Description of the RMU Lower Columbia Sub-Unit: Within the Lower Columbia River/Willamette Regional Management Unit (RMU) the Lower Columbia River Sub-Unit includes the Sandy, Lewis, Upper and Lower Cowlitz, Clatskanie, and Lower Columbia watersheds. It is comprised of four Level III Ecoregions described by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm). The watersheds within this sub- regions range in size from 1,740 to 3,781 km2 for the 6 HUCs. The spatial arrangements of these HUCs are displayed in Figure 1 and sizes of HUCs are in Table1. Figure 1. Map of watersheds within the Lower Columbia River/Willamette Region (taken directly from the USFWS Conservation Assessment, Luzier et al. 2011). Lower Columbia River Sub‐Unit ‐ Draft RIP Lower Columbia/Willamette RMU June 11, 2015 Page 1 Table 1. Drainage Size and Level III Ecoregions of the 4th Field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Watersheds located within the Lower Columbia Sub-Unit. HUC Drainage Watershed Number Size (km2) Level III Ecoregion(s) Lower Columbia-Sandy 17080001 2,875 Willamette Valley, Cascades Lewis 17080002 2,797 Puget Lowland, Willamette Valley, Cascades Upper Cowlitz 17080004 2,668 Puget Lowland Lower Cowlitz 17080005 3,781 Puget Lowland, Cascades Lower Columbia-Clatskanie 17080003 2,321 Coast Range, Willamette Valley Lower Columbia 17080006 1,740 Coast Range B.
    [Show full text]
  • Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment of the South River Watershed, MA
    Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment of the South River Watershed, MA Prepared for Franklin Regional Council of Governments Greenfield, MA South River Prepared by John Field Field Geology Services Farmington, ME February 2013 South River geomorphic assessment - February 2013 Page 2 of 108 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 8 2.0 FLUVIAL GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 8 2.1 Reach and segment delineation ................................................................................. 9 2.2 Review of existing studies ...................................................................................... 10 2.3 Watershed characterization ..................................................................................... 11 2.4 Historical aerial photographs and topographic maps .............................................. 12 2.5 Mapping of channel features ................................................................................... 13 2.5a Mill dams and impoundment sediments ............................................................ 14 2.5b Bar deposition ................................................................................................... 15 2.5c Bank erosion, mass wasting, and bank armoring ............................................. 15 2.5c Wood
    [Show full text]