DOCSLIB.ORG

Snoqualmie at Fall City Reach Restoration Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Snoqualmie at Fall City Reach Restoration Assessment Snoqualmie at Fall City Reach Restoration Assessment Prepared by Dan Eastman, Project Manager and Fish Biologist Todd Hurley L.E.G, Geologist Will Mansfield P.E., Supervising Engineer Josh Latterell, Ph.D, Floodplain Ecologist Chase Barton P.E., L.G., Senior Engineer and Geologist Tenzing Thinley P.E., Project Engineer Mary Maier, Basin Steward Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources King County August 2011 Table of Contents Table of Reference Figures .......................................................................................................... ii Table of Reference Tables .......................................................................................................... iii I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 II. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2 A. Study Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................... 2 B. Restoration Approach .............................................................................................................. 3 C. Feasibility Process Overview .................................................................................................. 3 III. Stage 1 – Investigation .......................................................................................................... 5 A. Data Collection and Compilation ............................................................................................ 5 1. Ground Surface Model and Imagery ........................................................................................5 2. Oxbow Assessment ..................................................................................................................8 3. Reach Hydrology, Flooding and Hydraulics ............................................................................8 4. Flood Protection Facilities ......................................................................................................10 5. Infrastructure Assessment ......................................................................................................13 6. Cultural Resources Assessment ..............................................................................................14 7. Landowner Outreach #1 .........................................................................................................14 B. Historic and Existing Conditions Analysis ........................................................................... 16 1. Approach ................................................................................................................................16 2. Geography and Land Use .......................................................................................................16 3. Hydraulics and Sediment Transport .......................................................................................19 4. River and Floodplain Geomorphology ...................................................................................20 5. Habitat 21 6. Impact Analysis and Summary ...............................................................................................24 C. Development and Application of an Ecofluvial Benefit Ranking Matrix ............................. 24 1. Establishing values and developing a scoring approach ........................................................24 2. Application of the Benefit Matrix ..........................................................................................31 D. Development of Alternatives Analysis Matrix ...................................................................... 31 1. Benefit Criteria .......................................................................................................................32 2. Feasibility Criteria ..................................................................................................................32 3. Cost Criteria ...........................................................................................................................32 E. Action Identification and Prioritization ................................................................................. 33 1. Primary 33 2. Secondary ...............................................................................................................................33 3. Tertiary 33 F. Prediction of Unconstrained Fluvial Response to Primary Actions ...................................... 34 1. Barfuse Levee Removal .........................................................................................................34 2. Hafner Revetment Removal ...................................................................................................36 3. Carlson Upper Levee Removal ..............................................................................................38 4. Aldair Levee Removal ............................................................................................................41 G. Other Secondary and Tertiary Actions Considered ............................................................... 41 1. Oxbow Assessment ................................................................................................................41 2. Reach-Wide Riparian Corridor Enhancement ........................................................................42 3. Huschle Oxbow ......................................................................................................................42 4. Lein Levee ..............................................................................................................................43 5. Keller Meander .......................................................................................................................43 IV. Stage 2 – Generation ........................................................................................................... 44 A. Site Alternatives Development .............................................................................................. 44 1. Barfuse Alternatives 1- 4 ........................................................................................................45 i 2. Hafner Alternatives 1- 2 .........................................................................................................57 3. Aldair Alternatives 1-3 ...........................................................................................................66 4. Carlson Upper Alternatives 1-2 ..............................................................................................76 B. Richmond Response Reach Alternatives 1-3 .........................................................................83 V. Stage 3 – Synthesis and Development ................................................................................ 88 A. Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................................................ 88 1. Ecofluvial benefit analysis .....................................................................................................88 2. Overall benefit analysis ..........................................................................................................89 3. Feasibility analysis .................................................................................................................91 4. Benefit and feasibility analysis ...............................................................................................92 5. Cost and benefit analysis ........................................................................................................93 B. Landowner Outreach #2 ........................................................................................................ 95 Rescoring Landowner Willingness .............................................................................................95 C. The Corridor Project –Opening Doors to Process ................................................................ 95 Reach-Scale, Project & Action Sequencing................................................................................98 D. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 103 References .................................................................................................................................. 104 Appendix A: Aerial oblique images collected @ ~ 26,000 CFS on December 2010. .......... 105 Appendix B - Criteria from Palmer et. al. .............................................................................. 114 Appendix C. Ecofluvial Benefit Scoring Data and Charts .................................................. 115 Appendix D. Results of initial cultural resources screening of the SAFC reach............... 119 Table of Reference Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map with 2009 aerial photo showing study area. 2 Figure 2: Flow chart showing the feasibility process followed during this assessment. 4 Figure 3: Aerial photo (2009) showing the primary areas of assessment within the reach. 5 Figure 4: Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the project reach generated from 2009 Lidar and 2004 flood study data. 6 Figure 5: Historic USGS Quadrangle Mapping (late 1800‟s) 6 Figure 6: 1936 photo of the project reach. 7 Figure
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fall City Natural Area Site Management Guidelines June 2003
    Fall City Natural Area Site Management Guidelines June 2003 Fall City Natural Area Site Management Guidelines CONTENTS Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………….iv Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1 Part 1. General Property Information ..........................................................................................1 Part 2. Acquisition Purpose and Funding Source ........................................................................2 Part 3. Ecological Resources ...........................................................................................................3 Topography and Climate ...................................................................................................................3 Soils ...................................................................................................................................................4 Snoqualmie River Basin Hydrology ..................................................................................................4 River Morphology within the Fall City Reach ..................................................................................5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................5 Vegetation
    [Show full text]
  • A Synthesis of Existing Data for Resident Fishes in the Snoqualmie River Above Snoqualmie Falls
    A SYNTHESIS OF EXISTING DATA FOR RESIDENT FISHES IN THE SNOQUALMIE RIVER ABOVE SNOQUALMIE FALLS PREPARED FOR PUGET SOUND ENERGY AS PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE SNOQUALMIE RIVER GAME FISH ENHANCEMENT PLAN LICENSE ARTICLE 413 Prepared by Nathanael C. Overman Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 4, Mill Creek, Washington June 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ ii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... ..4 STUDY AREA................................................................................................................... 7 Snoqualmie River Basin ................................................................................................. 7 North Fork Snoqualmie River......................................................................................... 7 Middle Fork Snoqualmie River ...................................................................................... 8 South Fork Snoqualmie River......................................................................................... 8 Mainstem Snoqualmie River above Snoqualmie Falls ................................................... 9
    [Show full text]
  • The Summer of 2015 in the Snoqualmie River Watershed
    Hot Water and Low Flow: The Summer of 2015 in the Snoqualmie River Watershed Photo by Jason Walker May 2016 Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Science and Technical Section King Street Center, KSC-NR-0600 Seattle, WA 98104 204-477-4800 TTY Relay: 711 www.kingcounty.gov Hot Water and Low Flow: The Summer of 2015 in the Snoqualmie River Watershed Prepared for: Snoqualmie Watershed Forum Submitted by: Josh Kubo [email protected] King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks Snoqualmie River Watershed 2015 Water Temperature Technical Memorandum Acknowledgements First and foremost, the author would like to thank the Snoqualmie Watershed Forum for funding and supporting this study. The author would like to thank Beth Ledoux and Dan Smith for help with project management and thermistor deployment as well as Janne Kaje, Kollin Higgins, Aimee Fullerton, and Ashley Steel for thorough comments on this draft and previous drafts of this report. A special thanks goes out to Jim Haack, Erick and Wendy Haakenson, Wayne Gullstad, Jessica Price, Sarah Dublin, and Andrew Stout whom granted access to private properties throughout the Snoqualmie River watershed and helped to support the study efforts. Additional thanks to the staff from Oxbow Farm and Conservation Center for assisting in project engagement and public outreach. Citation King County. 2016. Hot Water and Low Flow: The Summer of 2015 in the Snoqualmie River Watershed. Prepared by Josh Kubo, Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. i Snoqualmie River Watershed 2015 Water Temperature Technical Memorandum Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed Access and Travel
    United States Department Revised Environmental of Agriculture Assessment Forest Service January Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed 2005 Access and Travel Management Plan and Forest Plan Amendment #20 Snoqualmie Ranger District, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest For Information Contact: Team Leader: Doug Schrenk Snoqualmie Ranger District 42404 SE North Bend Way North Bend, WA 98045 (425) 888-1421, extension 233 [email protected] 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. Page i Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION -- BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 1 CHANGED CONDITIONS
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River Valley Interpretive Plan
    Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River Valley Interpretive Plan University of Washington Department of Landscape Architecture March 2004 F O R E W O R D An interpretive plan is a map for future action. It is a framework for making decisions about which and how stories about a place are best told, to achieve desired goals. It serves as a basis for creating materials, facilities and programs that deliver messages aimed at revealing relationships, provoking investigation, and inspiring action. A good interpretive plan answers the standard interrogative questions: who will it serve, what are the themes and stories important to convey, and why—for which goals—should it be created? Drawing upon the strength of real places to stimulate imagination and congeal memories, where should the stories be told? Finally, how—through which methods—are the messages about a particular place most effectively revealed, related to the individual’s experience, and used to enlarge one’s relationship with that place? This Interpretive Plan for the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River Valley was developed as part of an undergraduate landscape architecture studio working on two park sites along the river. The purpose of the plan was to create a preliminary document to guide development of interpretive facilities in the valley, while also informing the park conceptual design work. It was accomplished primarily through student research, and in a workshop at the University of Washington where individuals most familiar with the valley’s stories shared their expertises. This plan is only a beginning, providing a framework that requires substantial fleshing out, further development and creative application.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: the Affected Environment
    Chapter 3: The Affected Environment 3.0 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.0.1 Introduction Chapter 3 – The Affected Environment describes the physical and biological environment (e.g., water resources, wildlife, etc.) as well as the human environment (e.g., social and economic factors, recreation, etc.), which may be affected by the range of alternatives, as described in Chapter 2 - Alternatives. Much of the information on the affected environment is compiled from detailed technical reports and other analyses prepared by the USFS and consultants. Some of these reports are attached to this FEIS as appendices. All reports are available for review as part of the Analysis File maintained for this project at the MBSNF Supervisor’s Office. References cited in this FEIS are provided in Chapter 5 - References. 3.0.2 Analysis Area The “analysis area” (referred to as the “Study Area” throughout this document) varies by resource area. The Study Area includes all public (USFS) lands as well as private land owned by Ski Lifts, Inc. and other land holders. When discussing individual projects within the Study Area, the following terms are used to distinguish the different locations within the SUP: Summit East, Summit Central, and Summit West, are collectively referred to as “The Summit.” Alpental, when discussed individually, is referred to as “Alpental.” All four ski areas are collectively referred to as “The Summit-at-Snoqualmie.” Figure 3.0-1, Study Area illustrates the boundaries of the Study Area, including The Summit and Alpental. Figure 3.0-2, 5th Field Watersheds illustrates the boundaries of the two 5th field watersheds used in this FEIS analysis: the South Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed (S.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Snohomish River Confluence Reach Analysis
    Snohomish River Confluence Reach Analysis Phase 1 Feasibility Study Final Report Snohomish County Department of Public Works Surface Water Management July 16, 2003 Snohomish River Confluence Analysis CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................VIII 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ..............................................................................1 1.1 NEED FOR CHANNEL, FLOODPLAIN, AND HABITAT RESTORATION IN THE CONFLUENCE REACH...........................................................................................................7 1.2 OVERVIEW OF CONFLUENCE REACH ANALYSIS ........................................................8 2. SNOHOMISH RIVER WATERSHED AND STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ....................10 2.1 FISHERIES RESOURCES .......................................................................................................12 3. METHODS ..............................................................................................................................15 3.1 SURVEYING, MAPPING, DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................16 3.1.1 Topography/Photogrammetry................................................................................17 3.1.2 Bathymetry ............................................................................................................17 3.1.3 Fish Habitat and Riparian Mapping ......................................................................19 3.2 GEOMORPHIC
    [Show full text]
  • Q4 2018 News Magazine
    w w sdukNewsalbix Magazine Issue #2 Winter Quarter 2018 In This Issue: • 20th Anniversary of Re-Recognition • Celebrating Tribal Heritage With The Snoqualmie Valley YMCA • Snoqualmie Welcomes N8tive Vote • And More! Call For Submissions Tribal Member News Here we present to you, the second issue of the new quarterly news magazine. We hope you are enjoying Northwest Native American Basketweavers Association reading the content and seeing the photos that this new, extended magazine format allows us to publish! Linda Sweet Baxter, Lois Sweet Dorman and McKenna Sweet Dorman traveled But as much as we like to write and enjoy creating content, we want this magazine to belong to all Tribal to Toppenish, WA to attend the Northwest Native American Basketweavers Members. If you have a story to tell or an item of news, art or photography you want to share please contact Association’s (NNABA) 24th annual gathering in October. us. We would be very happy to include your material in an upcoming issue of the magazine. They sat with Laura Wong-Whitebear, who was teaching coil weaving with Our e-mail address and our mailing address can be found in the blue box right below this space. You can hemp cord and waxed linen. contact us using either one. Please Welcome Rémy May! Christopher Castleberry and his wife Audrey Castleberry are honored to present their newest family member, Rémy May. Table of Contents sdukwalbixw News Magazine Staff Born on Nov. 27th she is 8lbs 6oz and 20.5 inches tall. Call For Submissions 2 Michael Brunk Here, dad and daughter are pictured at Snoqualmie Falls.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of the Geology and Geomorphology of the Snoqualmie River Watershed
    AN OVERVIEW OF THE GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY OF THE SNOQUALMIE RIVER WATERSHED Prepared by: John Bethel, Geologist Ecological Services Unit Prepared for: Fran Solomon, Ph.D., Senior Ecologist Watershed and Ecological Assessment Team April 2004 Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Capital Projects and Open Space Acquisitions Section 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98104-3855 An Overview of the Geology and Geomorphology of the Snoqualmie River Watershed Prepared by John Bethel, Geologist Ecological Services Unit Prepared for King County Water and Land Resources Division Snoqualmie Watershed Team September 2004 Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Capital Projects and Open Space Acquisitions Section 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98104-3855 King County Executive Ron Sims King County Council Carolyn Edmonds, District 1 Bob Ferguson, District 2 Kathy Lambert, District 3 Larry Phillips, District 4 Dwight Pelz, District 5 Rob McKenna, District 6 Pete von Reichbauer, District 7 Dow Constantine, District 8 Steve Hammond, District 9 Larry Gossett, District 10 Jane Hague, District 11 David Irons, District 12 Julia Patterson, District 13 Department of Natural Resources and Parks Pam Bissonnette, Director Water and Land Resources Division Daryl Grigsby, Division Director Contributing Staff John Bethel, Geologist Supporting Staff Fran Solomon, Ph.D., Senior Ecologist Terry Butler, Geologist Gino Lucchetti, Senior Ecologist Wendy Gable Collins, Graphic Designer and Cartographer Bob Gilland, Technical Information Processing Specialist AN OVERVIEW OF THE GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY OF THE SNOQUALMIE RIVER WATERSHED Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................1 1.1. Purpose and Scope of this Report .......................................................................1 1.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Access Draft Concept Plan February 2005
    Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Access Draft Concept Plan February 2005 Project Partners (add City of North Bend, UW, U.S. Dept. of Trans.) MidFORC Middle Fork Outdoor Recreation Coalition Table of Contents Acknowledgements _________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Executive Summary ________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 Frequently Asked Questions _________________________________________________________________________________ 7 Introduction & Background _________________________________________________________________________________ 1 River Opportunities and Access Site Descriptions _______________________________________________________________ 7 Interpretation Opportunities ________________________________________________________________________________ 27 Nuts and Bolts ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 29 Appendix I - Site Location Table_______________________________________________________________________________I Appendix II - Key Contact List ______________________________________________________________________________ III Appendix III - Funding Opportunities _________________________________________________________________________ V ii Acknowledgements Lead Group - American Whitewater (AW) Whitewater, by the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Jennie Goldberg (RTCA) program of the National Park Service – Seattle Office. Tom O’Keefe Dan Miller Planning Team Susan
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Insurance Mapping Study for the Snoqualmie River (Skykomish River Confluence to Snoqualmie Falls) and Skykomish River (Snoqualmie River Confluence to RM 8.95)
    Flood Insurance Mapping Study for the Snoqualmie River (Skykomish River confluence to Snoqualmie Falls) and Skykomish River (Snoqualmie River confluence to RM 8.95) King and Snohomish Counties, WA Prepared for: Federal Emergency Management Agency Prepared by: northwest hydraulic consultants inc. 16300 Christensen Road, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98188-3418 April 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose of Project ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Coordination .................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 AREA STUDIED .................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Scope of Study ............................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Study Reach Description .............................................................................................. 2 2.3 Principal Flood Problems ............................................................................................. 2 2.3.1 Skykomish River ......................................................................................................... 2 2.3.2 Snoqualmie River........................................................................................................ 3 2.4
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Shoreline Aquatic Wildlife and Habitat
    Lyon E. Lake Wash.- Cathcart Creek Kenmore N. North Cr. Little Bear Cr. Drainages r D Skykomish River S N O H O M I S H C O U N T Y McAleer Cr. C Swamp e a LAKE l n h t r SHORELINE k Cr. t e K I N G C O U N T Y t i Middle r e r e v FOREST i e i o C L l r Puget Sound - r s C Cherry Creek k R N C e S PARK 522 a r e S o Existing Shoreline e r k WOODINVILLE u r Boeing B r Tuck y t C h e a k l BOTHELL S e o Creek a Creek k r m m B y F c C r r o e e i m h s r W. Lake m e g k Middle C r h B i k e Thornton v aa B Wash. - a i Puget Sound - mm R S Shoreline L North Fork Tolt River k Creek t 2 522 Lake KENMORE DUVALL l yk Seattle Upper i i e o R om s s E.Lake g Bear T i h Forest h a k i s Juanita Creek t or v h t orth F N Wash. o Creek e Park r R R R C i Pipers 99 Kenmore 405 v i i e k v v r e Aquatic e Cr. South e e r r r SEATTLE South Fork Tolt River REDMOND Snoqualmie C k out M s S h e i F REDMOND e River o SKYKOMISH Forbes r r i Middle r k Juanita r l er l C F Creek a Tolt Riv e Puget Sound - r o Bay H Harris Wildlife r KIRKLAND Sammamish s R a s Seattle Lower n n e i Creek River B v R West Lake oo g e t i i B r v 5 g r Lake Union Washington - e Skykomish River e n iv r i Seattle North i R h & Habitat h E.Lake s Evans Creek Ames a Wash.
    [Show full text]