DOCSLIB.ORG

NACHES REACH by Morris L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NACHES REACH by Morris L THE NACHES REACH By Morris L. Uebelacker, Clay P. Arango, and Douglas J. Eitemiller Located on the mainstem Naches River within the Ridge and Canyon landscape (plate II), the Naches Holocene floodplain encompasses 3,342 hectares. This floodplain is characterized by a complex interface of Columbia River Flow Basalts and Cascade volcanic material Loss Of Lateral Connectivity (Bentley 1984). Situated between two major geological units, the Ellensburg Formation intermingles with Columbia River Flow Basalts (Schmincke 1967) along its northeastern To The Naches Holocene Floodplain margins and flows of Tieton Andesite (Swanson 1978) on its southwestern boundary, the Naches Naches River has excavated material from these units to form a wide, steep-sided canyon. From 1884 To 2002 The Naches Holocene floodplain lies in stark contrast with the canyon that embodies it, which has emerged over more than ten million years of geologic time. Consequently, it is structurally set apart from all other floodplains within the Yakima Basin. Reflecting these 3500 unique geological structures and geomorphic history, the gradient of the Naches River and its Holocene Floodplain Prior to 1884 = 3,342 ha attendant floodplain is steeper than all other floodplain reaches along its longitudinal scale. As the Naches River's major tributary, the Tieton River greatly amplifies the alluvial cut and fill 3000 processes of the Naches in forming its floodplain. Both rivers enter the floodplain through confined, steep gradient canyons and deliver a powerful springtime flood pulse across the 2500 floodplain landscape. Although initially evaluated for a railroad route that would link interior and coastal 2000 economies (Stevens 1855), the canyon topography of the upper Naches drainage proved too Hectares difficult for early railroad construction. Instead, surveyors chose a route through the Yakima 1500 Canyon and upper Yakima River basin. Because the railroad was built through the Naches floodplain later than in other reaches, it was not subject to the effects of lateral confinement 1000 Loss of Loss of Loss of typical of other mainstem Yakima River floodplains. For this reason, the initial lateral Holocene Floodplain Holocene Floodplain Holocene Floodplain Surface Connectivity Surface Connectivity Surface Connectivity confinement of the Naches floodplain was ephemeral and largely conditioned by county roads Fro m 1884-1915 = Fro m 1916-1964 = Fro m 1965-2002 = 500 794 ha 1018 ha 108 ha and the old Naches Highway. Some of the earliest attempts at floodplain agriculture focused on the Naches Holocene floodplain (Buckley 1936). Irrigation diversions constructed in the late 1800s moved water from the active hydrologic floodplain to areas west of Yakima. As 0 Of the 3,342 ha of Holocene floodplain habitat settlement and land use intensified, demand for irrigation water quickly outpaced supply. The within the Naches Reach that exhibited construction of Bumping Lake Dam (1910), Clear Creek Dam (1914), and the larger Tieton surface connectivity to the mainstem Yakima River prior to 1884, a total of 1,422 ha (~43%) remain connected. Reservoir (1925) by the Bureau of Reclamation increased water supplies and permitted the expansion of irrigated agriculture. Accordingly, the flow of the Naches River was altered, as was its floodplain's hydrologic patterns and processes. The building of these federal projects required significant investments in transportation Gleed infrastructure on the Naches floodplain that included railroads, roads, bridges, and flood revetments. The town of Naches was a railroad terminus and served as a major hub for Revetments supplying the needed materials for the construction of storage reservoirs and early state Roads highways over the Cascades. The town also served the established domestic stock industry that used the high pastures of the upper Naches Basin during summer, and the emerging Alterations 1884-1915 agricultural community. Although some of these features existed before 1915, no clear Alterations 1916-1964 developmental break was evident before this date, so they are included in the 1916-1964 period for cartographic clarity. Surficially connected areas on the Holocene floodplain were Alterations 1965-2002 reduced to 2,548 hectares by 1915. Upgrading of U.S. Highway 12 to a double lane road was the major structural disconnection across the Naches Holocene floodplain during the second period of analysis. Pasture and hay farming were located adjacent to the river and dominated land use in floodplain areas more susceptible to flooding. The long-standing use of the Holocene floodplain margins as wintering grounds for sheep and cattle operations diminished throughout this period. Orchards and row corps dominated land use on the disconnected floodplain and adjacent terraces. Fruit processing facilities and saw mills marked the Anthropogenic Features industrial development of the floodplain, and the city of Naches continued to function as a central node for resource extraction activities in the upper watershed. By the close of this Responsible For The Loss Of Lateral Connectivity period, the disconnected portions of the floodplain at its lower end were being transformed Naches into a suburban landscape. By 1964, the surficially connected area of the Holocene floodplain To The Naches Holocene Floodplain within this reach had decreased to 1,530 hectares. Today, the suburban landscape continues to expand across large parts of the floodplain. Golf courses, rural residential zones, and subdivisions have begun to dominate the floodplain displacing orchards and other irrigated agricultural uses. These transformations have mostly occurred in areas of the floodplain previously precluded from surficial connection with the Naches River. During the last period of analysis, the surficially connected portion of the Naches Holocene floodplain dropped to 1,422 hectares. Today, only 43% of the Naches Roads Holocene floodplain remains surficially connected. Nevertheless, relative to the large unregulated portions of its headwater basins, the flood potential of this remaining area is significant. Results from the GIS analysis of the hydrologically active portion of the Naches Holocene floodplain show a reduction from 803 hectares in 1927 to 689 hectares today. Presently, 14% of the active floodplain habitat present in 1927 has been lost (plate XX). The difference in discharge of the mainstem Yakima River at the Naches gauging station near the city of Naches (NACW) between 1927 and 1992 aerial photography disallows a Flood Revetments comparison of all channel types and lengths for this floodplain. However, comparisons of the mainstem river length can be made (apendix I). This difference was less than 1% between the second and last period of analysis. The Naches floodplain has not experienced the magnitude of channel simplification and active floodplain confinement evident within the other reaches. Furthermore, despite the major pulse near the end of the water year due to flip-flop, the 0 5 10 15 20 25 hydrograph of the Naches River still expresses the effects of a significant spring flood pulse. Kilometers These factors may contribute to the consistency of main channel length between the last two periods. REFERENCES Flood Revetments Bentley, R. D. 1984. Western Columbia Plateau margins studies, Tieton River to Roads Gleed Yakima River. In: Preliminary Safety Analysis Report: Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project. 1(2A): 2R D.6-1R D.6-34. Railroads Buckley, W. 1936. A geography of the Yakima Region. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio Alterations 1884-2002 State University. Schmincke, H. U. 1967. Graded lahars in the type sections of the Ellensburg Formation, south-central Washington. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 37: 438-448. Stevens, I. I. 1855. Narrative and Final Report of Exploration for a Route for a Pacific Railroad, near The Forty-Seventh and Forty-Ninth Parallels of North Latitude, from St. Paul to Puget Sound. Thomas H. Ford, Printer, Washington. Swanson, E. A. 1978. Geologic Map of the Tieton River Area, Washington. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-968. N W E produced by S YAKIMA REACHES PROJECT 0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 km Conversion Constants Cartography By Multiply Hectares by 2.47 to obtain Acres reaches CWU Position of the Naches Reach within the Yakima Basin. Multiply Kilometers by 0.621 to obtain Miles 0 1 mi Douglas J. Eitemiller C 2002 Not to be reproduced without permission Plate XIX. Loss of lateral connectivity to the Naches Holocene floodplain and the anthropogenic features responsible for that loss. Loss Of Active Floodplain Within The Naches Reach From 1927 To 2002 Active Floodplain in 1927 = 803 ha Active Floodplain in 2002 = 689 ha Naches 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Hectares Of the 3,342 ha of Holocene floodplain habitat within the Naches Reach, 803 ha were mapped as active floodplain habitat in 1927. By 2002, active floodplain habitat was reduced to 689 ha, a loss of ~14%. Gleed Active Floodplain-1942 Active Floodplain-2002 N W E S produced by YAKIMA REACHES PROJECT 0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 km Conversion Constants Cartography By Multiply Hectares by 2.47 to obtain Acres reaches CWU Position of the Naches Reach within the Yakima Basin. Multiply Kilometers by 0.621 to obtain Miles 0 1 mi Douglas J. Eitemiller C 2002 Not to be reproduced without permission Plate XX. Loss of active floodplain within the Naches reach from 1927 to 2002..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment
    The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment Evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing Climate ........................................................................................................ A report by The Climate Impacts Group University of Washington Climate Science June 2009 in the Public Interest Recommended citation: Climate Impacts Group, 2009. The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment, M. McGuire Elsner, J. Littell, and L Whitely Binder (eds). Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Available at: http://www.cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciareport681.pdf Front cover satellite image credit: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?vev1id=4786 NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration Visible Earth: A catalog of NASA images and animations of our home planet Provided by the SeaWiFS Project, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, and ORBIMAGE The Pacific Northwest is cloud-free in this SeaWiFS image. Multihued phytoplankton blooms are visible off of Washington's Olympic coast. Also visible in this image are: Fraser River outflow, snowcapped peaks of Mt. Olympus, Mt. Rainier, Mt. Adams, Mt. Hood, Mt. Jefferson, the Three Sisters, the North Cascades, and the Columbia and Snake River watersheds. Metadata * Sensor OrbView-2/SeaWiFS * Visualization Date 2000-09-26 * The Visible Earth is part of the EOS Project Science Office located at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Small images credits: Wheat: © 2009 www.photos.com Coast; Seattle skyline: © J. Martin Grassley McNary Dam: courtesy Bonneville Power Administration Salmon: courtesy University of Washington News and Information Forest: courtesy Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington Report design: Beth Tully, Edit-Design Center, University of Washington The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment Evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing Climate ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Naches Watershed Washington
    Washington Naches Watershed HUC: 17030002 Rapid Watershed Assessment This assessment involves the collection of quantitative and qualitative information to develop a watershed profile, sufficient analysis of that information to make qualitative statements as to resource concerns and conditions, and the generation of information with which to make decisions about conservation needs and recommendations. These assessments are conducted through the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology and by conservation planning teams working within the watershed, meeting with landowners and conservation groups, inventorying agricultural areas, assessing current levels of resource management, identifying conservation recommendations and, making qualitative estimates of the impacts of conservation on local resource concerns. October 2, 2006 1 Naches Watershed Introduction 717,048 Total Acres HUC# 17030003 The Naches Watershed is located in the Yakima River drainage in on the east side of the Cascade Mountain range. The Naches 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) subbasin is approximately 717,048 acres in size. The watershed is 20% privately owned and 80% publicly owned. The majority of the watershed is forest and cropland. Cropland is located mostly in the lower elevations. Agricultural enterprises include hay and pasture, orchards and small beef operations. The city of Naches makes up the largest urban area in the watershed. The majority of the watershed is located in Yakima County. Major resource concerns are soil erosion from forest roads, streambank erosion, impaired water quality, forest health issues, invasive weeds, and poor pasture condition. Primary natural resource technical assistance is provided by the Yakima NRCS Field Office, North Yakima Conservation District and the South Central Resource Conservation and Development Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11. Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit Yakima River Basin Critical Habitat Unit
    Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification: Rationale for Why Habitat is Essential, and Documentation of Occupancy Chapter 11. Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit Yakima River Basin Critical Habitat Unit 353 Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification Chapter 11 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service September 2010 Chapter 11. Yakima River Basin Critical Habitat Unit The Yakima River CHU supports adfluvial, fluvial, and resident life history forms of bull trout. This CHU includes the mainstem Yakima River and tributaries from its confluence with the Columbia River upstream from the mouth of the Columbia River upstream to its headwaters at the crest of the Cascade Range. The Yakima River CHU is located on the eastern slopes of the Cascade Range in south-central Washington and encompasses the entire Yakima River basin located between the Klickitat and Wenatchee Basins. The Yakima River basin is one of the largest basins in the state of Washington; it drains southeast into the Columbia River near the town of Richland, Washington. The basin occupies most of Yakima and Kittitas Counties, about half of Benton County, and a small portion of Klickitat County. This CHU does not contain any subunits because it supports one core area. A total of 1,177.2 km (731.5 mi) of stream habitat and 6,285.2 ha (15,531.0 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area in this CHU are proposed as critical habitat. One of the largest populations of bull trout (South Fork Tieton River population) in central Washington is located above the Tieton Dam and supports the core area.
    [Show full text]
  • Naches River Basin Field Trip
    Ice Age Floods Institute—Ellensburg Chapter Naches River Basin Field Trip Field Trip Leaders: Karl Lillquist, Geography Department, CWU Nick Zentner, Geology Department, CWU Sunday 25 September 2011 Route & Itinerary 11:00 Depart from CWU’s Hebeler Hall 12:00 Arrive Stop 1—Sanford Pasture Landslide 12:30 Depart for Stop 2 12:45 Arrive Stop 2—Nile Landslide (up close) 1:45 Depart for Stop 3 2:00 Arrive at Stop 3—Nile 5 Landslide (big picture) 2:30 Depart for Stop 4 4 2:45 Arrive at Stop 4—Edgar Rock Volcano 3:15 Depart for Stop 5 3 3:30 Arrive at Stop 5—Boulder 2 Cave 1 4:30 Depart for Ellensburg 6:00 Arrive in Ellensburg 1 Trip Overview Our field trip will take us from the Columbia Plateau to the South Cascades. Our story begins with volcanism—effusive and explosive that resulted in lava flows, lahars, dikes, and stratovolcanoes. Over time, weathering as well as erosion by glaciers, rivers, and landslides have shaped the volcanics. Recent landslides and floods have dramatically altered this area. Stops will include the early Pleistocene? Sanford Pasture landslide, the October 2009 Nile Valley landslide, Miocene Edgar Rock Volcano, and Quaternary Boulder Cave–all in the middle Naches River Valley. 2 Enroute to Stop 1 • On I-82, we go over three prominent NW-SE trending up-folds or anticlines—Manastash Ridge, North Umtanum Ridge, and South Umtanum Ridge. These folds, and some associated thrust faulting, are the result of ~N-S compression. • If the weather is clear, note Mount Rainier and Mount Adams, the towering stratovolcanoes that dominate the South Cascades.
    [Show full text]
  • Suggested Fishing Destinations in Central Washington the Yakima
    Suggested Fishing Destinations in Central Washington Always refer to the WDFW Fishing Regulation Pamphlet prior to fishing any of these streams. Most of these are within an easy drive of Red’s Fly Shop, or even a day trip from the Puget Sound area. The east slopes of the Cascades are regarded as the best small stream fishing in Washington State and a GREAT place to start as a beginner! Most of the fisheries here offer small trout in abundance, which is great adventure and perfect for learning the art of fly fishing. The Yakima River Canyon The Canyon near Red’s Fly Shop is best wade fished when the river flows are below 2,500 cfs. September and October are the best months for wading, but February and March can offer great bank access as well. Spring and summer are more challenging but still possible. Yakima County Naches River – Trout tend to be most abundant upstream from the Tieton River junction. The best wade fishing season is July – October Tieton River – It runs fairly dirty in June, but July – mid August is excellent. Rattlesnake Creek – This is a great hike in adventure and offers wonderful small stream Cutthroat fishing for anyone willing to get off the beaten path. Little Naches River – Easy access off of USFS Road 19, July – October is the best time. American River/Bumping Rivers – These are in the headwaters of the Naches drainage. Be sure to read the WDFW Regulations if you fish the American River. Ahtanum Creek – Great small stream fishing. June – October Wenas Creek – Small water, small fish, but a great adventure.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wild Cascades
    THE WILD CASCADES Fall, 1984 2 The Wild Cascades PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE ONCE THE LINES ARE DRAWN, THE BATTLE IS NOT OVER The North Cascades Conservation Council has developed a reputation for consistent, hard-hitting, responsible action to protect wildland resources in the Washington Cascades. It is perhaps best known for leading the fight to preserve and protect the North Cascades in the North Cascades National Park, the Pasayten and Glacier Peak Wilderness Areas, and the Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas. Despite the recent passage of the Washington Wilderness Act, many areas which deserve and require wilderness designation remain unprotected. One of the goals of the N3C must be to assure protection for these areas. In this issue of the Wild Cascades we have analyzed the Washington Wilderness Act to see what we won and what still hangs in the balance (page ). The N3C will continue to fight to establish new wilderness areas, but there is also a new challenge. Our expertise is increasingly being sought by government agencies to assist in developing appropriate management plans and to support them against attempts to undermine such plans. The invitation to participate more fully in management activities will require considerable effort, but it represents a challenge and an opportunity that cannot be ignored. If we are to meet this challenge we will need members who are either knowledgable or willing to learn about an issue and to guide the Board in its actions. The Spring issue of the Wild Cascades carried a center section with two requests: 1) volunteers to assist and guide the organization on various issues; and 2) payment of dues.
    [Show full text]
  • Egg-To-Migrant Survival of Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha) in the Yakima River,Washington
    EGG-TO-MIGRANT SURVIVAL OF SPRING CHINOOK SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA) IN THE YAKIMA RIVER,WASHINGTON By RICHARD L. MAJOR AND JAMES L. MIGHELL, Fishery Biologists BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY SEATI'LE, WASHINGTON 98102 ABSTRACT Egg-to-migrant survival for the 1957-61 broods in the other areas. Mean lengths (mideye to end of ranged from 5.4 to 16.4 percent-the first estimates of hypural plate) were 45;5 and 57.3 cm. for the males and survival of chinook salmon in a large river system. females in the upper Yakima River and 65.4 and 71 Spring chinook sal~on spawn in the American, em. for the males and females in the other areas. Bumping, and Naches Rivers and Rattlesnake Creek­ Spring chinook salmon migrate to sea in their second year. Larger fish migrate earlier in the season than do tributaries of the Yakima River-and in the upper smaller fish. Seaward migration reaches a peak at stretch of Yakima River proper. Forboth sexes, spawning Prosser, Wash., on the lower Yakima River between fish in the upper Yakima River are smaller than those April 14 and May 19. Movement tends to be nocturnal. Knowledge about the life history of a species 1). The Yakima River was chosen because a trap of fish is fundamental to its effective management. in a diversion canal at Prosser, Wash., on the For Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), some con­ lower river provided a unique opportunity to ception is required of survival from the egg to sample the seaward migration. The trap allowed the seaward migrant stage.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington State's Scenic Byways & Road Trips
    waShington State’S Scenic BywayS & Road tRipS inSide: Road Maps & Scenic drives planning tips points of interest 2 taBLe of contentS waShington State’S Scenic BywayS & Road tRipS introduction 3 Washington State’s Scenic Byways & Road Trips guide has been made possible State Map overview of Scenic Byways 4 through funding from the Federal Highway Administration’s National Scenic Byways Program, Washington State Department of Transportation and aLL aMeRican RoadS Washington State Tourism. waShington State depaRtMent of coMMeRce Chinook Pass Scenic Byway 9 director, Rogers Weed International Selkirk Loop 15 waShington State touRiSM executive director, Marsha Massey nationaL Scenic BywayS Marketing Manager, Betsy Gabel product development Manager, Michelle Campbell Coulee Corridor 21 waShington State depaRtMent of tRanSpoRtation Mountains to Sound Greenway 25 Secretary of transportation, Paula Hammond director, highways and Local programs, Kathleen Davis Stevens Pass Greenway 29 Scenic Byways coordinator, Ed Spilker Strait of Juan de Fuca - Highway 112 33 Byway leaders and an interagency advisory group with representatives from the White Pass Scenic Byway 37 Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of Agriculture, Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, Washington State Tourism, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and State Scenic BywayS Audubon Washington were also instrumental in the creation of this guide. Cape Flattery Tribal Scenic Byway 40 puBLiShing SeRviceS pRovided By deStination
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan --2018 Cowiche Addendum
    Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan --2018 Cowiche Addendum-- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Upper Yakima Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan, 2018 Cowiche Addendum was prepared by Yakima County Public Services Water Resources Division with the assistance of citizens, stakeholder groups, landowners and agency representatives listed below. We thank them for the time and effort they spent improving the final product. UPPER YAKIMA RIVER CFHMP ADVISORY COMMITTEE (2017-2018) Voting Members Affiliation Mr. Scott Anfinson Washington State Department of Transportation Mr. Eric Bartrand Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Mr. David Brown City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Mr. Joseph Calhoun City of Yakima Planning Mr. Bruce Dekker Lake Aspen Homeowner’s Association Mr. Jeff Emmons Yakima County Office of Emergency Management Mr. Joel Freudenthal Yakima County Flood Control Zone District Mr. David Garretson Private Landowner Mr. Bob Ingham Private Landowner Mr. John Marvin Yakama Nation Ms. Keelan McPhee Yakima County Planning Division Mr. Mike Price City of Yakima Wastewater/Stormwater Mr. Bill Sauriol Washington State Department of Transportation Mr. Brett Sheffield City of Yakima Chief Engineer Ms. Katrina Strathman Mid-Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group Alternates and Non-Voting Members Mr. Jason Clapp Yakima County Office of Emergency Management Mr. Mark Cleaver Yakima County Roads Maintenance Ms. Joan Davenport City of Yakima Community Development Mr. Glenn Denman Lake Aspen Homeowner Mr. Donald Gatchalian Yakima County Environmental Services Director Ms. Michelle Gilbert Washington Department of Ecology Mr. Byron Gumz Yakima County Planning Division Mr. Perry Harvester Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Mr. David Haws Yakima County Flood Control Zone District Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Naches River, Washington
    Anthropogenic Effects on Floodplain Geomorphology: Naches River, Washington By: Tiffany Bishop Geography Undergraduate Central Washington University 6/11/2009 Floodplains are unique ecosystems, adjusting with greatly varying flows, while still sustaining through periods of drought or flood. The occurrences and disturbances that happen to the rivers inhabiting these floodplains directly affect their geomorphology. Mountain-based rivers, such as the Naches River of Washington’s Southern Cascade Range, historically received higher pulses of runoff during the spring freshet due to snowmelt runoff. This paper examines the possible effects of decreasing or eliminating those pulses through their retention in reservoir lakes, and how these changes may affect floodplain geomorphology. Air photos, topographic maps, climographs, and hydrographs of the Little Naches and Bumping Rivers, which are tributaries to the Naches River, were analyzed in an effort to identify the possible effects of snowmelt retention. Results indicate a relationship between river discharge regulation and channel complexity, sinuosity, and channel frequency, – i.e., the floodplain of the unregulated Little Naches River is has maintained complexity and increased sinuosity while that of the Bumping River has decreased complexity, channel frequency and sinuosity. River restoration is becoming an increasingly important issue as we continue to learn the effects of anthropogenic changes to the riverine ecosystem. In the Pacific Northwest, salmon populations have been severely affected by these many effects on the ecosystem. As we move forward in attempting to recover these areas, floodplain function is one of many factors that must be investigated and rehabilitated if we hope to restore the ecosystem. Introduction: Floodplains are unique ecosystems, adjusting greatly with varying flows, while sustaining through periods of drought or flood.
    [Show full text]
  • Norse Peak Fire 2017
    Norse Peak Fire 2017 USDA-FOREST SERVICE FS-2500-8 (7/00) Date of Report: October 19, 2017 BURNED-AREA REPORT (Reference FSH 2509.13) PART I - TYPE OF REQUEST A. Type of Report [X] 1. Funding request for estimated emergency stabilization funds [ ] 2. Accomplishment Report [ ] 3. No Treatment Recommendation B. Type of Action [X] 1. Initial Request (Best estimate of funds needed to complete eligible rehabilitation measures) [ ] 2. Interim Report [ ] Updating the initial funding request based on more accurate site data or design analysis [ ] Status of accomplishments to date [ ] 3. Final Report (Following completion of work) PART II - BURNED-AREA DESCRIPTION A. Fire Name: Norse Peak and American Fires B. Fire Number: WA-OWF-000365 (Norse Peak); WA-OWF-000351 (American) C. State: Washington D. County: Pierce and Yakima E. Region: R6 Pacfic Northwest F. Forest: Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and Okanogan-Wenatchee G. District: Snoqualmie and Naches H. Fire Incident Job Code: P6K9KQ I. Date Fire Started: August 11, 2017 J. Date Fire Contained: November 1, 2017 (Tentitive) K. Suppression Cost L. Fire Suppression Damages Repaired with Suppression Funds 1. Fireline waterbarred (miles): Blanket Creek Fire: 9 mi. dozer, 6 mi. handline; 2. Fireline seeded (miles): 0 Miles 3. Other (identify): None M. Watershed Number: Hydrologic Unit Code 6 Watersheds (Table 1) Table 1: HUC 6 Watersheds CODE Watershed Name 170300020103 Crow Creek 170300020107 Lower American River 170300020108 Lower Bumping River 171100140306 Lower Greenwater River 171100140307 Silver Creek-White River 170300020106 Upper American River 171100140305 Upper Greenwater River 170300020102 Upper Little Naches River N. Total Acres Burned: 55,920 acres USFS Acres (55,920): Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Native Elk in Mount Rainier National Park CONTENTS
    A History of Native Elk in Mount Rainier National Park Paul Schullery CONTENTS Preface to the 2004 Web Edition 1 Introduction 3 Chapter One: Elk near Mount Rainier before Its Exploration 5 Summary of Archeological Evidence 5 Summary of Anthropological Evidence 6 Yakima/Kittitas 7 Nisqually/Puyallup 8 Other Tribal Groups 9 Comments on Historical Information about Elk Habits and Range 9 Possible Effects of Native Tribes on Elk Numbers since the 1730s 13 The Fur Trade 14 Firearms 16 Domestic Stock in the Mount Rainier Area 17 Demise of the Elk in the Cascades after 1860 19 Chapter Two: Native Elk in Mount Rainier 22 Indians and Elk in Mount Rainier 22 Indian Elk Legends Involving Mount Rainier 23 Elk Presence Since the Beginning of White Exploration of the Mountain 24 Chapter Three: Some Comments on the History of Elk Since 1920 33 Conclusion 35 Acknowledgments 36 References Cited 37 Appendixes 47 I: Elk-related Comments in the Superintendent's Reports, 1924-1938 47 II: Elk-related Comments in the Monthly Reports of the Park Naturalist, 1947-1963 48 III: Observations on Other Large Mammals in Mount Rainier, 1852-1896 54 IV: Bighorn Sheep in Mount Rainier: A Summary of Historical Records 61 PREFACE TO THE 2004 WEB EDITION I researched and wrote this report as a contract researcher for the National Park Service in 1983. Distribution by the National Park Service was limited to a few administrative and file copies, as far as I know. My project was part of a much larger research initiative then underway in Mount Rainier, to investigate several aspects of elk ecology and distribution in the park.
    [Show full text]