DOCSLIB.ORG

Seattle Watercourses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Seattle Watercourses City of Seattle State of the Waters 2007 Volume I: Seattle Watercourses State of the Waters 2007 Volume I Table of Contents Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................xi Contents of the 2007 State of the Waters Report.................................................................................xiii Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................xiv Key Findings................................................................................................................................... xv Factors Affecting Seattle Watercourses .........................................................................................xvi Watershed-Scale Conditions.....................................................................................................xvi Stream-Scale Conditions ........................................................................................................xviii Biological Communities............................................................................................................ xx Part 1 Introduction .............................................................................................1 Understanding the State of Seattle Waters.............................................................................................. 1 Overview of Seattle-Area Water Bodies................................................................................................. 2 Watercourses and Streams ................................................................................................................ 2 Lakes................................................................................................................................................. 3 Estuaries............................................................................................................................................ 5 Marine Ecosystems........................................................................................................................... 5 Part 2 A Brief Primer on Stream Ecosystems......................................................7 Conditions at the Watershed Scale........................................................................................................ 10 Stream Hydrology........................................................................................................................... 10 Stream Hydrology Prior to Urban Development....................................................................... 10 Urban Impacts on Stream Hydrology........................................................................................ 11 Receiving Water Quality................................................................................................................. 12 Water Quality Prior to Urban Development.............................................................................. 12 Urban Impacts on Water Quality............................................................................................... 13 Water Quality Indicators............................................................................................................ 15 Conditions at the Stream Scale............................................................................................................. 19 Riparian Habitat.............................................................................................................................. 19 Riparian Ecosystems Prior to Urban Development................................................................... 19 Urban Impacts on Riparian Areas.............................................................................................. 19 Instream Habitat.............................................................................................................................. 20 Sediment and Wood Recruitment and Transport Prior to Urban Development ........................ 20 Urban Impacts on Sediment and Wood in Streams ................................................................... 21 Stream–Floodplain Connections Prior to Urban Development................................................. 21 Urban Impacts on Stream–Floodplain Connections.................................................................. 22 Stream Habitat and Channel Types Prior to Urban Development............................................. 22 Urban Impacts on Stream Habitat and Channel Types.............................................................. 25 Table of Contents i City of Seattle State of the Waters 2007 Volume I: Seattle Watercourses Aquatic Biological Communities ................................................................................................... 25 Salmonids in Aquatic Ecosystems............................................................................................. 25 Salmonids in Stream Ecosystems.............................................................................................. 28 Urban Impacts on Salmonids..................................................................................................... 28 Benthic Invertebrates in Stream Ecosystems ............................................................................ 28 Urban Impacts on Benthic Invertebrates ................................................................................... 29 Part 3 Assessing the State of the Waters .........................................................31 Evaluating Conditions at the Watershed Scale ..................................................................................... 33 Hydrology Assessment Methods ....................................................................................................33 Data Collection and Compilation .............................................................................................. 33 Data Analysis............................................................................................................................. 34 Water Quality Assessment Methods ............................................................................................... 35 Water Quality Indicators............................................................................................................ 36 Data Compilation....................................................................................................................... 37 Data Quality Assurance Review................................................................................................ 37 Data Analysis............................................................................................................................. 39 Evaluating Conditions at the Stream Scale........................................................................................... 49 Riparian Habitat Assessment Methods ........................................................................................... 50 Data Collection and Compilation .............................................................................................. 50 Data Accuracy and Limitations ................................................................................................. 50 Data Analysis............................................................................................................................. 50 Instream Habitat Assessment Methods........................................................................................... 51 Data Collection and Compilation .............................................................................................. 51 Data Accuracy and Limitations ................................................................................................. 52 Data Analysis............................................................................................................................. 52 Biological Assessment Methods..................................................................................................... 53 Fish Surveys .............................................................................................................................. 53 Benthic Invertebrate Sampling.................................................................................................. 54 Part 4 Conditions in Seattle Watercourses .......................................................55 Fauntleroy Creek .................................................................................................................................. 57 Fauntleroy Creek Key Findings...................................................................................................... 58 The Fauntleroy Creek Watershed.................................................................................................... 61 Watershed-Scale Conditions........................................................................................................... 62 Fauntleroy Creek Hydrology..................................................................................................... 62 Fauntleroy Creek Water Quality................................................................................................ 63 Stream-Scale Conditions ................................................................................................................ 67 Fauntleroy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Annual Waste Prevention & Recycling Report
    s 2019 ANNUAL WASTE PREVENTION & RECYCLING REPORT i Submitted to Seattle City Council (SCC) October 2020 [Page deliberately left blank] ii CONTENTS GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................................................. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Results................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Seattle’s Recycling Rate Goals ................................................................................................................................... 3 Moving Upstream ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Annual Waste Prevention & Recycling Report..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: Destinations – Utilitarian And
    Jefferson County Non-Motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan 2010 Chapter 4: Destinations – Utilitarian and Recreational 2010 Plan Update: Chapter 4 Destinations provides a broad picture of Jefferson County: where people live, work, go to school, shop, and recreate and the locations of tourist facilities and significant public facilities. This information is intended to inform decisions about connecting these destinations with non-motorized transportation facilities. It is not intended as an up-to-date guide. While Chapter 4 has not been updated, it still performs its intended function. This chapter has been retained in the original 2002 Plan format. County, City, Port, School District, State, Federal, and private enterprises have developed an extensive number of commercial, employment, business, educational, recreational, and other public facilities within the County. This extensive array of facilities is of interest to non-motorized transportation and recreational trail users. This chapter describes the most significant destinations. 4.1 Schools The Brinnon, Chimacum, Port Townsend, Queets-Clearwater, Quilcene, Quillayute Valley, and Sequim School Districts provide educational services to Jefferson County residents. Brinnon School District The school district collects students by bus within the district’s service area – which includes all of Brinnon and the areas along US-101 from the Mason County line to Mt Walker and transports them to the central school site. Upper grade students are bused to Quilcene High School. The district operates 6 school bus routes beginning at 6:35-9:00 am and ending at 3:46-4:23 pm for the collection and distribution of different school grades and after school programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment 2011 2
    Jefferson County Department of Emergency Management 81 Elkins Road, Port Hadlock, Washington 98339 - Phone: (360) 385-9368 Email: [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 I. INTRODUCTION 6 II. GEOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 6 III. DEMOGRAPHIC ASPECTS 7 IV. SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL DISASTER EVENTS 9 V. NATURAL HAZARDS 12 • AVALANCHE 13 • DROUGHT 14 • EARTHQUAKES 17 • FLOOD 24 • LANDSLIDE 32 • SEVERE LOCAL STORM 34 • TSUNAMI / SEICHE 38 • VOLCANO 42 • WILDLAND / FOREST / INTERFACE FIRES 45 VI. TECHNOLOGICAL (HUMAN MADE) HAZARDS 48 • CIVIL DISTURBANCE 49 • DAM FAILURE 51 • ENERGY EMERGENCY 53 • FOOD AND WATER CONTAMINATION 56 • HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 58 • MARINE OIL SPILL – MAJOR POLLUTION EVENT 60 • SHELTER / REFUGE SITE 62 • TERRORISM 64 • URBAN FIRE 67 RESOURCES / REFERENCES 69 Jefferson County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment 2011 2 PURPOSE This Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment (HIVA) document describes known natural and technological (human-made) hazards that could potentially impact the lives, economy, environment, and property of residents of Jefferson County. It provides a foundation for further planning to ensure that County leadership, agencies, and citizens are aware and prepared to meet the effects of disasters and emergencies. Incident management cannot be event driven. Through increased awareness and preventive measures, the ultimate goal is to help ensure a unified approach that will lesson vulnerability to hazards over time. The HIVA is not a detailed study, but a general overview of known hazards that can affect Jefferson County. Jefferson County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment 2011 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An integrated emergency management approach involves hazard identification, risk assessment, and vulnerability analysis. This document, the Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment (HIVA) describes the hazard identification and assessment of both natural hazards and technological, or human caused hazards, which exist for the people of Jefferson County.
    [Show full text]
  • SR 520, I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project Area Encompasses One of the Most Diverse and Complex Human and Natural Landscapes in the Puget Sound Region
    Chapter 4: The Project Area’s Environment Chapter 4: The Project Area’s Environment The SR 520, I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project area encompasses one of the most diverse and complex human and natural landscapes in the Puget Sound region. It includes areas in Seattle from I-5 to the Lake Washington shore, the waters of Lake Washington, and a portion of the Eastside communities and neighborhoods from the eastern shoreline of the lake to Evergreen Point Road. It also includes densely developed urban and suburban areas and some of the most critical natural areas and sensitive ecosystems that remain in the urban growth area. The project area includes the following: ▪ Seattle neighborhoods—Eastlake, Portage Bay/Roanoke, North Capitol Hill, Montlake, University District, Laurelhurst, and Madison Park ▪ The Lake Washington ecosystem and the bays, streams, and wetlands that are associated with it ▪ The Eastside community of Medina ▪ Usual and accustomed fishing areas of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, who have historically used the area’s fisheries resources and has treaty rights for their protection and use This chapter describes what the project area is like today, setting the stage for the project’s effects described in Chapters 5 and 6. 4.1 Transportation The configuration of SR 520 today, with its inadequate shoulders and gaps in HOV lanes, makes the corridor especially prone to traffic congestion. And, as commuters on SR 520 know, the corridor is overloaded with traffic on a regular basis. Population and employment continue to grow both on the Eastside and in Seattle, resulting in new travel patterns and a steady rise in the number of vehicles crossing the Evergreen Point Bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016-12-31 Response.Esf04annex
    CITY OF SEATTLE CEMP EMERGENCY SUPPORT FUNCTION #4 - FIREFIGHTING Operations .................................................................................................................................... 10-4 11. APPENDIX 3 – Terrorist Attack – Weapons of Masss Destruction ......................................... 11-6 Situation ....................................................................................................................................... 11-6 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................. 11-6 Definitions .................................................................................................................................... 11-6 Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) Incidents ............................ 11-7 12. APPENDIX 4 – Emergency Medical Services ......................................................................... 12-8 Situation ....................................................................................................................................... 12-8 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................. 12-8 Definitions .................................................................................................................................... 12-8 Operations ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a Hydrodynamic Model of Puget Sound and Northwest Straits
    PNNL-17161 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Development of a Hydrodynamic Model of Puget Sound and Northwest Straits Z Yang TP Khangaonkar December 2007 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Printed in the United States of America Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062; ph: (865) 576-8401 fax: (865) 576-5728 email: [email protected] Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161 ph: (800) 553-6847 fax: (703) 605-6900 email: [email protected] online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm This document was printed on recycled paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Public Utilities Customer Review Panel C/O [email protected] P.O
    Appendix G Seattle Public Utilities Customer Review Panel c/o [email protected] P.O. Box 34018, Seattle WA 98124-4018 January 20, 2021 Mayor Jenny A. Durkan The City of Seattle 600 Fourth Avenue P.O. Box 94749 Seattle, WA 98124-4749 RE: Seattle Public Utilities Customer Review Panel Comments on the Proposed SPU Strategic Business Plan for 2021-2026 Dear Mayor Durkan: This letter presents our comments on the Proposed Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) Strategic Business Plan for 2021-2026 (Plan) in fulfillment of our duties as members of the Seattle Public Utilities Customer Review Panel (Panel) set forth in Resolution 31800. We endorse the Plan and support its adoption as presented. This letter includes a number of detailed comments regarding the Plan. Our primary messages regarding the Plan are as follows: Rates: We are pleased that the projected 6-year rate path is lower than that in the previous strategic plan: the 6-year weighted average annual rate increase across all SPU’s lines of business in the 2021-2026 period is projected to be 4.2%, down from 5.2% in the 2018-2023 SPU Strategic Business Plan. SPU’s commitment to drive rates down is admirable and should continue to be a priority. SPU provides essential basic services – water, sewer, drainage, solid waste collection and disposal. Ensuring the affordability of these services, particularly for lower income customers and smaller businesses, is a priority for the Panel. That said, the reduction in rates compared to the last plan has largely been accomplished by spending of cash reserves built up over the last three years because SPU’s capital project accomplishment rate was far less than anticipated.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: Existing Facilities 2010 Plan Update: the Multi-Purpose Trail Inventory in the 2002 Plan Shows the Length of the Larry Scott Trail As 4.0 Miles
    Jefferson County Non-Motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan 2010 Chapter 3: Existing Facilities 2010 Plan Update: The multi-purpose trail inventory in the 2002 Plan shows the length of the Larry Scott Trail as 4.0 miles. This included both trail segments constructed to the County’s adopted standards and the existing “usage” trail on the railroad grade. Since the adoption of the 2002 Plan, Jefferson County has constructed additional trail segments. The constructed trail length is now 4.4 miles. Volunteers have developed additional segments that extend the trail to S. Discovery Road at the Discovery Bay Golf Course. These segments, while useable, are not constructed to the County’s standards and are not included in the current inventory. The remaining trail right-of-way has been acquired to the Milo Curry Road / S. Discovery Road intersection near Four Corners. Construction of the remaining trail segments is planned for substantial completion in 2011. The trail length will then be 7.6 miles. The remainder of this chapter was not revised for the 2010 Plan update. It has been retained in the original 2002 Plan format. Jefferson County, Port Townsend, Port Ludlow, Port of Port Townsend, Washington State, National Forest and Park Services, and other public and private agencies have assembled a significant inventory of non-motorized transportation and recreational trail systems within Jefferson County. These systems provide a variety of on and off-road opportunities for walking, hiking, bicycling, horse, and hand launch boat activities throughout the county. The 1998 County Comprehensive Plan provides a very limited description of the non-motorized transportation and recreational trail facilities in Jefferson County.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Small Lakes
    City of Seattle State of the Waters 2007 Volume II: Small Lakes State of the Waters 2007 Volume II Table of Contents Part 1 Introduction .............................................................................................1 Understanding the State of Seattle Waters.............................................................................................. 1 Contents of the State of the Waters Report............................................................................................. 2 Overview of Seattle-Area Water Bodies................................................................................................. 3 Watercourses and Streams ................................................................................................................ 3 Lakes................................................................................................................................................. 3 Estuaries............................................................................................................................................ 4 Marine Ecosystems........................................................................................................................... 4 Part 2 A Brief Primer on Lake Ecosystems..........................................................7 Lake Ecosystem Processes ..................................................................................................................... 7 Trophic Status and Eutrophication...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Kitsap County Coordinated Water System Plan
    Kitsap County Coordinated Water System Plan Regional Supplement 2005 Revision Kitsap County May 9, 2005 Coordinated Water System Plan Regional Supplement 2005 Revision Acknowledgements An undertaking of this magnitude is not possible without the efforts of numerous individuals and groups. This plan is a project of extensive input and a compilation of the recommendations of numerous special studies and related planning efforts. Those of us at the Kitsap County Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) and Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) would like to pay particular tribute to those agencies and individuals listed below: Morgan Johnson, Chair Water Utility Coordinating Committee Members of the Kitsap County Water Utility Coordinating Committee Kitsap Public Utility District Staff, Bill Hahn coordinating Kathleen Cahall, Water Resources Manager City of Bremerton Mike Means, Drinking Water Program Manager Kitsap County Health District Washington State Department of Health Staff z Denise Lahmann z Jim Rioux z Jared Davis z Karen Klocke Washington State Department of Ecology Staff Acknowledgements ii Kitsap County May 9, 2005 Coordinated Water System Plan Regional Supplement 2005 Revision Table of Contents Section Title Page Letter of Transmittal ........................................................................................................ Engineer's Certificate..................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • We Are Hard-Working Passionate Optimistic Inclusive Fun Leadership
    2011 ANNUAL REPORT WE ARE HARD-WORKING PASSIONATE OPTIMISTIC INCLUSIVE FUN LEADERSHIP EarthCorps is recognized nationally as a leader among conservation corps. No other corps combines an international component, engages wide-scale volunteerism, and provides science- FROM THE DIRECTOR based ecological expertise like EarthCorps. Dear Friends, EarthCorps turns 20 next year! This milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on the Staff and Corps work together at Chism Beach Park in Bellevue, WA accomplishments that position us to make an even bigger impact in our next 20 years. First, EarthCorps has managed well through a down economy. These past four years have been difficult for nonprofits, yet EarthCorps has emerged stronger financially and programmatically. We have built on our strengths, streamlined programs, and leveraged opportunities for growth. Second, EarthCorps is recognized nationally as a leader among conservation corps. No other corps combines an international component, engages wide- scale volunteerism, and provides science-based ecological expertise like EarthCorps. And third, we have committed ourselves to leadership training and development. Our greatest impact is through our graduates, many of whom work 2011 BOARD Randi Smith, Treasurer SEASONAL STAFF in habitat restoration and hold leadership OF DIRECTORS Strategic Consultant Mark Bir positions across the U.S. and in 80 countries David Albano, President Peter Streit Malia Caracoglia Accenture REI Anna Portinga around the world. We are committed to delivering Monte Alves Bettina Stix the strongest, most relevant training to equip the ERM Amazon.com HYLEBOS ADVISORY Bruce Volbeda, Paul Summers COMMITTEE next generation of environmental leaders. Our Secretary The Boeing Trisha Bennett graduates represent our best hope for the future Attorney Company Julie Brauns Ann Burkhart Karen Waters Adele Freeland of our planet.
    [Show full text]
  • SR 520 I-5 to Medina
    Attachment 9 Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Report SR 520, I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration February 2011 Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Report SR 520, I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project February 2011 Prepared By: Patrick Togher, PWS (HDR Engineering, Inc.) Beth Peterson, PE (HDR Engineering, Inc.) Maki Dalzell, (Wetland Scientist, HDR Engineering, Inc.) Other Contributors and Role: Shane Cherry (Mitigation Discipline Lead, Confluence Environmental Company) Jeff Meyer, PWS (Sr. Wetland Biologist, Parametrix, Inc.) Ken Sargent (Wetland Biologist, Headwaters Environmental Consulting, Inc.) 1 Executive Summary 2 The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is proposing to construct the I-5 3 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project (SR 520, I-5 to Medina Project) to reduce 4 transit and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) travel times and to replace the aging spans of the 5 Portage Bay and Evergreen Point bridges, which are highly vulnerable to windstorms and 6 earthquakes. The project will also widen the State Route (SR) 520 corridor to six lanes from I-5 7 in Seattle to Evergreen Point Road in Medina, and will restripe and reconfigure the lanes in the 8 corridor from Evergreen Point Road to 92nd Avenue NE in Yarrow Point. The project will 9 complete the regional HOV lane system across SR 520, as called for in regional and local 10 transportation plans. 11 The SR 520, I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project (SR 520, I-5 to Medina 12 Project) extends approximately 5.2 miles, from the interchange at I-5 in Seattle eastward to 13 Evergreen Point Road in Medina, on the east side of Lake Washington.
    [Show full text]