DOCSLIB.ORG

Baker River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing Comprehensive Settlement Agreement, Signed in November 2004 (Agreement)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2 Based on the information provided in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, other documents, and conversations with staff from Puget Sound Energy, ACOE, and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), we have concluded that effects to the federally-listed grizzly bear and gray wolf associated with the proposed relicensing of the Baker Project would be insignificant and discountable. Therefore, we concur with your “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for grizzly bear and gray wolf. The FWS disagrees that “may affect, likely to adversely affect” is the appropriate effect determination for bull trout critical habitat. Virtually no areas below the Baker Dams are designated bull trout critical habitat, and therefore we believe that the appropriate determination is “no effect.” The FWS does not concur with the “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for bald eagle, marbled murrelet, marbled murrelet critical habitat, northern spotted owl, and northern spotted owl critical habitat because of the potential for increased disturbance due to construction activities and increased visitor use, the potential to remove critical habitat and/or the potential to increase predation of marbled murrelet nests by corvids. We concur with the “may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination for bull trout. We therefore have conducted a formal consultation on the bald eagle, bull trout, marbled murrelet, marbled murrelet critical habitat, northern spotted owl, and northern spotted owl critical habitat. This consultation is complex, involving two Federal action agencies, the analysis of over 50 license articles proposed in the Baker River Hydroelectric Project Settlement Agreement and covering the effects of a license for operation for up to 50 years. Because the applicant, Puget Sound Energy, has committed to fulfilling all of the Settlement Agreement, and because this commitment is tied to issuance of the license, we have chosen to define the proposed action as it is described in the Settlement Agreement rather than in the DEIS, as you have proposed. Many of the activities evaluated in this consultation will be phased in over the period of the license and are not well defined at this time. In some cases, the applicant, Puget Sound Energy, has committed to providing funds to the USFS for completion of license articles. Where we have enough specific information to quantify effects on listed species, we have included that analysis here. For those future actions that are not currently well-defined, we have assumed a worst-case scenario, or have described the effects in general terms and have identified those actions that we believe will need future consultation tiered to this BO. This BO is based on information provided in the September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement; the November 30, 2004, Baker River Hydroelectric Project Settlement Agreement; the November 7, 2006, USFS Final 4e Terms and Conditions; the April 30, 2004, license application and associated studies submitted to the Commission by Puget Sound Energy; meetings, telephone conversations, emails, field investigations; and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the FWS’ Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in Lacey, Washington. GLOSSARY ACOE : U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Act: Endangered Species Act or ESA Action Area: The Baker River watershed and the Skagit River mainstem from the mouth of the Baker to the mouth of the Skagit. Agreement: Settlement Agreement ALP: Alternate Licensing Process Article: Settlement agreement article or license article Cfs: Cubic feet per second DEIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FWS: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, referred to as USFWS in citations LWD: Large woody debris NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service NPS: National Park Service NSO Northern Spotted Owl PCE: Primary constituent element of designated critical habitat Puget: Puget Sound Energy, PSE, or Licensee Parties: Parties that negotiated and signed the Settlement Agreement Services: FWS and NMFS considered together USFS: U.S. Forest Service WDOE: Washington Department of Ecology WDFW: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR: Washington Department of Natural Resources ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 CONSULTATION HISTORY..................................................................................................... 1 BIOLOGICAL OPINION............................................................................................................ 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION..................................................................... 4 Baker Hydroelectric Project Facilities and Operations ........................................................ 5 Upper Baker Development ..................................................................................................... 5 Lower Baker Development..................................................................................................... 6 Hydropower and Flood Control Operations ........................................................................... 6 Baker River Settlement Agreement ........................................................................................ 7 Conservation Measures ............................................................................................................ 7 Action Area................................................................................................................................8 GRAY WOLF LETTER OF CONCURRENCE ....................................................................... 8 GRIZZLY BEAR LETTER OF CONCURRENCE................................................................ 14 INTRODUCTION TO SPECIES EFFECTS ........................................................................... 23 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 23 Northwest Forest Plan........................................................................................................... 24 Elk Forage Habitat Land and Washington State Forest Practices Rules .............................. 25 Decision-making as Part of the Settlement Agreement ........................................................ 25 Organization of this Section................................................................................................... 26 BALD EAGLE ............................................................................................................................ 26 STATUS OF THE SPECIES: Bald Eagle – Pacific Population.............................................. 26 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE—Bald Eagle (in the action area)........................................... 30 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION—Bald Eagle ................................................................................. 32 Project Facilities, Operations, and Flood Control ............................................................... 32 Aquatics ................................................................................................................................... 34 Shoreline Erosion.................................................................................................................. 34 Fish Propagation ................................................................................................................... 35 Upstream Fish Passage and Connectivity between Reservoirs............................................. 36 Downstream Fish Passage..................................................................................................... 37 Recreation................................................................................................................................ 39 Aesthetics Management Plan................................................................................................ 39 Lower Baker Developed Recreation..................................................................................... 40 Upper Baker Visitor Information Services ........................................................................... 41 Managing Dispersed Campsites............................................................................................ 41 Upper Baker Trail and Trailhead Construction .................................................................... 42 Developed Recreational Monitoring..................................................................................... 43 USFS Road Maintenance and Paving................................................................................... 44 Potential Effects from Increased Recreational Use .............................................................. 44 Terrestrial................................................................................................................................ 48 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS – Bald Eagle .................................................................................. 50 CONCLUSION – Bald Eagle ....................................................................................................... 51 Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 53 BULL TROUT ...........................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • The Wild Cascades

    The Wild Cascades

    THE WILD CASCADES April-May 1969 2 THE WILD CASCADES MORE (BUT NOT THE LAST) ABOUT ALPINE LAKES We recently carried in these pages an article by Brock Evans, Northwest Conservation Representative, on Alpine Lakes: Stepchild of the North Cascades. Mr. L. O. Barrett, Supervisor of Snoqualmie National Forest, feels the article contained "some rather significant misinterpretations" and has asked the opportunity to respond. Following are Mr. Barrett's comments on portions of Mr. Evans' article, together with Mr. Evans' rejoinders. Barrett: The Alpine Lakes Area is still wilderness quality in part because of the nature of the land, and in part because the Forest Service has managed it as wilderness type area since 1946. We will continue to protect it from timber harvesting, mining and excessive recreation use until Congress makes a decision about its suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Evans: The wilderness parts of the Alpine Lakes region that are being lost are those which the Forest Service has chosen not to manage as wilderness. The 1946 date referred to is the date of the establishment of the Alpine Lake Limited Area. This designation granted a measure of administrative protection to a substantial part of the region; but much was left out. The logging in the Miller River, Foss River, Deception Creek, Cooper Lake, and Eight Mile Creek valleys all took place in wilderness-type areas which we proposed for protection which were outside the limited area. The Forest Service cannot protect its lands from mineral prospecting or, ulti­ mately, from mining operations of some types — because of the mining laws.
  • Baker Sockeye Briefing

    Baker Sockeye Briefing

    Baker Sockeye Briefing Aaron Dufault and Edward Eleazer Commission Meeting 10/27/2017 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Information subject to changes 1 Outline • History/Background • Fishery Management • Harvest/Sharing Updated through 2017 • Challenges • Proposed solutions • Summary Commission Meeting 10/27/2017 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Information subject to changes 2 Baker Lake History • Native Baker River sockeye run blocked by Lower Baker Dam (Lake Shannon) in 1925 – ladder for fish passage • Upper Baker Dam (1959) – enlarged Baker lake • Blocked upstream fish passage • Human transport of adults/smolts from lake to Baker river • Hatchery dependent run – low levels of natural spawning in Baker Lake/River Commission Meeting 10/27/2017 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Information subject to changes 3 Fishing Locations – Skagit R. Baker Lake Lake Shannon Tribal U&A * Baker Trap Rec. Fishery * Mt. Vernon Skagit Bay Commission Meeting 10/27/2017 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Information subject to changes 4 In-Season Management • Baker Trap Counts • Flow Dependent – can be variable • 20 day migration from mouth to trap • Treaty Test Fisheries 6/1 6/11 6/21 7/1 7/11 7/21 7/31 8/10 8/20 8/30 • Started in 2012 – no timeline if/when test fisheries will become useful for in-season run updates • In-Season Update (ISU) Models– utilize trap counts to predict total runsize • Reliability of models greatly increases after 50% migration • Migration time limits effectiveness of in-season actions Commission Meeting 10/27/2017 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Information subject to changes 5 2014/15 Baker Lake Workshops • 2 Public Workshops in Fall/Winter 2014/15 • Prompted following poor return in 2014 and sharing imbalance between state and tribes • Primary Outcomes: • River vs Lake Fishery Priority of harvest (sliding scale with runsize) • Bag limits (runsize dependent in lake) • Fisheries start and end dates • Post 2014/15 workshops, continue to work with key stakeholders to address concerns • Most recent meeting on Oct.
  • Mount Baker, Washington

    Mount Baker, Washington

    WATER-QUALITY EFFECTS ON BAKER LAKE OF RECENT VOLCANIC ACTIVITY AT MOUNT BAKER, WASHINGTON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1022-B Prepared in cooperation with the State of Washington Department of Ecology Water-Quality Effects on Baker Lake of Recent Volcanic Activity at Mount Baker, Washington By G. C. BORTLESON, R. T. WILSON, and B. L. FOXWORTHY VOLCANIC ACTIVITY AT MOUNT BAKER, WASHINGTON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1022-B Prepared in cooperation with the State of Washington Department of Ecology UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1977 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Bortleson, Gilbert Carl, 1940- Water-quality effects on Baker Lake of recent volcanic activity at Mount Baker, Washington. (Volcanic Activity at Mt. Baker) (Geologic Survey Professional Paper 1022-B) Bibliography: p. 30. Supt.ofDocs.no.: I 19.16:1022-6 1. Water quality-Washington (State)--Baker Lake. 2. Volcanism-Washington (State). 3. Baker, Mount, Wash. I. Wilson, Reed T., joint author. II. Foxworthy, Bruce, La Verne, 1925- joint author. III. Washington (State). Dept. of Ecology. IV. Title. V. Series: Volcanic activity at Mount Baker, Washington. VI. Series: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1022-B. TD224.W2B67 363.6'1 77-21097 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 024-001-03008-0 CONTENTS Conversion factors _________________________. Ill Quality of surface waters draining to Baker Lake ______B16 Abstract__________________________________. Bl Water in Sherman Crater __________________ 16 Introduction ______________________________. 1 Boulder Creek and other streams _____________.
  • Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Geothermal Power Plant Environmental Impact Assessment Evan Derickson Western Washington University

    Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Geothermal Power Plant Environmental Impact Assessment Evan Derickson Western Washington University

    Western Washington University Western CEDAR Huxley College Graduate and Undergraduate Huxley College of the Environment Publications Winter 2013 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest geothermal power plant environmental impact assessment Evan Derickson Western Washington University Ethan Holzer Western Washington University Brandon Johansen Western Washington University Audra McCafferty Western Washington University Eric Messerschmidt Western Washington University See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/huxley_stupubs Part of the Environmental Studies Commons Recommended Citation Derickson, Evan; Holzer, Ethan; Johansen, Brandon; McCafferty, Audra; Messerschmidt, Eric; and Olsen, Kyle, "Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest geothermal power plant environmental impact assessment" (2013). Huxley College Graduate and Undergraduate Publications. 29. https://cedar.wwu.edu/huxley_stupubs/29 This Environmental Impact Assessment is brought to you for free and open access by the Huxley College of the Environment at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Huxley College Graduate and Undergraduate Publications by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Author Evan Derickson, Ethan Holzer, Brandon Johansen, Audra McCafferty, Eric Messerschmidt, and Kyle Olsen This environmental impact assessment is available at Western CEDAR: https://cedar.wwu.edu/huxley_stupubs/29 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Geothermal Power
  • CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN Baker River Alluvial Fan Enhancement

    CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN Baker River Alluvial Fan Enhancement

    SKAGIT COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN Baker River Alluvial RESTORATION STRATEGY CONCEPT ELEMENTS 1. Increase off -channel rearing habitat by excavating a 11. Replace the existing shoreline stairway 66.6. Substitute pervious, natural-surface pedestrian channel connecting the mainstem Skagit with an off - shoreline access trails for impervious road surfaces. Fan Enhancement channel pond. 22.2. Reduce imperviousness of vehicular and pedestrian access along river banks 77.7. Provide channels to link habitats of the historic Little BACKGROUND 2. Improve instream complexity by adding large woody Baker River channel and alluvial fan as a backwater debris. 3.3. Replace invasive plant species with native trees and The Baker River Alluvial Fan area at the confl uence with 3 channel. shrubs. the larger Skagit River is located partly within the Town 3. Substitute pervious pedestrian trails for impervious 88.8. Provide low-impact recreational improvements such of Concrete and partly in unincorporated Skagit County. vehicular access road and parking areas where feasible 44. Improve the existing WDFW boat launch site as campgrounds outside the fl oodway. For more than a decade, various stakeholders including in areas adjacent to the Baker and Skagit Rivers. user groups, landowners, local governments, and other 55.5. Improve sinuosity of lower Baker River, establish 99.9. Place boulders, log structures, and/or engineered log interested parties have been considering habitat and 4. Remove invasive plant species and replace them with fl oodplain benches and meanders. jams to increase low-fl ow complexity and improve recreational improvement opportunities along the lower native trees and shrubs to provide riparian functions salmonid fi sh habitat for juvenile rearing and adult Baker River and its associated alluvial fan.
  • The Wild Cascades

    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.
  • Historical Record of Fish Related Issues on the Skagit River

    Historical Record of Fish Related Issues on the Skagit River

    HISTORICAL RECORD OF FISH RELATED ISSUES ON THE SKAGIT RIVER SKAGIT COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1897 THROUGH 1969 By Larry Kunzler June 4, 2005 Updated and republished June 2008 www.skagitriverhistory.com Historical Record of Fish Related Issues On The Skagit River Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ 2 PREFACE....................................................................................................................................... 4 Levees and Fish Discussed Early in Skagit History ....................................................................... 5 Flood Control Projects Impacted Fish Runs ................................................................................... 5 Fish Hatchery At Baker Lake Stops Work For Winter................................................................... 6 Seattle To Build State Hatchery On Upper River........................................................................... 6 Forest Service To Survey Road From Here To Baker Lake........................................................... 7 O’malley Is Appointed As Fish Commissioner.............................................................................. 7 Fish Hatchery Man Has Exciting Trip To Lake.............................................................................. 7 Preliminary Work On Baker Lake Road Started This Week.......................................................... 8 Power Company To Continue
  • Baker River Hydroelectric Project FERC No

    Baker River Hydroelectric Project FERC No

    Baker River Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2150 PDEA Initial Review Comments 1/16/04 The documents available to the general public, apparently Volume I, Part 1 of 2, and Volume II, Part 1 of 2, exclude key information including the results of numerous studies and other documents that are part of the license submittal. Because so many studies are incomplete and have therefore not been incorporated into the substantive compilation of factual material relevant to the current re-licensing effort, it is difficult to comment from the County’s perspective regarding addition of flood storage in the Baker Project. For example, there are several references to study “A09,” as yet incomplete, which will provide essential information regarding salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. It is also difficult to comment on a report that does not include the recommended conditions considered necessary to protect fish and wildlife from the federal resource agencies. In numerous instances, the PDEA refers to future actions that will be undertaken after the license is issued. (See page 5-117.) The mechanism to ensure these actions are completed is not clear. It should be noted that Puget Sound Energy (PSE) has refused to conduct a flood control study1 requested by Skagit County on December 2, 2002, to verify the County’s reservoir elevation recommendations, primarily based upon a concern that this study will not be complete in time to include with the license submittal. Yet in several other areas of the re-licensing effort, results of other studies are clearly
  • Assessment of Energy Storage Alternatives in the Puget Sound Energy System

    Assessment of Energy Storage Alternatives in the Puget Sound Energy System

    PNNL- 23040 Assessment of Energy Storage Alternatives in the Puget Sound Energy System Volume 1: Financial Feasibility Analysis December 2013 Patrick Balducci, PNNL Patrick Leslie, Puget Sound Energy Chunlian Jin, PNNL Charles Daitch, Puget Sound Energy Di Wu, PNNL Andy Marshall, Primus Power Michael Kintner-Meyer, PNNL PNNL-23040 Assessment of Energy Storage Alternatives in the Puget Sound Energy System Volume 1: Financial Feasibility Analysis P Balducci, PNNL C Jin, PNNL D Wu, PNNL M Kintner-Meyer, PNNL P Leslie, Puget Sound Energy C Daitch, Puget Sound Energy A Marshall, Primus Power December 2013 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 and the Bonneville Power Administration. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Executive Summary For more than a decade, the Pacific Northwest has been capable of generating more electric energy than the region’s utilities required for meeting customer demand. Now, however, the Regional Resource Adequacy Forum’s five-year forecast indicates the region will soon reach load-resource balance. As capacity constraints loom, the percentage of renewables on the grid continues to grow, driven by renewable portfolio standards throughout the region, production tax credits and decreasing costs. In the Bonneville Power Administration region, with a total of 6 gigawatts of wind power, the need to manage the variability and intermittency of renewable energy resources has become a very real challenge, sometimes necessitating wind curtailments to sustain reliable operations. The continued increase of these renewable sources will necessitate the deployment of technologies that can address intermittency in an environmentally sustainable fashion. Energy storage systems have the potential to improve the operating capabilities of the electricity grid.
  • D Electric Resources & Alternatives

    D Electric Resources & Alternatives

    D Electric Resources & Alternatives This appendix describes PSE’s existing electric resources; current electric resource alternatives and the viability and availability of each; and estimated ranges for capital and operating costs. 1 1 / Operating costs are defined as operation and maintenance costs, insurance and property taxes. Capital costs are defined as depreciation and carrying costs on capital expenditures. D- 1 FINAL PSE 2021 IRP D Electric Resources & Alternatives Contents 1. RESOURCE TYPES D-3 2. EXISTING RESOURCES INVENTORY D-7 • Supply-side Thermal Resources • Supply-side Renewable Resources • Supply-side Contract Resources • Supply-side Transmission Resources • Demand-side Resources • Demand-side Customer Programs 3. ELECTRIC RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES D-36 • Demand-side Resource Costs and Technologies • Supply-side Renewable Resource Costs and Technologies • Supply-side Thermal Resource Costs and Technologies D- 2 FINAL PSE 2021 IRP D Electric Resources & Alternatives 1. RESOURCE TYPES The following overview summarizes some of the distinctions used to classify electric resources. Supply-side and Demand-side Both of these types of resources are capable of enabling PSE to meet customer loads. Supply- side resources provide electricity to meet load, and these resources originate on the utility side of the meter. Demand-side resources contribute to meeting need by reducing demand. An “integrated” resource plan includes both supply- and demand-side resources. SUPPLY-SIDE RESOURCES for PSE include: • Generating plants, including
  • Preliminary Geologic Map of the Mount Baker 30- by 60-Minute Quadrangle, Washington

    Preliminary Geologic Map of the Mount Baker 30- by 60-Minute Quadrangle, Washington

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Preliminary Geologic Map of the Mount Baker 30- by 60-Minute Quadrangle, Washington by R.W. Tabor1 , R.A. Haugerud2, D.B. Booth3, and E.H. Brown4 Prepared in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Olympia, Washington, 98504 OPEN FILE REPORT 94-403 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S.Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. iu.S.G.S., Menlo Park, California 94025 2U.S.G.S., University of Washington, AJ-20, Seattle, Washington 98195 3SWMD, King County Department of Public Works, Seattle, Washington, 98104 ^Department of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington 98225 INTRODUCTION The Mount Baker 30- by 60-minute quadrangle encompasses rocks and structures that represent the essence of North Cascade geology. The quadrangle is mostly rugged and remote and includes much of the North Cascade National Park and several dedicated Wilderness areas managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Geologic exploration has been slow and difficult. In 1858 George Gibbs (1874) ascended the Skagit River part way to begin the geographic and geologic exploration of the North Cascades. In 1901, Reginald Daly (1912) surveyed the 49th parallel along the Canadian side of the border, and George Smith and Frank Calkins (1904) surveyed the United States' side. Daly's exhaustive report was the first attempt to synthesize what has become an extremely complicated geologic story.
  • North Cascades National Park I Mcallister Cutthroat Pass A

    North Cascades National Park I Mcallister Cutthroat Pass A

    To Hope, B.C. S ka 40mi 64km gi t R iv er Chilliwack S il Lake v e CHILLIWACK LAKE SKAGIT VALLEY r MANNING - S k a g PROVINCIAL PARK PROVINCIAL PARK i PROVINCIAL PARK t Ross Lake R o a d British Columbia CANADA Washington Hozomeen UNITED STATES S i Hozomeen Mountain le Silver Mount Winthrop s Sil Hoz 8066ft ia ve o Castle Peak 7850ft Lake r m 2459m Cr 8306ft 2393m ee e k e 2532m MOUNT BAKER WILDERNESS Little Jackass n C Mount Spickard re Mountain T B 8979ft r e l e a k i ar R 4387ft Hozomeen Castle Pass 2737m i a e d l r C ou 1337m T r b Lake e t G e k Mount Redoubt lacie 4-wheel-drive k r W c 8969ft conditions east Jack i Ridley Lake Twin a l of this point 2734m P lo w er Point i ry w k Lakes l Joker Mountain e l L re i C ak 7603ft n h e l r C R Tra ee i C i Copper Mountain a e re O l Willow 2317m t r v e le n 7142ft T i R k t F a e S k s o w R Lake a 2177m In d S e r u e o C k h g d e u c r Goat Mountain d i b u i a Hopkins t C h 6890ft R k n c Skagit Peak Pass C 2100m a C rail Desolation Peak w r r T 6800ft li Cre e ave 6102ft er il ek e e Be 2073m 542 p h k Littl 1860m p C o Noo R C ks i n a Silver Fir v k latio k ck c e ee Deso e Ro Cree k r Cr k k l e il e i r B e N a r Trail a C To Glacier r r O T r C Thre O u s T e Fool B (U.S.