DOCSLIB.ORG

Skagit River Flood Risk Management General Investigation Skagit County, Washington

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Skagit River Flood Risk Management General Investigation Skagit County, Washington Skagit River Flood Risk Management General Investigation Skagit County, Washington Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B – Hydraulics and Hydrology May 2014 Skagit River Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B – Hydraulics and Hydrology Hydraulics and Hydrology Appendix 1. Hydraulic Analysis, Final Report, August 2013 2. Hydraulic Technical Documentation, Final Report, August 2013 3. Hydrology Technical Documentation, Final Report, August 2013 4. Sediment Budget and Fluvial Geomorphology, June 2008 1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEATTLE DISTRICT Downtown Mount Vernon October 2003 Flood fighting October 2003 SKAGIT RIVER BASIN GENERAL INVESTIGATION FLOOD RISK REDUCTION – HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FINAL STUDY REPORT AUGUST 2013 SKAGIT RIVER BASIN GENERAL INVESTIGATION FLOOD RISK REDUCTION – HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FINAL STUDY REPORT Prepared for: US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District 4735 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98134 Prepared by: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. 16300 Christensen Road, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98188 August 2013 NHC project #200074 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Datum............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 River Stationing ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 BNSF Bridge Hydraulic Modeling .................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Bridge Survey and Reassessment of HEC‐RAS Model Calibration ................................................ 4 2.1.1 Bridge Survey ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.1.2 1995 High Water Data and Model Calibration ...................................................................... 4 2.2 Investigation of HECS‐RA Bridge Computational Methods ........................................................... 5 2.3 Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 7 2.3.1 Model Sensitivity to Debris Blockage .................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 Model Sensitivity to Contraction and Expansion Coefficients .............................................. 8 2.3.3 Model Sensitivity to Right Bank Station ................................................................................ 9 2.3.4 Steady State vs. Unsteady Flow Modeling ............................................................................ 9 2.4 Effects of Bed Scour on Bridge Hydraulics .................................................................................. 10 2.5 Further Refinements to HEC‐RAS Model Representation of BNSF Bridge .................................. 11 2.6 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 11 3 Early Season Flood Regulation .................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Reservoir Record Analysis ........................................................................................................... 15 3.1.1 Upper Baker ........................................................................................................................ 15 3.1.2 Ross ..................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1.3 Analysis of Reservoir Elevation and Storage Data .............................................................. 16 3.2 Impact of Existing Flood Storage Requirements on Regulated Peak Flows ................................ 17 3.3 Impact of Increased Early Season Flood Storage Requirements on Regulated Peak Flows ....... 19 3.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 19 4 Lower Baker Dam Flood Regulation ............................................................................................ 21 4.1 Lower Baker Reservoir Flood Regulation Plan ............................................................................ 21 4.1.1 Lower Baker Dam Project Features and Spillway Gate Regulation Schedule ..................... 21 4.1.2 Flood Control Regulation .................................................................................................... 22 4.2 Impact of Flood Control Storage at Lower Baker Dam ............................................................... 24 4.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 26 Skagit River Basin General Investigation Final Study Report Flood Risk Reduction Hydraulic Analysis ii August 2013 5 Hydraulic Modeling for Economic Flood Damage Analysis .......................................................... 28 5.1 Economic Damage Reaches ........................................................................................................ 28 5.2 Levee Failure Data and Hydraulic Modeling Approach for Flood Damage Analysis ................... 29 5.3 Hydrologic Inputs and Discharge Uncertainty ............................................................................ 31 5.3.1 Hydrologic Inputs ................................................................................................................ 31 5.3.2 Discharge Uncertainty and Equivalent Record Length ....................................................... 31 5.4 Hydraulic Modeling for Existing Conditions ................................................................................ 32 5.4.1 No‐Breach Analysis ............................................................................................................. 32 5.4.2 With‐Breach Analysis .......................................................................................................... 33 5.5 Hydraulic Modeling with Additional Early Season Flood Regulation Storage ............................ 34 5.5.1 No‐Breach Analysis ............................................................................................................. 34 5.5.2 With‐Breach Analysis .......................................................................................................... 35 5.6 Hydraulic Modeling with Improved Levees ................................................................................ 35 5.6.1 No‐Breach Analysis ............................................................................................................. 35 5.6.2 With‐Breach Analysis .......................................................................................................... 36 5.7 Stage‐Discharge Uncertainty ...................................................................................................... 36 5.7.1 Model Calibration and Measurement Uncertainty ............................................................. 37 5.7.2 Hydraulic Model Parameter Uncertainty ............................................................................ 38 5.7.3 Estimation of Total Stage‐Discharge Uncertainty ............................................................... 40 6 Initial Hydraulic Design of Flood Risk Reduction Alternatives ...................................................... 41 6.1 Setback Levees ............................................................................................................................ 41 6.1.1 Primary Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 41 6.1.2 Modeling Methods .............................................................................................................. 42 6.1.3 Project Elements for the Preferred Configuration .............................................................. 42 6.1.4 Other Configurations Analyzed ........................................................................................... 43 6.1.5 Project Performance ........................................................................................................... 43 6.1.6 Hydraulic Modeling for Economic Flood Damage Analysis ................................................. 44 6.2 Joe Leary Slough Flood Bypass .................................................................................................... 45 6.2.1 Primary Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 45 6.2.2 Modeling Methods .............................................................................................................. 45 6.2.3 Project Elements ................................................................................................................. 45 6.2.4 Project Performance ........................................................................................................... 48 Skagit River Basin General Investigation Final Study Report Flood Risk Reduction Hydraulic Analysis iii August 2013 6.2.5 Hydraulic Modeling for Economic Flood Damage Analysis ................................................. 49
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Suspended-Sediment Concentration in the Sauk River, Washington, Water Years 2012-13
    Prepared in cooperation with the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Suspended-Sediment Concentration in the Sauk River, Washington, Water Years 2012-13 By Christopher A. Curran1, Scott Morris2, and James R. Foreman1 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Water Science Center, Tacoma, Washington 2 Department of Natural Resources, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Darrington, Washington Photograph of glacier-derived suspended sediment entering the Sauk River immediately downstream of the Suiattle River mouth (August 5, 2014, Chris Curran). iii Introduction The Sauk River is one of the few remaining large, glacier-fed rivers in western Washington that is unconstrained by dams and drains a relatively undisturbed landscape along the western slope of the Cascade Range. The river and its tributaries are important spawning ground and habitat for endangered Chinook salmon (Beamer and others, 2005) and also the primary conveyors of meltwater and sediment from Glacier Peak, an active volcano (fig. 1). As such, the Sauk River is a significant tributary source of both fish and fluvial sediment to the Skagit River, the largest river in western Washington that enters Puget Sound. Because of its location and function, the Sauk River basin presents a unique opportunity in the Puget Sound region for studying the sediment load derived from receding glaciers and the potential impacts to fish spawning and rearing habitat, and downstream river-restoration and flood- control projects. The lower reach of the Sauk River has some of the highest rates of incubation mortality for Chinook salmon in the Skagit River basin, a fact attributed to unusually high deposition of fine-grained sediments (Beamer, 2000b).
    [Show full text]
  • Resilient Cambridge Summary Report
    Resilient City ↓ Resilient People This a public summary for Resilient Cambridge. 6 What is climate change? 8 What we’re doing about climate change. ↳ Closer Neighborhoods ↳ Better Buildings ↳ Stronger Infrastructure ↳ Greener City 22 How Cambridge is adapting for a resilient future. 30 Your role in our future: What you can do to help. 32 A broad view of a serious issue. 34 Let’s work together to build a Resilient Cambridge. Resilient City → Resilient People City → Resilient Resilient City of Cambridge Cambridge City of 5 While climate change poses a growing threat to our City, there are many things we can do to reduce the risk and severity of its effects. Among them: → Strengthen community → Plant more trees and organizations that provide create additional green essential services to spaces on public and residents and businesses private property to combat rising temperatures and → Make our buildings flood- energy demand and heat-resilient, and require climate-resilience → Work together with design standards on new neighboring cities and the developments state to minimize flooding What is climate change? Climate change refers to long-term changes in weather patterns that impact our environment and way of life. The science is clear: Our climate is not the same as the one that our cities were built to accommodate, and the pace of change is accelerating. Climate change will The City of Cambridge bring extreme heat, is ready to meet these severe storms, and challenges. extensive flooding. In this document, you’ll learn All three may affect our health about what needs to be done, what and comfort, cause damage to our Cambridge is already doing, and the homes and schools, and threaten our important role that you can play in access to reliable energy and safe making our City more resilient in the drinking water.
    [Show full text]
  • Flooding the Border: Development, Politics, and Environmental Controversy in the Canadian-U.S
    FLOODING THE BORDER: DEVELOPMENT, POLITICS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROVERSY IN THE CANADIAN-U.S. SKAGIT VALLEY by Philip Van Huizen A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (History) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) June 2013 © Philip Van Huizen, 2013 Abstract This dissertation is a case study of the 1926 to 1984 High Ross Dam Controversy, one of the longest cross-border disputes between Canada and the United States. The controversy can be divided into two parts. The first, which lasted until the early 1960s, revolved around Seattle’s attempts to build the High Ross Dam and flood nearly twenty kilometres into British Columbia’s Skagit River Valley. British Columbia favoured Seattle’s plan but competing priorities repeatedly delayed the province’s agreement. The city was forced to build a lower, 540-foot version of the Ross Dam instead, to the immense frustration of Seattle officials. British Columbia eventually agreed to let Seattle raise the Ross Dam by 122.5 feet in 1967. Following the agreement, however, activists from Vancouver and Seattle, joined later by the Upper Skagit, Sauk-Suiattle, and Swinomish Tribal Communities in Washington, organized a massive environmental protest against the plan, causing a second phase of controversy that lasted into the 1980s. Canadian and U.S. diplomats and politicians finally resolved the dispute with the 1984 Skagit River Treaty. British Columbia agreed to sell Seattle power produced in other areas of the province, which, ironically, required raising a different dam on the Pend d’Oreille River in exchange for not raising the Ross Dam.
    [Show full text]
  • Skagit River Emergency Bank Stabilization And
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 In Reply Refer To: AUG 1 6 2011 13410-2011-F-0141 13410-2010-F-0175 Daniel M. Mathis, Division Adnlinistrator Federal Highway Administration ATIN: Jeff Horton Evergreen Plaza Building 711 Capitol Way South, Suite 501 Olympia, Washington 98501-1284 Michelle Walker, Chief, Regulatory Branch Seattle District, Corps of Engineers ATIN: Rebecca McAndrew P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Dear Mr. Mathis and Ms. Walker: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion (Opinion) based on our review of the proposed State Route 20, Skagit River Emergency Bank Stabilization and Chronic Environmental Deficiency Project in Skagit County, Washington, and its effects on the bull trout (Salve linus conjluentus), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and designated bull trout critical habitat, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act). Your requests for initiation of formal consultation were received on February 3, 2011, and January 19,2010. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Seattle District (Corps) provided information in support of "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determinations for the bull trout and designated bull trout critical habitat. On April 13 and 14, 2011, the FHWA and Corps gave their consent for addressing potential adverse effects to the bull trout and bull trout critical habitat with a single Opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mountaineer Annual
    The Mountaineer Annual 1991-1992 The MountaineerAnnual 1991-1992 Volume 79 Published August, 1993 2 TheMountaineer Annual Beargrass on Mt. Rainier Steve Johnson The Mountaineers Purposes To explore and study the mountains, forests and watercourses of the Northwest; To gather into permanent form the history and traditions of this region; To preserve by the encouragement of protective legislation or otherwise the natural beauty of Northwest America; To make expeditionsinto theseregions in fulfillment of the above purposes; To encourage a spirit of good fellowship among all lovers of outdoor life. Ascending Eldorado Royce Conrad 4 The Mountaineer Annual The MountaineerAnnual The continuing spirit of The Mountaineers shines through in this newest edition of The Mountaineer Annual. Thank you to all the creative people who so willingly gave their time and talent in producing this book. EditorialCommittee Judi Maxwell- Editor; Production Manager; Layout Ann Marshall -Assistant Editor Steve Johnson -Computer Editor; Mailing Fran Troje -Advertising Manager Mike Buettner- Editorial Committee George Potratz- Desktop Publishing (Communications Manager) Helen Cherullo and Marge Mueller- Production Consultants (Mountaineers Books) Virginia Felton - Executive Director Katrina Reed-Administrative Assistant Eileen Allen - Accounting Manager Steve Costie -Member Services Manager Cover Design: Judi Maxwell and Helen Cherullo Cover Photographs: Front -Ascent of Eldorado © Photo by John Roper Back- Friends in High Places © Photo by Julie Smith © 1993 by The Mountaineers All Rights Reserved Published by The Mountaineers 300Third Avenue West Seattle, Washington 98119 Printedin the United States of America Printed on recycled paper Contents The Mountaineers Purposes 3 Foreword 8 Don Heck Vision for the Twenty-First Century 11 Dianne Hoff Development of a Wilderness Ethics Policy 14 Edward M.
    [Show full text]
  • Kopeopeo Canal Remediation Project Flood Management Plan Condition 7.1 Resource Consent 67173
    Kopeopeo Canal Remediation Project Flood Management Plan Condition 7.1 Resource Consent 67173 BOPRC ID: A2708898 MEMORANDUM To: Brendon Love Project Manager - Kopeopeo Canal Remediation From: Peter West B.E. (Hons), CPEng, MIPENZ Date: 28 September 2017 Contract Engineer File Ref: Objective Id: Subject: Kopeopeo East Canal Remediation Project; Flood Management Plan 1 Executive Summary Bay of Plenty Regional Council has received resource consent to remove and treat contaminated sediment from within the Kopeopeo East Canal (the Canal) by a wet-dredging method. This report primarily addresses the detailed conceptual flood-management and drainage aspects of the project specific to the proposed dredging method. It is intended that this report should provide a complete treatment of the relevant material, but in places to improve readability, reference has been made to our previous and/or supporting memoranda (references at the end). This report is in two parts: Part 1 discusses relevant aspects of flood management that form necessary background material, or that have not been previously addressed – either from changes in the proposed method; or from developments in supporting information as the project has unfolded. Part 2 forms the Flood Management Plan proper, with the necessary matrix of preparation, monitoring and response procedures and actions. This flood management plan and its supporting documents (see references below) fulfil the requirements of consent condition 7.1 including all items from 7.1a through 7.1g (Resource Consent 67173; 28 September 2016). This flood management plan is consistent with the Site Management Principles and the Flood Management Principles (reproduced below) that were identified in our January 2016 memo that now form the basis of the resource consent conditions relating to flood management.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 _____________.
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline, Historic and Background Rates of Deposition of Lead-Rich Sediments on the Floodplain of the Coeur D’Alene River, Idaho
    In cooperation with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe Baseline, Historic and Background Rates of Deposition of Lead-Rich Sediments on the Floodplain of the Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho By Arthur A. Bookstrom1, Stephen E. Box1, Robert S. Fouseck2, John C. Wallis1, Helen Z. Kayser1 and Berne L. Jackson3 2004, revised 2013 1 USGS, 904 West Riverside Avenue, Room 202, Spokane, WA 99201 2 PO Box 2756, Auburn, AL 36831 3 Coeur d’Alene Tribe, Plummer, ID 83851 Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government Open-File Report 2004-1211, Version 1.1 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2006 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 2 Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stop Log Flood Barriers
    PRODUCT STOP LOG FLOOD BARRIERS Flood Control International Incorporated offers removable stop log barriers that are engineered to provide similar levels of protection to permanent flood defenses, but with the distinct advantage of being fully removable when not required. They comprise aluminum panels that are inserted into steel channels. Custom made clamps compress specialist gaskets to create a reliable barrier against flood water. These stop log barriers can be supplied for virtually any configuration including arcs, closed rectangles or circles and straight runs of any length. The system can be used on slopes up to 20° and can be stepped for steeper gradients. USES Each system is load calculated based on application and the prevailing flood • Single building openings. conditions and can be configured for flood depths up to 13 feet. A four-sided • Openings in flood walls. detail is available for openings that may become fully submerged. • Stainless / aluminum system for marine environments. To facilitate installation in new builds, we can supply preformed ground plates • Fully removable perimeter defense to with integral anchors for the demountable supports. The systems can be buildings. also retrospectively fitted to suitable existing foundations in which case load • A ‘usually stored’ system for erection certified, chemically fixed sleeve anchors are used to attach the demountable when flood warnings received. supports. This leaves only stainless steel bolt blanks at each post BENEFITS location. Due to the strength of our beams, this can • Low cost system. be at 10 feet spacing. • Lightweight - sections allow safe lifting of 10ft beams by one person for rapid Purpose designed gaskets that resist silt clogging and reform even after deployment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement
    Volume 26 Issue 2 U.S. - Canada Transboundary Resource Issues Spring 1986 The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement Jackie Krolopp Kirn Marion E. Marts Recommended Citation Jackie K. Kirn & Marion E. Marts, The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement, 26 Nat. Resources J. 261 (1986). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol26/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. JACKIE KROLOPP KIRN* and MARION E. MARTS** The Skagit-High Ross Controversy: Negotiation and Settlement SETTING AND BACKGROUND The Skagit River is a short but powerful stream which rises in the mountains of southwestern British Columbia, cuts through the northern Cascades in a spectacular and once-remote mountain gorge, and empties into Puget Sound approximately sixty miles north of Seattle. The beautiful mountain scenery of the heavily glaciated north Cascades was formally recognized in the United States by the creation of the North Cascades National Park and the Ross Lake National Recreation Area in 1968, and earlier in British Columbia by creation of the E.C. Manning Provincial Park. The Ross Lake Recreation Area covers the narrow valley of the upper Skagit River in Washington and portions of several tributary valleys. It was created as a political and, to environmentalists who wanted national park status for the entire area, controversial, compromise which accom- modated the city of Seattle's Skagit River Project and the then-planned North Cascades Highway.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA)
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2015 to 03/31/2015 Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact R6 - Pacific Northwest Region, Regionwide (excluding Projects occurring in more than one Region) Aquatic Invasive Species order - Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants In Progress: Expected:04/2015 05/2015 James Capurso to prevent the spread or Scoping Start 05/05/2014 208-557-5780 introduction of aquatic invasive [email protected] species Description: The purpose of this order is to prevent the spread or introduction of aquatic invasive plant or animal species. CE Public involvement is targeted for the Umatilla, Willamette, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, Gifford Pinchot, and Colville NFs. Web Link: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=44360 Location: UNIT - R6 - Pacific Northwest Region All Units. STATE - Oregon, Washington. COUNTY - Asotin, Clark, Columbia, Cowlitz, Ferry, Garfield, King, Klickitat, Lewis, Pend Oreille, Pierce, Skagit, Skamania, Snohomish, Stevens, Walla Walla, Whatcom, Baker, Clackamas, Douglas, Grant, Jefferson, Lane, Linn, Marion, Morrow, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wheeler. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Order will apply to all Forests in Region 6, however targeted scoping is with the Umatilla, Gifford Pinchot, Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie, Willamette and Colville NFs tribal and public scoping lists. Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Forestwide (excluding Projects occurring in more than one Forest) R6 - Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Management - Vegetation management In Progress: Expected:04/2015 05/2015 Phyllis Reed EIS (other than forest products) NOI in Federal Register 360-436-2332 02/28/2012 [email protected] Est.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Hydroeiectirc Projects Continuation Sheet
    NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-O018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service skagit ^VQT & Newhalem Creek National Register of Historic Places Hydroeiectirc Projects Continuation Sheet Section number ___ Page ___ SUPPLEMENTARY LISTING RECORD NRIS Reference Number: 96000416 Date Listed: 4/26/96 Skagit River & Newhalem Creek Hvdroelectirc Projects Whatcom WA Property Name County State Hydroelectric Power Plant MPS Multiple Name This property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with the attached nomination documentation subject to the following exceptions, exclusions, or amendments, notwithstanding the National Park Service certification included in the nomination documentation. Signature of tty^Keejifer Date of Action Amended Items in Nomination: Photographs: The SHPO has verified that the 1989 photographs accurately document the current condition and integrity of the nominated resources. Historic Photos #1-26 are provided as photocopy duplications. Resource Count: The resource count is revised to read: Contributing Noncontributing 21 6 buildings 2 - sites 5 6 structures 1 - objects 29 12 total Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register 16 . A revised inventory list is appended to clarify the resource count and contributing status of properties in the district, particularly at the powerplant/dam sites. (See attached) This information was confirmed with Lauren McCroskey of the WA SHPO. DISTRIBUTION: National Register property file Nominating Authority (without nomination attachment) NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Skagit River & Newhalem Creek National Register of Historic Places Hydroelectirc Projects Continuation Sheet Section number The following is a list of the contributing and noncontributing resources within the district, beginning at its westernmost—downstream—end, organized according to geographic location.
    [Show full text]