DOCSLIB.ORG

Test Herrera Report Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

APPENDIX C South Fork Skykomish River Geomorphic Assessment GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT SOUTH FORK SKYKOMISH RIVER Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks River and Floodplain Management Section Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT SOUTH FORK SKYKOMISH RIVER Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks River and Floodplain Management Section 201 S. Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206/441-9080 December 19, 2012 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................. 3 Assessment Area Limits .............................................................................. 3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 7 Existing Information .................................................................................. 7 Physical Setting ................................................................................ 7 Geologic Context ......................................................................... 7 Predevelopment Geomorphic Processes ............................................... 8 Reach-specific Geomorphic Conditions ................................................ 8 Field Studies ........................................................................................... 8 Habitat Impairments ........................................................................... 9 Natural Habitat Limitations ............................................................. 9 Human Modifications ..................................................................... 9 Observed Habitat Features ................................................................... 9 In-Channel Aquatic Habitats ........................................................... 10 Off-Channel Aquatic Habitat Types ................................................... 11 Observed Restoration Opportunities ....................................................... 12 Results ...................................................................................................... 13 Existing Information ................................................................................. 13 Physical Setting ............................................................................... 13 Geologic Context ........................................................................ 13 Predevelopment Geomorphic Processes .............................................. 15 Reach-specific Geomorphic Conditions ............................................... 16 Field Studies .......................................................................................... 21 Habitat Impairments .......................................................................... 21 Natural Limitations ...................................................................... 21 Human Modifications .................................................................... 22 Observed Habitat Features .................................................................. 37 In-Channel ................................................................................ 37 Off-Channel ............................................................................... 53 Observed Restoration Opportunities ....................................................... 53 Summary of Findings ...................................................................................... 63 References ................................................................................................. 65 Appendix 1 Information Sheets i jr 10-04766-019 geomorphic assessment-s fork skykomish TABLES Table 1. Aquatic Habitat Types Identified Within the South Fork Skykomish River Corridor. ........................................................................................ 10 Table 2. Summary of Armoring Length and Percentage by Reach. ............................... 19 Table 3. Summary of Potential Restoration Projects Identified During This Assessment. .................................................................................... 61 FIGURES Figure 1. South Fork Skykomish River Assessment Area. ............................................. 5 Figure 2. South Fork Skykomish River Longitudinal Profile. ........................................ 14 Figure 3. Illustration of a Typical Incised Reach Near Skykomish and a More Unusual Example of an intact Side Channel Near the Town of Baring. .......................... 17 Figure 4. Lacustrine Clay Exposed Along the Banks of the South Fork Skykomish River. ....... 22 Figure 5. Observed Human Modifications on the South Fork Skykomish River, Washington. .................................................................................... 23 Figure 6. Observed Geomorphic and Habitat Features on the South Fork Skykomish River, Washington. ............................................................................ 39 Figure 7. Potential Restoration Project Map, South Fork Skykomish River, Washington. ...... 55 ii jr 10-04766-019 geomorphic assessment-s fork skykomish INTRODUCTION This technical memorandum outlines the approach, analytical methods, and results of a geomorphic assessment that includes identification of restoration opportunities on the entire South Fork Skykomish River (the South Fork), from its headwaters at the confluence of the Tye and Foss rivers to its terminus at the confluence with the North Fork Skykomish River (the North Fork) near the Town of Index (Figure 1). This technical memorandum is part of a larger feasibility study of salmonid habitat restoration projects within the South Fork basin conducted by King County (the County). This larger feasibility study includes work and project identification on major South Fork tributaries, and a site-specific analysis of the lower Miller River Fan. The feasibility study is intended to be the first step in a process to improve habitat conditions and reduce flood and erosion risks in the South Fork. This geomorphic assessment describes the physical and ecological basis for restoration of predevelopment geomorphic conditions and improvement of in-stream habitat in the South Fork. The focus of the assessment is on habitat for anadromous fish, including Chinook, coho, steelhead and bull trout. The assessment is then the basis for the development of specific restoration opportunities, identified during the field work conducted as a part of the assessment. The assessment follows a physical-process-based approach, which has been suggested by many researchers for assessments of this kind (Kondolf et al. 2006; Beechie et al. 2010). The purpose of the identifying projects in this assessment is not to evaluate these projects, but merely to identify potential actions that could restore habitat conditions and predevelopment geomorphic functions. Details regarding the design and implementation of restoration actions are beyond the scope of this document. This assessment explicitly does not include a formal analysis of the hydrology of the basin, hydraulic modeling, a detailed analysis of the fish utilization of the area, or a delineation of large woody debris (LWD). Because a formal survey of all in-channel LWD has not been made, it was not possible to recommend LWD placement locations. Nonetheless, LWD could be added anywhere within the study area and would improve habitat quality, provided that care is taken to ensure that the added wood does not affect flood protection or cause other off- site impacts. Assessment Area Limits The assessment area for this portion of the feasibility study extends between the confluence of the Tye and Foss Rivers to the confluence of the South Fork and the North Fork near the town of Index, Washington. It includes the mainstem of the South Fork, its side channels, and the tributary junctions of its major tributaries, which include the Foss River, Beckler River, Anthracite Creek, Maloney Creek, Miller River, Money Creek, Barclay Creek, Index Creek, Bridal Veil Creek and Philadelphia Creek. The assessment area covers nearly 20 miles of river, December 2012 Geomorphic Assessment—South Fork Skykomish River 3 which were observed over the course of 4 days, 3 of which were by boat. As a result of the speed of the field reconnaissance, exhaustive, detailed observations of geomorphic features (such as bar sizes) were not possible. The primary intent of the field reconnaissance was to identify possible restoration projects, and to describe how science informed the prioritization of those projects. December 2012 4 Geomorphic Assessment—South Fork Skykomish River 1452000 1458600 1465200 1471800 1478400 1485000 1491600 1498200 1504800 1511400 1518000 1524600 Figure 1. South Fork Skykomish River North Fork assessment area, King County, Skykomish Skykomish River Washington. 303600 River 303600 (! Town of Index Sunset Falls Canyon Falls Legend 297000 297000 Eagle Falls South Fork Skykomish River ! ( (! North Fork Mount Baker Snoqualmie Reach break Reach National Forest Falls Reach (! River or creek Mt Index Barclay River sites 290400 Creek 290400 Highway Bridal Veil Philadelphia Railroad Creek Creek SNOHOMISH BPA powerlines Barclay Reach Community boundary 283800 KING 283800 Sunset Falls County boundary Town of Mount Baker Snoqualmie NF Baring 277200 277200 Baring Reach Index Creek South Fork 270600
Recommended publications
  • Geology and Structural Evolution of the Foss River-Deception Creek Area, Cascade Mountains, Washington

    Geology and Structural Evolution of the Foss River-Deception Creek Area, Cascade Mountains, Washington

    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF James William McDougall for the degree of Master of Science in Geology presented on Lune, icnct Title: GEOLOGY AND STRUCTURALEVOLUTION OF THE FOSS RIVER-DECEPTION CREEK AREA,CASCADE MOUNTAINS, WASHINGTOV, Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved: Robert S. Yekis Southwest of Stevens Pass, Washington,immediately west of the crest of the Cascade Range, pre-Tertiaryrocks include the Chiwaukum Schist, dominantly biotite-quartzschist characterized by a polyphase metamorphic history,that correlates with schistose basement east of the area of study.Pre-Tertiary Easton Schist, dominated by graphitic phyllite, is principallyexposed in a horst on Tonga Ridge, however, it also occurs eastof the horst.Altered peridotite correlated to Late Jurassic IngallsComplex crops out on the western margin of the Mount Stuart uplift nearDeception Pass. The Mount Stuart batholith of Late Cretaceous age,dominantly granodiorite to tonalite, and its satellite, the Beck lerPeak stock, intrude Chiwaukum Schist, Easton Schist, andIngalls Complex. Tertiary rocks include early Eocene Swauk Formation, a thick sequence of fluviatile polymictic conglomerateand arkosic sandstone that contains clasts resembling metamorphic and plutonic basement rocks in the northwestern part of the thesis area.The Swauk Formation lacks clasts of Chiwaukum Schist that would be ex- pected from source areas to the east and northeast.The Oligocene (?) Mount Daniel volcanics, dominated by altered pyroclastic rocks, in- trude and unconformably overlie the Swauk Formation.The
  • 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.
  • USGS Geologic Investigations Series I-1963, Pamphlet

    USGS Geologic Investigations Series I-1963, Pamphlet

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP I-1963 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE SKYKOMISH RIVER 30- BY 60 MINUTE QUADRANGLE, WASHINGTON By R.W. Tabor, V.A. Frizzell, Jr., D.B. Booth, R.B. Waitt, J.T. Whetten, and R.E. Zartman INTRODUCTION From the eastern-most edges of suburban Seattle, the Skykomish River quadrangle stretches east across the low rolling hills and broad river valleys of the Puget Lowland, across the forested foothills of the North Cascades, and across high meadowlands to the bare rock peaks of the Cascade crest. The quadrangle straddles parts of two major river systems, the Skykomish and the Snoqualmie Rivers, which drain westward from the mountains to the lowlands (figs. 1 and 2). In the late 19th Century mineral deposits were discovered in the Monte Cristo, Silver Creek and the Index mining districts within the Skykomish River quadrangle. Soon after came the geologists: Spurr (1901) studied base- and precious- metal deposits in the Monte Cristo district and Weaver (1912a) and Smith (1915, 1916, 1917) in the Index district. General geologic mapping was begun by Oles (1956), Galster (1956), and Yeats (1958a) who mapped many of the essential features recognized today. Areas in which additional studies have been undertaken are shown on figure 3. Our work in the Skykomish River quadrangle, the northwest quadrant of the Wenatchee 1° by 2° quadrangle, began in 1975 and is part of a larger mapping project covering the Wenatchee quadrangle (fig. 1). Tabor, Frizzell, Whetten, and Booth have primary responsibility for bedrock mapping and compilation.
  • Observer Central Washington University

    Observer Central Washington University

    Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU CWU Student Newspaper University Archives and Special Collections 1-22-2004 Observer Central Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/cwu_student_newspaper Recommended Citation Central Washington University, "Observer" (2004). CWU Student Newspaper. 2232. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/cwu_student_newspaper/2232 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the University Archives and Special Collections at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in CWU Student Newspaper by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bi\SIIB1-~Bi\LL LC)SES IN FIN.i\L SECC>NDS PAGE· 12 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 'Thursday, Jan. 2 2, 2 0 0 4/ Vo I. 7 7 no . 1 0 w w w . c w u . c d u I - o b s c r v c r Campus police submit crime• report by Erik Swenningson Staff reporter Preliminary crime statistics for 2003, released by· the Central Washington University Police Department, show a drop in frequen­ cy for several types of crime on cam­ pus. Universities or colleges that accept federal funding are required to keep track of and make available to the public, crime statistics on campus under the Jeanne Clery Act of 1998. The statistics don't have to be turned in to the government until October of the year after they hap­ pened. "I could wait that long, and not say anything until they were official, but that's not going to do you, me or our community any good," Police Chief Steve Rittereiser said.
  • Snohomish River Watershed

    Snohomish River Watershed

    ARLINGTON Camano Sauk River Island Canyon Cr South Fork Stillaguamish River 5 9 WRIA 7 MARYSVILLE GRANITE FALLS S Freeway/Highway t Lake e S a Pilchuck River l Stevens m o r u b County Boundary 529 e g o v h i a R t LAKE Possession k WRIA 7 Boundary Whidbey h STEVENS c 2 g u Sound u h Island c o l i l P Spada Lake Incorporated Area S ey EVERETT Eb EVERETT r e Fall City Community v SNOHOMISH i R on alm Silver Cr n S C a r lt MUKILTEO u ykomis N S k h S S Ri ver k n MONROE r 9 o MILL o SULTAN F h GOLD BAR rth CREEK o o Trout Cr m 2 N 99 is mis h yko h R Sk iv Canyon Cr LYNNWOOD 527 er INDEX 1 2 3 4 5 0 EDMONDS 522 524 R Rapid River iv So e Proctor Cr u Barclay Cr BRIER r t Miles WOODWAY h BOTHELL F o Eagle Cr JohnsonSNOHOMISH Cr COUNTY rk MOUNTLAKE WOODINVILLE S C k KING COUNTY TERRACE h y e r olt River k SHORELINE h Fork T Beckler River r ry C rt Index Cr om KENMORE No ish Martin Cr DUVALL R. 522 KIRKLAND r Tolt-Seattle Water C SKYKOMISH Tye River olt 2 5 s Supply Reservoir T R i ive r Sou r Miller River t Foss River r h Money Cr a Fo REDMOND 203 rk SEATTLE H r Ames Cr e iv R 99 t l Deep Cr o er Puget Sound S T iv un R d CARNATION a Lennox Cr r y 520 Pat C ie C te r Lake Washington r m s n l o ffi a Elliott n i u S r Tokul Cr Hancock Cr n q Bay 405 G C o o Lake SAMMAMISH r q n File: 90 u S a BELLEVUE Sammamish ver lm k Ri 1703_8091L_W7mapLetterSize.ai r r i lo e o ay KCIT eGov Duwamish River Fall F T MERCER R i City v h ISLAND Coal Cr e t r r Note: mie Riv SEATTLE Snoqualmie o al e r The information included on this map N u r C SNOQUALMIE oq Falls d has been compiled from a variety of NEWCASTLE Sn r ISSAQUAH gf o k in sources and is subject to change r D o 509 without notice.
  • Sultan River, Wa

    Sultan River, Wa

    Hydropower Project Summary SULTAN RIVER, WA HENRY M JACKSON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2157) Photo Credit: Snohomish County Public Utility District This summary was produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition and River Management Society Sultan River, Washington SULTAN RIVER, WA HENRY M JACKSON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2157) DESCRIPTION: The Jackson Project is located on the Sultan River in northwestern Washington. The project’s authorized capacity is 111.8 megawatts (MW). The project is located on the Sultan River, 20 miles east of the City of Everett, Washington, in Snohomish County. The project occupies 10.9 acres of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest administered by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service). Downstream of the project’s Culmback dam at Spada Lake, the Sultan River flows through a deep forested gorge for nearly 14 miles. The project powerhouse is located near the downstream end of the gorge. The District (Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County) currently operates the project to satisfy the City of Everett’s municipal water supply needs, protect aquatic resources, maintain Spada lake levels for summer recreation, and generate electricity. The new license requires additional measures to protect and enhance water quality, fish, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources. The twelve signatories to the Settlement Agreement are the District, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Forest Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. National Park Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Washington DFW), Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), Tulalip Tribes of Washington (Tulalip Tribes), Snohomish County, Washington; City of Everett; City of Sultan; and American Whitewater.
  • Winter Summits

    Winter Summits

    EVERETT MOUNTAINEERS Recommended Winter Summits Snow and weather conditions greatly influence the difficulty of winter scrambles. Because conditions change very quickly, things like road access, avalanche hazard, strenuousness, and summit success can vary a tremendous amount. So these ratings are only a rough comparison of the peaks. Winter scrambling can be a dangerous activity. Be a smart scrambler -- be willing to turn back if conditions are unsafe. Even a slight deviation from the surveyed routes may affect exposure and avalanche hazard considerably. The fact that a peak is listed here does not represent that it will be safe. Exposure Rating Avalanche Rating A: Falling will only get snow on your face. B: Falling may require self arrest, but usually good A: Usually safe in high, considerable, moderate, and low run-out. avalanche conditions. C: Falling requires self arrest, unchecked falls could B: Often safe in moderate and low conditions. be serious. C: Only recommended in low conditions. Note that B-rated slopes could become C-rated when icy. Table of contents by region (peaks within each region listed from West to East): Highway 542 (Mt Baker Highway): Church, Excelsior, Barometer, Herman, Table Highway 20 (North Cascades Highway): Goat, Welker, Sauk, Lookout, Hidden Lake, Oakes, Damnation, Trappers, Sourdough, Ruby Highway 530 (Darrington area): Higgins, Round, Prairie Mountain Loop Highway: Pilchuck, Gordon (Anaconda), Long, Marble, Dickerman Highway 2 (west & east of Stevens Pass): Stickney, Persis, Philadelphia, Frog, Mineral Butte, Iron, Conglomerate Point, Baring, Palmer, Cleveland, Eagle Rock, Evergreen, Captain Point, Windy, Tunnel Vision, Big Chief, Cowboy, McCausland, Union, Jove, Lichtenberg, Jim Hill, Rock, Arrowhead, Natapoc, Tumwater I-90 (west & east of Snoqualmie Pass): Teneriffe, Green, Mailbox, Washington, Web, Kent, Bandera, Defiance, Pratt, Granite, Humpback, Silver, Snoqualmie, Kendall, Guye, Catherine, Margaret, Baldy, Thomas, Amabalis, Hex, Jolly, Yellow Hill, Teanaway Butte Mt.
  • A G~Ographic Dictionary of Washington

    A G~Ographic Dictionary of Washington

    ' ' ., • I ,•,, ... I II•''• -. .. ' . '' . ... .; - . .II. • ~ ~ ,..,..\f •• ... • - WASHINGTON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY HENRY LANDES, State Geologist BULLETIN No. 17 A G~ographic Dictionary of Washington By HENRY LANDES OLYMPIA FRAN K M, LAMBORN ~PUBLIC PRINTER 1917 BOARD OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. Governor ERNEST LISTER, Chairman. Lieutenant Governor Louis F. HART. State Treasurer W.W. SHERMAN, Secretary. President HENRY SuzzALLO. President ERNEST 0. HOLLAND. HENRY LANDES, State Geologist. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. Go,:ernor Ernest Lister, Chairman, and Members of the Board of Geological Survey: GENTLEMEN : I have the honor to submit herewith a report entitled "A Geographic Dictionary of Washington," with the recommendation that it be printed as Bulletin No. 17 of the Sun-ey reports. Very respectfully, HENRY LAKDES, State Geologist. University Station, Seattle, December 1, 1917. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page CHAPTER I. GENERAL INFORMATION............................. 7 I Location and Area................................... .. ... .. 7 Topography ... .... : . 8 Olympic Mountains . 8 Willapa Hills . • . 9 Puget Sound Basin. 10 Cascade Mountains . 11 Okanogan Highlands ................................ : ....' . 13 Columbia Plateau . 13 Blue Mountains ..................................... , . 15 Selkirk Mountains ......... : . : ... : .. : . 15 Clhnate . 16 Temperature ......... .' . .. 16 Rainfall . 19 United States Weather Bureau Stations....................... 38 Drainage . 38 Stream Gaging Stations. 42 Gradient of Columbia River. 44 Summary of Discharge
  • Conservatton Futures (Cft) 2016 Annual Collections Application for Funds

    Conservatton Futures (Cft) 2016 Annual Collections Application for Funds

    K.C. Date Received li{¡ King County CONSERVATTON FUTURES (CFT) 2016 ANNUAL COLLECTIONS APPLICATION FOR FUNDS PROJECT NAME: South Fork Skvkomis h-Tve-tr'oss River Confl uence Aco uisition Annlicánt hrrisdictionlsl: Kins Countv DNRP Open Space System: Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (Name of larger connected system, if any, such as Cedar River Creenway, Mountains to Sound, a Regional Trail, etc ) Acquisition Proiect Size:75.2 acres (3 parcels) CFT Application Amount: $ 540.500 (Size in acres and proposed number of parcel(s) if a multi-parcel proposal) (Dollar amount oJCFT grant requested) PrioriV P arcels: 3 12612-9026. 302612-903 l. 302612-9029 S e c o n d ary P ar c e I s : 3 126 12 -900 4 (24.09 ac), 3 026 12 -9 032 ( I 0 ac), 302612-9040 (5.04 ac), 302612-9041(6.58 ac), 122610-9010 (17.55 ac), 122610-9008 (8.27 ac) Tvne of Acouisitionls): E Fee Title tr fion Easemenf tr Ofher: CONTACT INFORMATION Contact Name: Perrv Falcone Phone: ).06-477-4689 Title: Proiect Prosram Manaser Fax:206-296-0192 Address: 201 South Jackson Street- Suite 600 Emai I : nern¡.falconeôkinpcountv. sov Seattle. V/A 98104 l)ate:3-18-15 PROJECT SUMMARY: The goal of this project is to acquire three parcels at the confluence of the South Fork Skykomish, Tye and Foss Rivers to protect salmon habitat and recreational river access. The priority parcels include 75.2 acres of undeveloped high quality salmon habitat at river mile 19.5 of the South Fork Skykomish River.
  • APPENDIX E Lower Miller River Restoration Feasibility Report

    APPENDIX E Lower Miller River Restoration Feasibility Report

    APPENDIX E Lower Miller River Restoration Feasibility Report RESTORATION FEASIBILITY REPORT LOWER MILLER RIVER Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. RESTORATION FEASIBILITY REPORT LOWER MILLER RIVER Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division River and Floodplain Management Section 201 S. Jackson Street Seattle, Washington 98104-3855 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206/441-9080 April 17, 2013 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 Study Area Limits ....................................................................................... 1 Goal and Objectives .................................................................................... 1 Methodology .................................................................................................. 3 Geomorphic Assessment ............................................................................... 3 Habitat Assessment .................................................................................... 3 Side Channel ..................................................................................... 5 Overflow Channel ............................................................................... 5 Groundwater Channel .........................................................................
  • Index-Galena Road Milepost 6.4 – Milepost 6.9

    Index-Galena Road Milepost 6.4 – Milepost 6.9

    INDEX-GALENA ROAD MILEPOST 6.4 – MILEPOST 6.9 Snohomish County, Washington Finding of No Significant Impact April 2017 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) assure full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 and related statues by prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, national origin and sex in provision of benefits and services. For more information about Title VI, please call the WSDOT Title VI Coordinator at (360) 705-7098. Page 2 Finding Of No Significant Impact Index-Galena Road Milepost 6.4-6.9 Description of Proposed Action The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and Snohomish County Public Works, issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) on September 19, 2016. The project will construct a relocated roadway that will extend from an area in proximity to the lower washout at Index-Galena Road Milepost 6.4 to an area in proximity to the upper washout at Milepost 6.9. The roadway will be relocated landward from the North Fork Skykomish River outside of the floodplain and channel migration zone. The roadway is located in unincorporated Snohomish County, Washington upstream from the town of Index. The relocated roadway will re-establish roadway connectivity on Index-Galena Road for residences, emergency service providers, recreationists, and land managed by the U. S Forest Service. The improvements will include shifting the existing roadway alignment to the south away from the river to establish a relocated roadway upslope from the existing damaged roadway.
  • Watershed Analysis Template

    Watershed Analysis Template

    Miller-Foss Watershed Analysis References Baenen, J. 1981. Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, and Duwamish. In: Blukis Onat, A.R.; Hollenbeck, J.L. (eds.) Inventory of Native American Religious Use, Practices, Localities, and Resources.. Seattle, WA: Institute of Cooperative Research. 396-471. Bilby, E.; J. Ward. 1989. Changes in characteristics and function of woody debris with increasing size of streams in Western Washington. Transcript. Portland, OR: American Fisheries Society: 118: 363-378. Bisson, P.A.; Bilby, R.E.; Bryant, M.D.; Dolloff, C.A.; Grette, G..B.; House, R.A.; Murphy, M.L.; Koski, K.V.; Sedell, J.R. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: Past, present and future. 143-190. In: Salo, E.O.; and Cundy, T.; ed. Streamside management: Forestry and fishery interactions. Seattle, WA: College of Forest Resources. University of Washington. Contribution no. 57. Blukis Onat, A.R.; Hollenbeck, J.L. (eds.). 1981. Inventory of religious use, practices, localities, and resources. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Seattle, WA: Institute of Cooperative Research. Booth; D.B. Goldstein, B. 1994. Patterns and processes of landscape development by the Puget lobe ice sheet. In: Lasmanis E.; Cheney, R., eds.. 1994. Regional Geology of Washington State, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, bulletin no. 80, 227. Bortleson, G..; Dion, N.; McConnel, J.; and Nelson. L. 1976. Reconnaissance data on lakes in Washington, vol. 2 (King and Snohomish Counties). Washington State Dept. of Ecology and U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Geological Survey, water-supply, bulletin no. 43(2). Brown, J.K.et al. 2001. Coarse woody debris and succession in the recovering forest.