DOCSLIB.ORG

Recreational Use of King County's River System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Recreational Use of King County's River System Recreational Use of King County’s River System Prepared for: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water & Land Resources Division Prepared by: Carol MacIlroy Consulting Corporation and King County Water & Land Resources Division June 30, 2009 Portions of this project were produced with support from the Puget Sound Partnership. This report represents the conclusions and synthesis of the consultant based on a large amount of data collected via written and oral surveys and interviews. Not all comments made by respondents were consistent nor specific enough to be interpreted accurately. Any misrepresentations are the error of the consultant. Acknowledgements This report is only possible because of the enthusiastic and willing participation of those experienced with King County’s rivers. The timeframe for this project was incredibly short and numerous people took time to deliver substantive and thoughtful responses with little advance warning. A very special thank you is extended to Tom O’Keefe of American Whitewater who helped shape the survey tool into a more useful document; who provided endless amounts of information, contacts and resources that were significant contributions to the success of this effort; and gave generously of his limited time. For those of you who contributed photos or information not represented in this document please know that an additional CD of information was transmitted to King County staff and that all surveys are held anonymously. Thank you. Carol MacIlroy Table of Contents 1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................... 1 2 Background ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 CURRENT RECREATIONAL TRENDS .............................................................................................. 2 2.2 SCOPE AND TIMEFRAME OF REPORT............................................................................................. 3 3 Survey Process and Terminology.................................................................... 6 3.1 WRITTEN SURVEY ........................................................................................................................ 6 3.2 INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................................. 6 3.3 DEFINING RIVER SEGMENTS/REACHES.......................................................................................... 6 3.4 TERMINOLOGY: HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, AND INFREQUENT USE..................................................... 7 3.5 TERMS FOR RECREATIONAL USE AND TYPE OF CRAFT .................................................................. 7 3.6 DEFINITION OF SEASONALITY....................................................................................................... 8 4 Key Findings...................................................................................................... 8 4.1 RECREATIONAL USE IS HIGHLY VARIABLE AND DEPENDENT ON KEY FACTORS............................. 8 4.2 HIGH-VOLUME VS. HIGH-VALUE RIVER REACHES ....................................................................... 11 4.3 CURRENT VOLUME OF USE IN KING COUNTY RIVERS ................................................................. 11 4.4 SEASONALITY OF RECREATIONAL USE........................................................................................ 12 4.5 RECREATIONAL USE GROUPINGS ................................................................................................ 13 5 Key Findings by Rivers and Reaches............................................................ 14 5.1 SKYKOMISH WATERSHED .......................................................................................................... 14 5.2 SNOQUALMIE WATERSHED ........................................................................................................ 17 5.3 CEDAR RIVER/LAKE WASHINGTON WATERSHED ...................................................................... 26 5.4 GREEN RIVER WATERSHED........................................................................................................ 30 5.5 WHITE RIVER WATERSHED........................................................................................................ 32 6 Potential Next Steps........................................................................................ 35 6.1 ADDITIONAL RESEARCH, SURVEY WORK AND OUTREACH .......................................................... 35 6.2 GIS WORK.................................................................................................................................. 35 6.3 KEY PARTNERSHIPS.................................................................................................................... 36 7 Appendices....................................................................................................... 37 Page i 1 Introduction Recreational use of King County rivers is diverse and growing. From the most advanced whitewater kayakers to the casual inner tuber, King County’s rivers have something to offer for everyone. River recreation is also inherently dangerous and the county has a strong interest in understanding how recreational activities intersect with the county’s responsibilities for flood protection, salmon recovery, public lands management and other functions. In particular, the use of large wood as a component of bank stabilization and habitat restoration poses a potential risk to river recreation, even though intentionally placed wood is only a very small fraction of the wood that is naturally found in our rivers and streams. The purpose of this report is to improve the level of knowledge regarding the location, type and seasonality of river recreation in the major rivers within King County. Based on interviews and surveys of knowledgeable individuals and organizations, the report provides a reach-by-reach characterization of river recreation and identifies some of the key factors that influence patterns of use. The study results confirm that King County has an amazing recreational resource in its river system, including several nationally and internationally recognized river reaches. For example, the North, Middle and South Forks of the Snoqualmie River are regarded as waters of regional and national significance, in addition to being local favorites. These rivers - noted for their wilderness experience and whitewater quality - are part of a broader mix of rivers in King County that supports a variety of recreation opportunities in both the mainstem rivers and larger tributaries. The recent designation of the Pratt River as a Wild and Scenic River; the use of the Cedar River at Landsburg for national kayak qualifications; the sixty commercial flyfishing trips in the month of August on the Snoqualmie River; the hundreds of floaters at Flaming Geyser State Park on a hot day in July; and the international acclaim of the Class V+ “Ernie’s Canyon” run on the North Fork Snoqualmie River are all indications of the range of possibilities that exists within King County’s rivers. 1.1 Report organization Section 2 of the report provides additional background on the issue of managing King County’s rivers and defines the scope and context for this project. Section 3 describes the survey process and terminology. Sections 4 and 5 describe the detailed findings on a river-by-river basis. Section 6 includes recommendations for next steps. Additional resources as well as survey data are included in the Appendices to this report. Page 1 2 Background On November 27th, 2007 the King County Council passed Motion 2007-0622 directing the Department of Natural Resources to address public safety concerns in the placement of large wood in the waterways of King County. The task was completed in March 2008 and presented to the County Council in a document titled “Report Addressing Public Safety in Placement of Large Wood in King County Waterways1” (hereinafter, King County Large Wood Report). Appendix C of the report describes the protocols utilized by the county in its wood placement projects to ensure consideration of public safety. As part of the King County Large Wood Report, the county identified a list of primary recreational waterways that includes substantial portions of every major river and several larger tributaries. However, even within these identified areas, recreational uses differ by reach, flow condition and season. Thus, in order to craft policies and practices that address multiple public benefits and agency responsibilities in a riverine context, county staff recognized the need for more detailed information about recreational use patterns. Carol MacIlroy Consulting was hired by King County’s Water and Land Resources Division, with the support of a grant from the Puget Sound Partnership, to conduct a preliminary survey of recreational use of King County’s river system to fill this gap. The goal of the recreational use survey was to determine where and when different types of recreational use occur on King County rivers. The survey focused on users and user groups active in King County. A copy of the written survey, as well as a list of survey recipients and respondents, can be found in Appendices A and B. 2.1 Current Recreational Trends A statewide recreation survey
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Gold and Fish Pamphlet: Rules for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining
    WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Gold and Fish Rules for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining May 2021 WDFW | 2020 GOLD and FISH - 2nd Edition Table of Contents Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining Rules 1 Agencies with an Interest in Mineral Prospecting 1 Definitions of Terms 8 Mineral Prospecting in Freshwater Without Timing Restrictions 12 Mineral Prospecting in Freshwaters With Timing Restrictions 14 Mineral Prospecting on Ocean Beaches 16 Authorized Work Times 17 Penalties 42 List of Figures Figure 1. High-banker 9 Figure 2. Mini high-banker 9 Figure 3. Mini rocker box (top view and bottom view) 9 Figure 4. Pan 10 Figure 5. Power sluice/suction dredge combination 10 Figure 6. Cross section of a typical redd 10 Fig u re 7. Rocker box (top view and bottom view) 10 Figure 8. Sluice 11 Figure 9. Spiral wheel 11 Figure 10. Suction dredge . 11 Figure 11. Cross section of a typical body of water, showing areas where excavation is not permitted under rules for mineral prospecting without timing restrictions Dashed lines indicate areas where excavation is not permitted 12 Figure 12. Permitted and prohibited excavation sites in a typical body of water under rules for mineral prospecting without timing restrictions Dashed lines indicate areas where excavation is not permitted 12 Figure 13. Limits on excavating, collecting, and removing aggregate on stream banks 14 Figure 14. Excavating, collecting, and removing aggregate within the wetted perimeter is not permitted 1 4 Figure 15. Cross section of a typical body of water showing unstable slopes, stable areas, and permissible or prohibited excavation sites under rules for mineral prospecting with timing restrictions Dashed lines indicates areas where excavation is not permitted 15 Figure 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Sky Wilderness Air Quality Report, 2012
    Wild Sky Wilderness Air Quality Report Wilderness ID: 442 Wilderness Name: Wild Sky Wilderness Wild Sky Wilderness Air Quality Report National Forest: Snoqualmie National Forest State: WA Counties: King, Snohomish General Location: Central Washington Cascade Range Acres: 105,561 Thursday, May 17, 2012 Page 1 of 5 Wild Sky Wilderness Air Quality Report Wilderness ID: 442 Wilderness Name: Wild Sky Wilderness Wilderness Categories Information Specific to this Wilderness Year Established 2008 Establishment Notes The Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 Designation Clean Air Act Class 2 Administrative Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Unique Landscape Features The Wild Sky Wilderness is the newest addition to a 2.6 million acre wilderness complex that straddles the rugged North Cascade Range from Canada to Snoqualmie Pass. The southwestern portion of the wilderness is only 25 miles from Puget Sound and adjacent to the fast growing communities of the Skykomish River Valley. The western part of the wilderness is characterized by very steep slopes and dramatic local relief. For example, from the North Fork Skykomish River near the town of Index, the terrain rises from about 600 feet above sea level to over 6,000 feet, on Gunn Peak, in less than 3 miles. Annual precipitation in this area runs between 150 to 200 inches annually, most of it coming as snow during the wet winter months. Runoff from the rain and snow feed streams that drop into the deep valleys below. This source of clean water is important to salmon which spawn in these reaches and provide exciting spring raft trips on the Skykomish River.
    [Show full text]
  • Trailtalkback
    trailtalkback Creating Ideal Trails and protecting wildlife habitats by Ed Henderson and Rick McGuire Baring from Beckler Peak. Photo by Joseph Neal/U.S. Forest Service In the last issue, in our column Trail Talk, we ran an article about Cascades go to remote places, and it is not hard to find a place for the overcrowding of trails. In this issue, we are giving two members a multi-day backpack. With ever-worsening traffic, and changes of the North Cascades Conservation Council (NCCC) a chance in lifestyles and hiking preferences, the need now is for places to respond. Like all of our articles, the opinions expressed in that make attractive destinations for day hikes. these columns are those of the authors, and do not necessarily We asked ourselves the not very hard question of what would represent views of The Mountaineers. With that, we are excited to make an “ideal” trail? Several existing examples jumped out, encourage fellow members of the outdoor community to discuss including Rattlesnake Ledge and Little Si. To get the most bang and even debate their views (in a friendly fashion of course). After for the buck, a trail should gain maybe one to two thousand feet, all, the wild nearby is not just something that we explore once in a a level of effort that does not demand great athleticism, but while. It’s a place in our hearts that we cherish, love and protect. enough to give some exercise and a feeling of accomplishment. -Suzanne Gerber, Publications Manager More elevation gain is fine but it’s good to have an intermediate As longtime hikers and explorers who think a lot about trails in the destination if a trail gains much more than two thousand feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Test Herrera Report Template
    APPENDIX B South Fork Skykomish River Salmon Habitat Information Review and Future Studies Scoping Summary Report SOUTH FORK SKYKOMISH RIVER SALMON HABITAT INFORMATION REVIEW AND FUTURE STUDIES SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division and USDA Forest Service Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SOUTH FORK SKYKOMISH BASIN SALMON HABITAT INFORMATION REVIEW AND FUTURE STUDIES SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division 201 S. Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98104 and USDA Forest Service Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206/441-9080 April 30, 2013 CONTENTS Project Objectives and Scope ............................................................................ 1 Project Setting ........................................................................................ 1 Geographic Scope of the Project ................................................................... 3 Methods for Data Review............................................................................. 4 Data and Information Review Results ................................................................... 9 Information Request Contacts and Status ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • I-90 Geotour
    “Excellent” –Washington Trails magazine, Geology Hikes cover story, 9/07 PHILIP FENNER 2 A Geo-Tour of the I-90 Corridor From Seattle to Vantage, WA The Mountains to Sound Greenway Text and photos by Philip Fenner V57 February 13, 2008 This document is frequently updated and expanded. The latest release is available at: http://www.seanet.com/~pfitech/I-90GeoTour.pdf ©2006 - 2008 Philip Fenner Cover photo: Mt. Si (L center) and the valley of the South Fork Snoqualmie River (R center) which I-90 follows to Snoqualmie Pass, reflected in the Mill Pond in the Snoqualmie River Valley near Snoqualmie, WA . 3 “Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.” Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855) “Thanks to the Interstate Highway System, it is now possible to travel from coast to coast without seeing anything.” Charles Kuralt (1934 – 1997) “High-speed expressways… are noisy and frenetic, and they attract urban development like a pied piper. Unless we plan carefully, the scenic beauty, the working farms and forests, and the distinctive communities along this route could be smothered piece by piece under the next wave of urban growth.” James R. Ellis (1921 - ) “Certainly, travel is more than the seeing of sights; it is a change that goes on, deep and permanent, in the ideas of living.” Miriam Beard (1901 - 1983) “Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting. So. get on your way.” Dr. Seuss (1904 - 1991) 4 Contents Introduction................................................................................................................... 5 About the Author and This Project ............................................................................... 7 THE PUGET LOWLAND: SEATTLE TO NORTH BEND........................................ 9 The Downtown Seattle Waterfront ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Discipline Report
    Wildlife Discipline Report Index-Galena Road MP 6.4-6.9 Environmental Assessment Prepared by: Terri Hawke Snohomish County Public Works December 2015 Title VI and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: It is Snohomish County’s policy to assure that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be discriminated against under any County sponsored program or activity. For questions regarding Snohomish County Public Works’ Title VI Program, or for interpreter or translation services for non-English speakers, or otherwise making materials available in an alternate format, contact the Department Title VI Coordinator via e-mail at [email protected] or phone 425-388-6660. Hearing/speech impaired may call 711. Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9 2 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Proposed design standards ......................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Design Features ........................................................................................................................... 13 3. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Snohomish County Hiking Guide
    2015- 2016 TO OUTDOOR ADVENTURE! 30 GREAT HIKES • DRIVING DIRECTIONS MAPS • ACCOMMODATIONS • LOCAL RESOURCES photo by Scott Morris PB | www.snohomish.org www.snohomish.org | 1 SCTB Print - Hiking Guide Cover 5.5” x 8.5” - Full Color 5-2015 HIKE NAME 1 Hike subtitle ROUNDTRIP m ile ELEVATION GAIN m ile HIKING SEASON m ile MAP m ile NOTES m ile DRIVING DIRECTIONS m ile CONTACT INFO m ile Hard to imagine, but one of the finest beaches River Delta. A fairly large lagoon has developed on in all of Snohomish County is just minutes from the island where you can watch for sandpipers, downtown Everett! And this two mile long sandy osprey, kingfishers, herons, finches, ducks, and expanse was created by man, not nature. Beginning more. in the 1890s, the Army Corp of Engineers built a You won’t be able to walk around the island as the jetty just north of Port Gardiner—then commenced channel side contains no beach. But the beach to dredge a channel. The spoils along with silt and on Possession Sound is wide and smooth and you sedimentation from the Snohomish River eventually can easily walk 4 to 5 miles going from tip to tip. created an island. Sand accumulated from tidal Soak up views of the Olympic Mountains; Whidbey, influences, birds arrived and nested, and plants Camano, and Gedney Islands; and downtown Everett soon colonized the island. against a backdrop of Cascades Mountains. In the 1980s the Everett Parks and Recreation Department began providing passenger ferry service to the island. Over 50,000 folks visit this sandy gem each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Times When Spawning Or Incubating Salmonids Are Least Likely to Be Within Washington State Freshwaters
    Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife TIMES WHEN SPAWNING OR INCUBATING SALMONIDS ARE LEAST LIKELY TO BE WITHIN WASHINGTON STATE FRESHWATERS June 1, 2018 Page 1 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) biologists will use this table as a starting point when they consider timing restrictions for any hydraulic project for which they will issue a written HPA. WDFW developed this table based on the general conditions and fish life histories present within broad reaches of stream or sub- basins. Based on the site-specific conditions, circumstances, work proposed, and fish life stages present, timing restrictions for individual hydraulic project sites may differ from those upon which this table was based; therefore alternative work times may be appropriate for some projects. The table identifies times when salmonid eggs and fry are least likely to be incubating within stream gravels. In the case of some large streams, such as the Columbia and Snake Rivers, outmigration timing of smolts was also considered. Check the listing for the county in which in-water work will occur to identify times that may avoid impact to spawning and incubating fish life. Biologists will also consider such things as the expected impact of construction activities, equipment type and access, life history stages of all species of fish life present, presence or absence of spawning habitat and incubating fish at or near the project site, weather (heavy rain, snow, frozen soils), work site containment, wastewater management, best management practices proposed by the project proponent, mitigation measures volunteered or imposed upon the project, and other circumstances and conditions when permitting in-water work.
    [Show full text]