DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Shoreline Restoration Plan (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Shoreline Restoration Plan (PDF) Puyallup Shoreline Master Program Update – DRAFT Restoration Plan Draft CITY OF PUYALLUP Shoreline Restoration Plan : January 2012 January 2012 page i Puyallup Shoreline Master Program Update – DRAFT Restoration Plan January 2012 page ii Puyallup Shoreline Master Program Update – DRAFT Restoration Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................IV LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................................IV 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 DEFINING RESTORATION .............................................................................................................. 3 1.3 KEY ELEMENTS OF RESTORATION PLANNING IN THE SMP UPDATE PROCESS ............................ 3 2.0 ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONS .................................................................................................... 4 2.1 WATERSHED CONTEXT AND SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS .......................................................... 4 2.2 HABITAT AND SPECIES .................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 LAND USE ..................................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 ALTERED ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES AND SHORELINE FUNCTIONS ................................................ 7 3.0 RESTORATION PLANNING........................................................................................................ 13 3.1 RESTORATION FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................... 13 3.2 EXISTING PLANS AND PROGRAMS .............................................................................................. 15 4.0 RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................ 20 4.1 RESTORATION PRIORITIES .......................................................................................................... 20 4.2 POTENTIAL PROJECTS - PUYALLUP RIVER .................................................................................. 21 4.3 POTENTIAL PROJECTS - CLARKS CREEK ..................................................................................... 23 5.0 POLICY DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................ 27 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................................... 28 6.1 FUNDING AND PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................... 28 6.1.1 Puget Sound Partnership ...........................................................................................................28 6.1.2 Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB)..................................................................................29 6.1.3 Conservation Futures Program..................................................................................................29 6.2 TIMELINES AND BENCHMARKS ................................................................................................... 29 6.3 MECHANISMS AND STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................... 30 7.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 31 8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................. 33 APPENDIX A - Map Folio Map 1 - Opportunity Area Overview Map 2 - Opportunity Areas Puyallup River Map 3 - Opportunity Areas Clarks Creek January 2012 page iii Puyallup Shoreline Master Program Update – DRAFT Restoration Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Mitigation versus Restoration in Shoreline Master Programs........................................................................2 Figure 2. Puyallup River Watershed..............................................................................................................................5 Figure 3. Puyallup River and Clarks Creek in the City of Puyallup ..............................................................................5 Figure 4. Schematic view of overall restoration framework (based on Palmer et al, 2005) ......................................14 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Restoration Planning Structure...................................................................................................3 Table 2-1. Summary of Shoreline Functions and Programmatic Restoration Opportunities, Puyallup River.....................................................................................................................................................7 Table 2-2. Summary of Shoreline Functions and Programmatic Restoration Opportunities, Clarks Creek ............................................................................................................................................................11 Table 4-1. Site-Specific Restoration Opportunities – Puyallup River ........................................................21 Table 4-2. Site-Specific Restoration Opportunities – Clarks Creek ...........................................................24 January 2012 page iv Puyallup Shoreline Master Program Update – DRAFT Restoration Plan 1.0 Introduction This report supports the development of a restoration element to the City of Puyallup’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Last amended in 1987, the SMP is being updated to comply with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requirements (RCW 90.58), and the state’s SMP guidelines (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-26, Part III), which went into effect in 2003. The SMP guidelines require that local governments develop SMP policies that promote “restoration” of impaired shoreline ecological functions and a “real and meaningful” strategy to implement restoration objectives. The City’s shoreline inventory and characterization report (ESA Adolfson, 2007) identifies which shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem processes have been impaired. In updating its SMP, the City is required to identify and plan for ways to restore or enhance those functions and processes that have been impaired. In the context of the SMP, planning for shoreline restoration includes establishing goals and policies, working cooperatively with other regional entities, and supporting restoration through other regulatory and non-regulatory programs. 1.1 Regulatory Background The state has directed local governments to develop SMP provisions “...to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time when compared to the status upon adoption of the master program.” This overarching goal is accomplished primarily through two distinct objectives: • Protection of existing shoreline functions through regulations and mitigation requirements to ensure “no net loss” of ecological functions from baseline environmental conditions; and • Restoration of shoreline ecological functions that have been impaired from past development practices or alterations. This distinction is illustrated in Figure 1 below. January 2012 1 Puyallup Shoreline Master Program Update – DRAFT Restoration Plan Source: Department of Ecology Figure 1. Mitigation versus Restoration in Shoreline Master Programs The concept of no net loss of shoreline ecological function is embedded in the SMA and in the goals, policies and governing principles of the shoreline guidelines. The state’s general policy goals for shorelines of the state include the “protection and restoration of ecological functions of shoreline natural resources.” This goal derives from the SMA, which states, “permitted uses in the shoreline shall be designed and conducted in a manner that minimizes insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area.” Furthermore, the governing principles of the guidelines clarify that protection of shoreline ecological functions is accomplished through the following (WAC 173-26-186): • Meaningful understanding of the current shoreline ecological conditions, • Regulations and mitigation standards that ensure that permitted developments do not cause a net loss of ecological functions, • Regulations that ensure exempt developments in the aggregate do not result in net loss of ecological functions, • Goals and policies for restoring ecologically impaired shorelines, • Regulations and programs that fairly allocate the burden of mitigating cumulative impacts among development opportunities, and • Incentives or voluntary measures designed to restore and protect ecological functions. It is important to note that the restoration planning component of the SMP is focused on voluntary mechanisms, not regulatory provisions. Restoration planning is focused on economic January 2012 2 Puyallup Shoreline Master Program Update – DRAFT Restoration Plan incentives, available funding sources, volunteer programs, and other programs that can contribute to a no net loss strategy. However, the restoration
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2016 State of Our Watersheds Report Puyallup River Basin
    2016 State of Our Watersheds Report Puyallup River Basin t’s the tribes that are putting the fish Iback in the waters. It’s our people do- ing that to make sure our livelihood will carry on, that our children will have this opportunity to get into a boat and go fishing so they can eat what they need. – NANCY SHIppENTOWER-GAmES PUYALLUp TRIBE OF INDIANS Puyallup Tribe of Indians The Puyallup watershed was one of the earliest areas to be settled by Euro-Americans in the Puget Sound region. Consequently, it was also one of the first watersheds in Puget Sound to experience the full impacts of indus- trial, urban and agricultural development. This development and conversion of floodplain, uplands and forestlands has completely altered the hydrologic conditions within the watershed Seattle to the detriment of salmonid production. The Puyallup are fishing people. They lived on food provided by the fisheries since time immemori- al. It was not until after the U.S. v. Washington court decision that they were able to exercise their rights to the fishery. Puyallup Tribe of Indians 163 History of the Puyallup River Basin The Puyallup River basin, WRIA 10, includes the White, Puyallup and Car- bon rivers, which have their origins in the glaciers of the northwestern slopes of Mount Rainier. The Puyallup River flows to Commencement Bay at the Port of Tacoma, the third largest port in the western United States. The Puyallup Basin has been substantially altered from its historic condition and is currently contained within a revetment and levee system throughout its lower 26 miles.
    [Show full text]
  • Kampmeier & Knutsen Pllc
    KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL A. KAMPMEIER Licensed in Washington 206.858.6983 [email protected] October 28, 2020 Via Certified Mail – Return Receipt Requested Managing Agent Electron Hydro, LLC 1800 James Street, Suite 201 Bellingham, Washington 98225-4631 Managing Agent Electron Hydro, LLC 29711 Kapowsin-Electron Reservoir Road Orting, Washington 98360 Managing Agent Electron Holdings, Inc. 1800 James Street, Suite 201 Bellingham, Washington 98225 Managing Agent Electron Management LLC 1800 James Street, Suite 201 Bellingham, Washington 98225-4631 Managing Agent Tollhouse Energy Company 1800 James Street, Suite 201 Bellingham, Washington 98225 Re: Notice of Intent to File Suit under the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Request for SWPPP and Site Log Book. Dear Managing Agents: This letter provides Electron Hydro, LLC, Electron Holdings, Inc., Electron Management LLC, and Tollhouse Energy Company (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Electron”) with sixty days’ notice of Citizens for a Healthy Bay’s and Puget Soundkeeper Alliance’s intent to file a citizen lawsuit against Electron under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1365, for the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) violations alleged and described in this letter. This letter also notifies Electron that after the required notice period Citizens for a Healthy Bay and Puget Soundkeeper Alliance (the “Conservation Groups”) intend to sue Electron under 42 U.S.C. § 6972 for alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). The Conservation Groups are non-profit organizations dedicated to protecting the natural environment of Puget Sound and its tributaries. Kampmeier & Knutsen, PLLC represent Citizens for a Healthy Bay and Puget Soundkeeper Alliance in this matter, and any response to this notice of intent to sue should be directed to Paul Kampmeier at Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC at the address below.
    [Show full text]
  • Volcanic Hazards • Washington State Is Home to Five Active Volcanoes Located in the Cascade Range, East of Seattle: Mt
    CITY OF SEATTLE CEMP – SHIVA GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Volcanic Hazards • Washington State is home to five active volcanoes located in the Cascade Range, east of Seattle: Mt. Baker, Glacier Peak, Mt. Rainier, Mt. Adams and Mt. St. Helens (see figure [Cascades volcanoes]). Washington and California are the only states in the lower 48 to experience a major volcanic eruption in the past 150 years. • Major hazards caused by eruptions are blast, pyroclastic flows, lahars, post-lahar sedimentation, and ashfall. Seattle is too far from any volcanoes to receive damage from blast and pyroclastic flows. o Ash falls could reach Seattle from any of the Cascades volcanoes, but prevailing weather patterns would typically blow ash away from Seattle, to the east side of the state. However, to underscore this uncertainty, ash deposits from multiple pre-historic eruptions have been found in Seattle, including Glacier Peak (less than 1 inch) and Mt. Mazama/Crater Lake (amount unknown) ash. o The City of Seattle depends on power, water, and transportation resources located in the Cascades and Eastern Washington where ash is more likely to fall. Seattle City Light operates dams directly east of Mt. Baker and in Pend Oreille County in eastern Washington. Seattle’s water comes from two reservoirs located on the western slopes of the Central Cascades, so they are outside the probable path of ashfall. o If heavy ash were to fall over Seattle it would create health problems, paralyze the transportation system, destroy many mechanical objects, endanger the utility networks and cost millions of dollars to clean up. Ash can be very dangerous to aviation.
    [Show full text]
  • FACT SHEET White River Management Agreement and Related Settlement Agreements Between Cascade Water Alliance and the Muckleshoot and Puyallup Tribes
    FACT SHEET White River Management Agreement and Related Settlement Agreements between Cascade Water Alliance and the Muckleshoot and Puyallup Tribes The Cascade Water Alliance, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians have entered into a set of agreements that will facilitate the development of Lake Tapps as a new source of municipal water supply while protecting and enhancing fishery resources in the White and Puyallup River Basins. The agreements also establish targets for Lake Tapps water levels designed to accommodate continued recreational use of the Reservoir. Information on Cascade and the two Tribes, together with a summary of some of the more important aspects of the agreements follows: Cascade Water Alliance The Cascade Water Alliance is an association of cities and water districts working together to ensure a clean, safe and reliable water supply today and well into the future. Members are the cities of Bellevue, Issaquah, Kirkland, Redmond, and Tukwila, the Covington Water District, and the Sammamish Plateau and Skyway Water and Sewer Districts. Today Cascade supplies over 350,000 residents and 22,000 businesses. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe governing the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation. The White River flows through the Muckleshoot Reservation which is located downstream of the Buckley Diversion Dam. Muckleshoot is a successor in interest to tribes and bands that were parties to the Treaties of Point Elliot and Medicine Creek and possesses treaty reserved fishing rights on the White River and Upper Puyallup. Puyallup Tribe of Indians The Puyallup Tribe of Indians is a federally recognized Indian Tribe governing the Puyallup Reservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Puyallup Historic Survey Report Puyallup, Washington For
    Puyallup Historic Survey Report Puyallup, Washington for The City of Puyallup, Pierce County, & the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation BOLA Architecture + Planning Seattle August 2007 Historic Survey Report Puyallup, Washington August 2007 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 Background Project Goals Project Schedule and Survey Methods The Survey Area Property Selection Criteria Acknowledgements Survey Grant Sponsorship 2. Historic Context Statement 7 Natural Setting First Peoples and Early Settlement Founding of the City Early Puyallup – An Agricultural Market Town Impact of Transportation – Railroads, the Interurban, and Road and Highway Systems The 1949 and 1965 Earthquakes Population Increases and Demographics Post-War Suburban Growth and Annexations The City’s Downtown Business Community Civic and Institutional Structures 3. Analysis 28 Determinants of Physical Form and Urban Design Features Building Types, Materials, and Architectural Styles 4. Survey Results 31 Findings The Survey List 5. Recommendations 39 City of Puyallup Preservation Goals and Policies The Next Step in Preservation 6. Bibliography and Sources 44 Appendices: "Historic Resource Survey Areas" and "Inventoried Properties" Maps Cover photo from the Ezra Meeker Historical Society, Puyallup, Washington. BOLA Architecture + Planning 320 Terry Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98109 206.447.4749 PUYALLUP HISTORIC SURVEY REPORT 1. Introduction Background Puyallup is one of Washington State’s oldest cities, and it contains a significant number of historic properties that reflect its origin as an agricultural settlement dating from the 1850s. Located eight miles east of Tacoma and Commencement Bay, the town was founded on the south side of the Puyallup River in the late 1870s, and its urban environment represents nearly 140 years of development.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Wild Coho Forecasts for Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and Lower Columbia Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Science Division, Fish Program by Marisa N
    2020 Wild Coho Forecasts for Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and Lower Columbia Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Science Division, Fish Program by Marisa N. C. Litz Contributors: This coho forecast was made possible through funding from numerous federal, state, and local sources and the participation of numerous WDFW, tribal, and PUD biologists. The following WDFW employees, listed in alphabetical order, provided field data used in the 2020 forecast: Kale Bentley and Brad Garner (Grays River), Clayton Kinsel (Skagit River and Big Beef Creek), Matt Klungle (Nisqually River), Jamie Lamperth (Mill, Abernathy, and Germany creeks), Peter Lisi (Lake Washington), John Serl (Cowlitz Falls), Pete Topping (Green River and Deschutes River), and Devin West (Bingham Creek, Chehalis River). Sources of smolt data from tribal and PUD biologists and sources of freshwater and marine environmental indicators are cited in the document. Thank you to Skip Albertson for compiling data from the WA Department of Ecology Marine Water Monitoring Program. Mara Zimmerman, Neala Kendall, Dan Rawding, and Josh Weinheimer most recently completed these forecasts and provided much guidance and assistance on this one. Dave Seiler, Greg Volkhardt, Dan Rawding, Mara Zimmerman, and Thomas Buehrens have contributed to the conceptual approaches used in this forecast. Introduction Run size forecasts for wild coho stocks are an important part of the pre-season planning process for Washington State salmon fisheries. Accurate forecasts are needed at the scale of management units to ensure adequate spawning escapements, realize harvest benefits, and achieve harvest allocation goals. Wild coho run sizes (adult ocean recruits) have been predicted using various approaches across Washington’s coho producing systems.
    [Show full text]
  • MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 - 172Nd Avenue SE  Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311  Fax: (253) 931-0752
    MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 - 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 Fax: (253) 931-0752 May 26, 2016 Scott Sissons Pierce County Planning and Land Services 2401 South 35th Street, Suite 2 Tacoma, Washington 98409 RE. Wetland Analysis & Habitat Assessment Study: Knutson Farms (#834238 & 834239) Dear Mr. Sissons: Our Habitat Program staff have reviewed the report for the Knutson Farms Industrial Park, and associated documents. The project area lies to the south of Sumner along the left bank of the Puyallup River approximately 10 miles upstream of Commencement Bay. The applicant proposes to construct a Level 8 warehouse/distribution and freight movement center consisting of over 3 million square feet of warehouses, ~2,159 parking stalls, retail, and other development on lands currently used for farming. We recommend that the proposal be modified to avoid development within the CMZ and retain feasibility for a levee setback that allows for broader river processes and restoration of salmon habitat. We offer the comments below in support of our recommendation, and in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty-protected fisheries resources. The site partially lies in the 100-year flood plain and a Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) (Pierce County Public Works and Utilities Surface Water Management Division 2012). The Tribe and others, including Pierce County, discourage development in the flood plain and CMZ, and support levee setbacks to protect salmon habitat, reduce flood risks, and promote other benefits such as preservation of farmland. In fact, there is a proposed levee setback for this site as described in Pierce County’s 2014 Levee Setback Feasibility Study.
    [Show full text]
  • Sub-Section 4G.5 Puyallup Tribe All Hazard Mitigation Plan Volcanic
    SUB-SECTION 4G.5 PUYALLUP TRIBE ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN VOLCANIC HAZARD1 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... 1 IDENTIFICATION DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 2 DEFINITION ............................................................................................................. 2 PROFILE ................................................................................................................... 5 LOCATION AND EXTENT ............................................................................................... 5 PLANNING AREA ...................................................................................................... 16 THE OCCURRENCES .................................................................................................. 16 IMPACTS ............................................................................................................... 18 VULNERABILITY TO PLANNING AREA....................................................................... 30 LAHAR FLOWS ......................................................................................................... 32 TEPHRA ................................................................................................................ 33 RESOURCE DIRECTORY .......................................................................................... 34 REGIONAL ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Historical Populations of Steelhead Within the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment Doi:10.7289/V5/TM-NWFSC-128
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-128 Identifying Historical Populations of Steelhead within the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment doi:10.7289/V5/TM-NWFSC-128 March 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC series to issue scientific and technical publications. Manuscripts have been peer reviewed and edited. Documents published in this series can be cited in the scientific and technical literature. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center’s NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC series continues the NMFS- F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which subsequently was divided into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The latter center uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC series. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Reference this document as follows: Myers, J.M., J.J. Hard, E.J. Connor, R.A. Hayman, R.G. Kope, G. Lucchetti, A.R. Marshall, G.R. Pess, and B.E. Thompson. 2015. Identifying historical populations of steelhead within the Puget Sound distinct population segment. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-128. doi:10.7289/V5/TM-NWFSC-128. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-128 Identifying Historical Populations of Steelhead within the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment doi:10.7289/V5/TM-NWFSC-128 James M.
    [Show full text]
  • Puyallup River Watershed Assessment (Draft)
    PUYALLUP RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT (DRAFT) PREPARED BY WATERSHED ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 2014 1 COVER PHOTOS: UPPER LEFT – MOUTH OF THE PUYALLUP RIVER AND ESTUARY NEAR COMMENCEMENT BAY – FROM GOVERNMENT LAND OFFICE (GLO) LAND SURVEY MAP (1877) UPPER RIGHT – MOUNT RAINIER (EMMONS GLACIER AND WHITE RIVER HEADWATERS) PHOTO BY CHRIS MAGIRL, USGS LOWER LEFT – CHINOOK SPAWNING IN PUYALLUP RIVER NEAR CHAMPION BRIDGE (NEAR RIVER MILE 29) – PHOTO BY TOM NELSON, PIERCE COUNTY LOWER RIGHT – LOWER PUYALLUP LEVEE CONSTRUCTION (CIRCA 1910) – PHOTO COURTESY OF PIERCE COUNTY RIVER MAINTENANCE COLLECTION 2 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND WATERSHED OVERVIEW This watershed assessment presents historical and current information on the physical, biological, cultural, and economic landscape in the Puyallup River watershed. Elements of the watershed include historical conditions (pre-European and from the 1850s to present), current socio-economic and cultural conditions, geology and geomorphology, hydrology and water use, aquatic habitat, fish and wildlife populations, water quality, floodplains, agricultural and forest lands, and key watershed features. Some information is summarized for the watershed as a whole and other information is provided by sub-basin. There are two main purposes of this watershed assessment: (1) to provide a compilation of existing information on watershed conditions (i.e., how the watershed functions in an ecological and human context) in a single document; and (2) to inform the Puyallup River Watershed Council (PRWC) and its partners in the development of a guiding document or strategic plan to manage the watershed in the future. A key part of the analysis is to compare historical conditions with current conditions, quantify changes, and look forward to desired future conditions that are necessary to achieve agreed-upon watershed goals (e.g., clean water, healthy habitats, and thriving communities).
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Research and Monitoring of Adult Oncorhynchus Mykiss in the Puyallup and White Rivers
    STATE OF WASHINGTON September 2016 2016 Research and Monitoring of Adult Oncorhynchus mykiss in the Puyallup and White Rivers by Tara Livingood-Schott and James P. Losee Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Program FPA 16-07 2016 RESEARCH AND MONITORING OF ADULT ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS IN THE PUYALLUP AND WHITE RIVERS Tara Livingood-Schott and James P. Losee Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife September, 2016 Contents List of Tables and Figures............................................................................................................... ii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Management Practices .................................................................................................................... 3 Harvest ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Estimate of Escapement .................................................................................................................. 5 Anadromous O.mykiss (steelhead) .............................................................................................. 5 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 5 2016 steelhead escapement, length and age data .................................................................... 5 Puyallup River steelhead....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PUYALLUP BASIN Water Resource Inventory Area 10
    PUYALLUP BASIN Water Resource Inventory Area 10 The Puyallup River system is comprised of a single The Carbon River, like the Puyallup, originates on the mainstem river with numerous tributaries, the largest being rugged slopes of Mount Rainier, principally in the Carbon the Carbon and White (Stuck) rivers. The two independent Glacier located on the mountain's north face_ Except for basin drainages are Hylebos and Wapato creeks that enter occasional sections having a relatively broad valley floor Commencement Bay. There are 728 identified rivers and with moderate stream gradient, the majority of Carbon streams in the Puyallup basin providing over 1,287 linear River drainage presents a mountain type character with miles of drainage. Each of the drainages offers suitable hab­ steep gradient, large rock, and numerous cascade sections. itat for both anadromous and resident fish species. The river courses more than 30 miles northwest to its con­ The Puyallup River originates in the Klapatche Ridge fluence with the Puyallup, much of this passing through area on the southwest slopes of Mount Rainier. Principal steep sloped and heavily forested terrain. One stretch, be­ sources are the Puyallup and Tahoma glaciers. The river tween Carbonado and Fairfax, cuts through an extremely moves northwest 6.5 miles through a narrow steep-walled narrow, steep walled canyon containing numerous cascades valley, located in heavily forested, mountain terrain, before and extensive deep pools. Only in the lower 8 miles does the receiving its first large tributary, the Mowich River. The stream fl.ow over a relatively broad valley floor. This area of. Mowich enters from the east and is also of glacial origin.
    [Show full text]