DOCSLIB.ORG

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 510 Desmond Dr SE, Suite 103 510 Desmond Dr SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 Lacey, Washington 98503 NMFS Tracking No.: 2008/03598 FWS No.: 13410-2008-FWS # F-0209 July 8, 2008 Michelle Walker Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Regulatory Branch CENWS-OD-RG Post Office Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Washington State Fish Passage and Habitat Enhancement Restoration Programmatic. Dear Ms. Walker: The enclosed document contains a joint biological opinion prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Services) pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act on the proposed suite of nine restoration actions in Washington State. In this biological opinion, the Services conclude that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the following species of Endangered Species Act-listed fishes: Columbia River and Coastal-Puget Sound Interim Recovery Units of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon, Snake River spring/summer run Chinook salmon, Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River coho salmon (O. kisutch), Snake River sockeye salmon (O. nerka), Puget Sound steelhead (O. mykiss), Lower Columbia River steelhead, Middle Columbia River steelhead, Upper Columbia River steelhead, and Snake River Basin steelhead. The Services have concluded that the proposed action will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitats for all of the above-listed species except Lower Columbia River coho salmon (for which critical habitat has not been designated). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to permit a total of nine categories of restoration actions throughout the state of Washington: Fish passage, installation of instream structures, - 2 - levee removal and modification, side channel/off-channel habitat restoration and reconnection, salmonid spawning gravel restoration, forage fish spawning gravel restoration, hardened fords for livestock crossings of streams and fencing, irrigation screen installation and replacement, and debris and structure removal. In your initiation letter from June 10, 2008 you also request concurrence with the effect determinations of “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (O. keta), Columbia River chum salmon, Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), Columbian White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), gray wolf (Canis lupus), pygmy rabbit (brachylagus idahoensis), woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U.a. horribilis), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta), water howellia (Howellia aquatilis), Nelson’s checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana), Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. Kincaidii), showy stickseed (Hackelia venusta), Bradshaw's desert-parsley (Lomatium bradshawii), Spalding’s silene/catchfly (Silene spaldingii), Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) and designated critical habitat. Also, in your memorandum for the services, you request concurrence with the effect determinations of “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” for one of the nine proposed actions, forage fish spawning gravel restoration, for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout interim recovery unit (Salvelinus confluentus), Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound steelhead (O. mykiss), Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon and designated critical habitat. The Services concurred with your NLAA actions under separate cover (NMFS Tracking No.: 2008/03600 and USFWS Tracking No.: 13410-2008-F- 0209). As required by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, an incidental take statement prepared by the Services is provided with the biological opinion. The incidental take statement describes reasonable and prudent measures the Services considers necessary or appropriate to minimize incidental take associated with the proposed action. It also sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions, including reporting requirements, with which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must comply to carry out the reasonable and prudent measures. Incidental takings of listed species from actions by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that meet these terms and conditions will be exempt from the Endangered Species Act’s prohibition against such takings. This document also includes the results of our analysis of the action’s likely effects on essential fish habitat pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and includes two conservation recommendations to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects on essential fish habitat. These conservation recommendations are an identical subset of the Endangered Species Act terms and conditions. Section 305(b) (4) (B) of the MSA requires Federal agencies to provide a detailed written response to National Marine Fisheries Service within 30 days after receiving these recommendations. If the response is inconsistent with the essential fish habitat conservation recommendations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must explain why the recommendations will not be followed, - 3 - including the scientific justification for any disagreements over the effects of the action and the recommendations. In response to increased oversight of overall essential fish habitat program effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget, the National Marine Fisheries Service established a quarterly reporting requirement to determine how many conservation recommendations are provided as part of each essential fish habitat consultation and how many are adopted by the action agency. Therefore, in your statutory reply to the essential fish habitat portion of this consultation, we ask that you clearly identify the number of conservation recommendations accepted. If you have questions regarding this consultation, please contact Stephanie Ehinger, Fisheries Biologist in the Southwest Washington Habitat Branch of the Washington State Habitat Office, at 360-534-9341, or Martha Jensen, Fish and Wildlife Biologist in the Western Washington Office, at 360-753-9000. Or you can send email to [email protected] or [email protected]. Sincerely, D. Robert Lohn Ken S. Berg Regional Administrator Western Washington Fish And Wildlife Office Enclosure cc: Suzanne Audet, USFWS Mark Miller, USFWS Diane Concannon, King County Alex Conley, YBFWRB Michelle Cramer, WDFW Chris Drivdahl, Salmon Recovery Office Tony Meyer, RFEG Karen Streeter, Clark County Stan Walsh, Skagit River System Cooperative Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion And Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Washington State Fish Passage and Habitat Enhancement Restoration Programmatic Consultation Lead Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date Issued: July 8, 2008 Issued by: D. Robert Lohn Ken S. Berg, Manager Regional Administrator Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office NMFS No.: 2008/03598 FWS No.: 13410-2008-FWS # F-0209 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Background and Consultation History ................................................................................ 1 Description of the Proposed Action .................................................................................... 2 Implementation Process ........................................................................................ 32 Action Area ....................................................................................................................... 33 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT .................................................................................................. 35 Biological Opinion ............................................................................................................ 35 Status of the Species ............................................................................................. 35 Status of Critical Habitat ....................................................................................... 58 Environmental Baseline ........................................................................................ 69 Effects of the Action ............................................................................................. 77 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................. 102 Conclusion .........................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Suspended-Sediment Concentration in the Sauk River, Washington, Water Years 2012-13

    Suspended-Sediment Concentration in the Sauk River, Washington, Water Years 2012-13

    Prepared in cooperation with the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Suspended-Sediment Concentration in the Sauk River, Washington, Water Years 2012-13 By Christopher A. Curran1, Scott Morris2, and James R. Foreman1 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Water Science Center, Tacoma, Washington 2 Department of Natural Resources, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Darrington, Washington Photograph of glacier-derived suspended sediment entering the Sauk River immediately downstream of the Suiattle River mouth (August 5, 2014, Chris Curran). iii Introduction The Sauk River is one of the few remaining large, glacier-fed rivers in western Washington that is unconstrained by dams and drains a relatively undisturbed landscape along the western slope of the Cascade Range. The river and its tributaries are important spawning ground and habitat for endangered Chinook salmon (Beamer and others, 2005) and also the primary conveyors of meltwater and sediment from Glacier Peak, an active volcano (fig. 1). As such, the Sauk River is a significant tributary source of both fish and fluvial sediment to the Skagit River, the largest river in western Washington that enters Puget Sound. Because of its location and function, the Sauk River basin presents a unique opportunity in the Puget Sound region for studying the sediment load derived from receding glaciers and the potential impacts to fish spawning and rearing habitat, and downstream river-restoration and flood- control projects. The lower reach of the Sauk River has some of the highest rates of incubation mortality for Chinook salmon in the Skagit River basin, a fact attributed to unusually high deposition of fine-grained sediments (Beamer, 2000b).
  • 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.
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of September 30, 2019

    Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of September 30, 2019

    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2019 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2019 Metric Equivalents When you know: Multiply by: To fnd: Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters Feet (ft) 0.305 Meters Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers Acres (ac) 0.405 Hectares Square feet (ft2) 0.0929 Square meters Yards (yd) 0.914 Meters Square miles (mi2) 2.59 Square kilometers Pounds (lb) 0.454 Kilograms United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2019 As of September 30, 2019 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250-0003 Website: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover Photo: Mt. Hood, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon Courtesy of: Susan Ruzicka USDA Forest Service WO Lands and Realty Management Statistics are current as of: 10/17/2019 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 58 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 17 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. TOTAL NFS ACRES = 192,994,068 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 503 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 149 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 456 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The Forest Service also administers several other types of nationally designated
  • Skagit River Emergency Bank Stabilization And

    Skagit River Emergency Bank Stabilization And

    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 In Reply Refer To: AUG 1 6 2011 13410-2011-F-0141 13410-2010-F-0175 Daniel M. Mathis, Division Adnlinistrator Federal Highway Administration ATIN: Jeff Horton Evergreen Plaza Building 711 Capitol Way South, Suite 501 Olympia, Washington 98501-1284 Michelle Walker, Chief, Regulatory Branch Seattle District, Corps of Engineers ATIN: Rebecca McAndrew P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Dear Mr. Mathis and Ms. Walker: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion (Opinion) based on our review of the proposed State Route 20, Skagit River Emergency Bank Stabilization and Chronic Environmental Deficiency Project in Skagit County, Washington, and its effects on the bull trout (Salve linus conjluentus), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and designated bull trout critical habitat, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act). Your requests for initiation of formal consultation were received on February 3, 2011, and January 19,2010. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Seattle District (Corps) provided information in support of "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determinations for the bull trout and designated bull trout critical habitat. On April 13 and 14, 2011, the FHWA and Corps gave their consent for addressing potential adverse effects to the bull trout and bull trout critical habitat with a single Opinion.
  • Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound

    Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound

    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-78 Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound July 2006 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Techni- cal Memorandum NMFS series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Documents published in this series may be referenced in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS- F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Techni- cal Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be cited as follows: Ruckelshaus, M.H., K.P. Currens, W.H. Graeber, R.R. Fuerstenberg, K. Rawson, N.J. Sands, and J.B. Scott. 2006. Independent populations of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-78, 125 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-78 Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound Mary H. Ruckelshaus,
  • Inventory for Fens and Associated Rare Plants on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest

    Inventory for Fens and Associated Rare Plants on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest

    Inventory for fens and associated rare plants on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Looking west over cloud-enshrouded upper portion of the 9020-310 wetland/fen, Snoqualmie Ranger District. Elev. = 3140 ft. Rick Dewey Deschutes National Forest March 2017 1 Berries of the fen-loving, bog huckleberry (Vaccinium uliginosum) at Government Meadow. Note the persistent sepals characteristic of this species. Government Meadow is the only project site at which V. uliginosum was detected. Acknowledgements This project was funded by a USFS R6 ISSSSP grant spanning 2016-2017. Thanks to Kevin James, MBS NF Ecology and Botany Program Manager, and Shauna Hee, North Zone (Mt. Baker and Darrington Districts) MBS NF Botanist. Special thanks to James for facilitation during the period of fieldwork, including spending a field day with the project lead at the 7080 rd. wetland and at Government Meadow. Thanks also to Sonny Paz, Snoqualmie District Wildlife Biologist, for a day of assistance with fieldwork at Government Meadow, and to the Carex Working Group for assistance in the identification of Carex flava at the Headwaters of Cascade Creek wetland. 2 Summary Sites on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF that were reasonably suspected to include groundwater-fed wetlands (fens) were visited between 8/15-9/28 2006. The intent of these visits was to inventory for rare plants associated with these wetlands, and to record a coarse biophysical description of the setting. Twelve of the 18 sites visited were determined in include notable amounts of fen habitat. Five rare target species and two otherwise notable rare species accounting for eight distinct occurrences/populations at six wetlands were detected during site visits.
  • 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
  • Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State

    Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State

    Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Alabama Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama WILD William B. Bankhead National Forest 6,134 110 6,244 SCENIC William B. Bankhead National Forest 3,550 505 4,055 Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama Totals 9,685 615 10,300 Alabama Totals 9,685 615 10,300 Arizona Fossil Creek, Arizona WILD Coconino National Forest 1,720 0 1,720 Tonto National Forest 1,085 0 1,085 RECREATIONAL Coconino National Forest 1,137 4 1,141 Tonto National Forest 1,136 0 1,136 Fossil Creek, Arizona Totals 5,078 4 5,082 Verde, Arizona WILD Coconino National Forest 525 0 525 Tonto National Forest 6,234 0 6,234 SCENIC Coconino National Forest 2,862 0 2,862 Prescott National Forest 2,148 25 2,173 Tonto National Forest 649 0 649 Verde, Arizona Totals 12,418 25 12,443 Arizona Totals 17,496 29 17,525 2020 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Arkansas Big Piney Creek, Arkansas SCENIC Ozark National Forest 6,448 781 7,229 Big Piney Creek, Arkansas Totals 6,448 781 7,229 Buffalo, Arkansas WILD Ozark National Forest 2,871 0 2,871 SCENIC Ozark National Forest 1,915 0 1,915 Buffalo, Arkansas Totals 4,785 0 4,786
  • 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 .........................................................................