DOCSLIB.ORG

APPENDIX E Lower Miller River Restoration Feasibility Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 .......................................................................... 5 Seasonally Flooded Wetland ................................................................... 6 Backwater ........................................................................................ 6 Tributary .......................................................................................... 6 Hydrologic Analysis ..................................................................................... 6 Rating Curve Construction ..................................................................... 8 Stream Flow Analysis ........................................................................... 9 Gage Installation and Preliminary Data ..................................................... 10 Hydraulic Analysis ..................................................................................... 10 Geometric Data ................................................................................. 13 Flow Hydrographs and Boundary Conditions ............................................... 14 Calibration ....................................................................................... 14 Results ........................................................................................................ 15 Geomorphic Assessment .............................................................................. 15 Habitat Assessment ................................................................................... 16 Background Information Review ............................................................. 16 Habitat Limiting Factors and Species Recovery Planning ................................ 18 Habitat Types ................................................................................... 18 Vegetation Conditions ......................................................................... 24 Observed Restoration Opportunities ........................................................ 25 Hydrologic Analysis .................................................................................... 29 Rating Curve Construction .................................................................... 29 Stream Flow Analysis .......................................................................... 30 Gage Installation and Preliminary Data ..................................................... 32 Hydraulic Analysis ..................................................................................... 34 Proposed Actions ...................................................................................... 47 Alternative 1 Restoration Actions ........................................................... 48 Alternative 2 Restoration Actions ........................................................... 48 Alternative 3 Restoration Actions ........................................................... 51 Alternative 4 Restoration Actions ........................................................... 52 i jr 10-04766-023 restoration feasibility report-miller river Summary of Findings ....................................................................................... 53 References ................................................................................................... 55 Appendix 1 Engineering Cost Estimates ii jr 10-04766-023 restoration feasibility report-miller river TABLES Table 1. Summary of Weather Station Data. ......................................................... 7 Table 2. Boundary Conditions Used in the HEC-RAS Hydraulic Models. .......................... 9 Table 3. Summary of Existing and Potential Habitat Types and Associated Areas (acreages) Within the Lower (RM 0 to RM 1) and Upper (RM 1 to RM 2) Reaches of the Miller River Study Area. .................................................. 23 Table 3. Individual Restoration Opportunities in the Lowest 2 Miles of the Miller River. ........................................................................................... 26 Table 4. South Fork HEC-RAS Rating Curve. ......................................................... 29 Table 5. Hydraulic Model Results at Selected Key Locations. .................................... 47 FIGURES Figure 1. Lower Miller River Project Area. ............................................................ 2 Figure 2. Upper Skykomish River Forks, Tributaries, Basins, and Gage Locations. ............ 11 Figure 3. Lower Miller River Habitat Map. ........................................................... 19 Figure 4. Log-Pearson Type 3 Distribution Fitting Results for the Synthetic Miller River Flow Series (Water Years 2000 to 2011). .......................................... 31 Figure 5. Miller River 2-, 10-, and 100-year Recurrence Interval Design Hydrographs. ....... 32 Figure 6. Stage Time Series from Gage Mounted onto Miller River Road Revetment. ........ 33 Figure 7. FLO-2D Results – 2-year Miller River Flood Flow Depth Under Existing Conditions. .................................................................................... 35 Figure 8. FLO-2D Results – 10-year Miller River Flood Flow Depth Under Existing Conditions. .................................................................................... 37 Figure 9. FLO-2D Results – 100-year Miller River Flood Flow Depth Under Existing Conditions. .................................................................................... 39 Figure 10. FLO-2D Results – 2-year Miller River Flood Flow Velocities Under Existing Conditions. .................................................................................... 41 Figure 11. FLO-2D Results – 10-year Miller River Flood Flow Velocities Under Existing Conditions. .................................................................................... 43 Figure 12. FLO-2D Results – 100-year Miller River Flood Flow Velocities Under Existing Conditions. .................................................................................... 45 Figure 13. Miller River Restoration Alternatives. ..................................................... 49 iii jr 10-04766-023 restoration feasibility report-miller river INTRODUCTION In January 2011, the Miller River avulsed through the Old Cascade Highway near the left bank abutment of an existing bridge over the river approximately 2 miles west of Skykomish, Washington, just upstream from its confluence with the South Fork Skykomish River (South Fork). The avulsion was largely complete immediately following the event. Because the highway crosses what is an extraordinarily active alluvial fan and replacement of the road washout area had many complicated factors including funding the recommended solution, the decision was ultimately made to close the road indefinitely. In addition to the highway closure, King County acquired a former monastery property on the northwest edge of the alluvial fan to avoid or minimize maintenance costs associated with flood control/damage, allow natural physical river processes, and restore or enhance habitat in the area. In addition support for this study was provided in part by the Natural Resources Damages (NRD) settlement made between Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).King County retained Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) to study the feasibility of designing and implementing a project to restore physical processes and habitat in the area, as part of the larger restoration feasibility analysis performed on the South Fork basin. The work was performed under Contract #E00201E10, Work Order E00201T. This technical memorandum presents the feasibility study. It outlines the approach, analytical methods, results, as well as the identification of specific restoration actions (project alternatives) that could be implemented to improve aquatic habitat on the Miller River fan in rural eastern King County, Washington. Study Area Limits The study area is the lowermost 2 miles of the Miller River (Figure 1), including all of the areas on its alluvial
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]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • Snohomish Basin Steelhead State of the Knowledge Report (2008)
    23 January 2008 TO: Snohomish Basin Partners SUBJECT: Snohomish Basin Steelhead State of the Knowledge Report Dear Partners: With the Snohomish Basin Salmonid Recovery Technical Committee and the Co-managers (WDFW and Tulalip Tribes), Snohomish County contracted the services of R2 Resource Consulting to compile existing information on steelhead in the Snohomish Basin. This information was requested in anticipation of eventual recovery plan development across the Puget Sound Steelhead ESU. The report lays a foundation for technical analysis and planning, but it is not a plan. The Report fulfilled eight key tasks that help provide baseline information for the planning process: 1. Developed an electronic annotated bibliography documenting sources of data and information on life histories, largely at the basin level. 2. Developed a GIS geodatabase of current and historic life histories in habitats across the basin. 3. Developed a map of known spawning and rearing reaches in the basin. 4. Summarized harvest and hatchery management in cooperation with the co-managers. 5. Described available information on migration, spawning, rearing and overwintering habitats across the basin, by brood year and stock. 6. Described existing data sets and their strengths and limitations for planning. 7. Summarized the knowledge regarding genetic differentiation between hatchery and wild stocks. 8. Coordinated with the Technical Committee, Co-managers and NOAA Fisheries. Note: the information in this report was collected from all known sources. The Technical Committee and Forum will need to evaluate this information and put it into context when initiating the planning process. The report may raise technical or policy questions to the fore but is not meant as the definitive answer for steelhead management and/or recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Snoqualmie, Sultan, and Skykomish Rivers, Washington
    DEPABTMEI7T OF THE INTEKIOB. UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS RMITH, DIBECTOR WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 366 PROFILE SURVEYS OF SNOQUALMIE, SULTAN, AND SKYKOMISH RIVERS, WASHINGTON PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF R. B. MARSHALL, CHIEF GEOGRAPHER WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1914 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIRECTOR * WATER- SUPPLY PAPER 366 PROFILE SURVEYS OF SNOQUALMIE, SULTAN, AND SKYKOMISH RIVERS, WASHINGTON PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF R. B. MARSHALL, CHIEF GEOGRAPHER WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1914 CONTENTS. Page. General features of Snohomish River basin.................................. 5 Gaging stations............................................................ 6 Publications.............................................................. 7 ILLUSTRATIONS. PLATE I. A-D, Plan and profile of Snoqualmie River and certain tributaries above Fall City, Wash..............................At end of volume. II. A-B, Plan and profile of Sultan River above Sultan, Wash......... At end of volume. III. A-F, Plan and profile of Skykomish River and certain tributaries above Gold Bar, Wash..............................At end of volume. 49607° WSP 366 14 3 PROFILE SURVEYS OF SNOQUALMIE, SULTAN, AND SKYKOMISH RIVERS, WASHINGTON. Prepared under the direction of R. B. MAKSHALL, Chief Geographer. GENERAL. FEATURES OF SNOHOMISH RIVER BASIN. Snohomish River is formed by the union of Skykomish and Sno- qualmie rivers, in the southwestern part of Snohomish County, Wash., and flows northwestward into Puget Sound. Skykomish River drains the west slope of the Cascade Mountains for a distance of 30 miles as measured along the divide or 22 miles in a straight line, northward between the point common to King, Kittitas, and Chelan counties, along the eastern boundary of King and Snohomish counties to a point 1 mile south of Indian Pass, at the divide between the Skykomish and Sauk drainage basins.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Guided Plant Walks
    Self-Guided Plant Walks Washington Native Plant Society Central Puget Sound Chapter Over the course of many years, the plant walks listed in this booklet provided WNPS members with interesting outings whether it be winter, spring, summer or fall. We hope these walk descriptions will encourage you to get out and explore! These walks were published on wnps.org from 1999-2011 by the Central Puget Sound Chapter and organized by month. In 2017 they were compiled into this booklet for historical use. Species names, urls, emails, directions, and trail data will not be updated. If you are interested in traveling to a site, please call the property manager (city, county, ranger station, etc.) to ensure the trail is open and passable for safe travel. To view updated species names, visit the UW Burke Herbarium Image Collection website at http://biology.burke.washington.edu/herbarium/imagecollection.php. Compiled October 28, 2017 Contents February .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Discovery Park Loop - February 2011 .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Sol Duc Falls - February 2010 ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Meadowdale County Park - February
    [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]
  • Application for Funds Project Summary
    K.C. Date Received King County CONSERVATTON FUTURBS (CFT) 2015 ANNUAL COLLECTTONS APPLICATION FOR FUNDS PROJECT NAME: South Fork Skvkomish Corridor Conservation Aoolicant Jurisdiction(s): Kine Countv DNRP (Name of larger connected system, if any, such as Cedar River Greenway, Mountains to Sound, a Regíonal Trail, etc.) Size: 101 (Size in acres and proposed number ofparcel(s) if a multïparcel proposal) (Dollar amount ofCFT grant requested) Primary Target Parcels: 312612-9026,302612-9031,302612-9029,122610-9008 & 1226109010 CONTACT INT'ORMÄTION Contact Name: Perrv Falcone Phone: 206-477-4689 Title: Proiect Prosram Manaser Fax: 206-296-01V, Address: 201 South Jackson Street. Suite 600 Email: perrv.falcone@,kinecounty.eov Seattle. WA 98104 Date: 3-13-14 PROJECT SUMMARY: The goal of this project is to conduct pre-acquisition work on several parcels alonga l2-mile corridor of the South Fork Skykomish River with conservation and recreation value. Several high priority conservation parcels were identified in the King County's South Fork Sþkomish River Basin Restoration Feasibility Report (2013). King County Parks will explore parcels with recreation opportunities in the corridor, as they do not currently own property in the watershed. The first priority targetparcels at the South Fork Sþkomish-Tye-Foss River confluence include 75.2 acres of undeveloped high quality salmon habitat at river mile 19.5 of the South Fork Skykomish River. The other priority target parcels arc26 acres along the South Fork Skykomish, just upstream from the community of Baring. A limited number of second priority parcels will be investigated as well. This proposal will fund landowner outreach and pre-acquisition work including title, timber valuation and appraisal.
    [Show full text]
  • Quarry Walls and in Roadcuts to the West
    310 LIMESTO NES OF WESTERN WASHINGTON Slickensides on the west and east contacts indicate movement between the enclosing wall rock and the limestone . Several other fau lts and shear zones are exposed in the quarry walls and in roadcuts to the west. The limestone is contained in a sequence composed predominantly of black carbonaceous shale, but including a considerable amount of ribbon chert and minor amounts of greenstone and graywacke. These rocks are be lieved to be of Permian age and have been tentatively assigned to the Trafton sequence. The limestone is cut by numerous calcite veinlets, which stand out in relief on weathered surfaces. No fossi Is were seen. Popoff (1949a, p. 6) suggested that a continuation of the limestone might lie under an increasing thickness of over­ burden in a low ridge about 40 feet wide extending 1,000 feet to the north from the quarry, as the limestone bodies in this area are more resistant than the enclosing bedrock and commonly stand up as knolls and ridges. However, shale overlies the limestone on the quarry face, and the Ii mestone appears to plunge down to the north under bedrock overburden. About 1,000 feet to the northeast is a second area of limestone outcrop. It consists of two exposures- one, near a slough of the North Fork of the Stillaguamish River, which looks very much like a buried boulder and might be limestone float; and a second, which lies about 350 feet to the northwest and 150 feet above the river. At this latter locality, poorly exposed knobs of limestone project up through soi l and drift over an area of about 500 square feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan SNOHOMISH BASIN SALMON RECOVERY FORUM
    Draft Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan SNOHOMISH BASIN SALMON RECOVERY FORUM June 2004 Draft Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan JUNE 2004 During preparation of this plan, Mark Sollitto, City of North Bend, and Terry Williams, The Tulalip Tribes, served as chair and co-chair of the Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum, respectively. Martha Neuman, Snohomish County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, served as project manager, editor, and lead staff to the Forum. Special thanks are given to members and alternates of the Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum, staff from Snohomish County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, and staff from King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks and the Sno- qualmie Watershed Forum. EnviroIssues assisted with plan preparation and public involvement. EcoPlan International provided support for developing alternatives and decision-making. RECOMMENDED CITATION Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum. 2004. Draft Snohomish River Basin Salmon Conservation Plan. July 2004. Snohomish County Surface Water Management Division. Everett, WA. PLAN INQUIRIES AND COMMENTS Inquiries, comments, and suggestions about this draft plan may be directed to: Ms. Martha Neuman Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery Forum Snohomish County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division 2731 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 300 Everett, Washington 98201-3581 Phone: (425) 388 3464 Toll Free: (800) 562-4367 Fax: (425) 388-6455 Internet: www.surfacewater.info [email protected] DISCLAIMER Snohomish County disclaims any warranty of merchantability or warranty of fitness of the maps in the plan for any particular purpose, either expressed or implied. No representation or warranty is made concerning the accuracy, currency, completeness, or quality of data depicted on these maps.
    [Show full text]