DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis for the Sumas Mountain Asbestos (Aka Swift Creek) Site

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis for the Sumas Mountain Asbestos (Aka Swift Creek) Site Draft Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis Sumas Mountain Asbestos (aka Swift Creek) Site Whatcom County, Washington TDD: 12-02-0006 Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, ECL-113 Seattle, Washington 98102 Prepared by: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 720 Third Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, Washington 98104 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. 10:START-3\12-09-0003 ii Table of Contents Executive Summary.................................................................................xi 1 Introduction ..............................................................................1-1 2 Site Characterization................................................................2-1 2.1 Site Description and History ............................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Site Ownership History ........................................................................ 2-1 2.1.2 Site Operations and Waste Characteristics........................................... 2-1 2.2 Physical Characteristics of the Site .................................................................. 2-3 2.2.1 Topography and Hydrology ................................................................. 2-3 2.2.2 Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................................. 2-3 2.2.3 Soils...................................................................................................... 2-4 2.2.4 Meteorology ......................................................................................... 2-4 2.2.5 Sensitive Ecosystems ........................................................................... 2-5 2.3 Surrounding Land Uses.................................................................................... 2-5 2.4 Previous Investigations and Removal Actions................................................. 2-5 2.5 Source, Nature and Extent of Contamination................................................. 2-10 2.5.1 Soil, Sediment, and Dredge Material ................................................. 2-10 2.5.2 Airborne Exposure to Sediment/Dredge Material.............................. 2-11 2.5.3 Surface Water..................................................................................... 2-12 2.5.4 Groundwater....................................................................................... 2-12 2.6 Streamlined Risk Evaluation.......................................................................... 2-12 3 Removal Action Objectives .....................................................3-1 3.1 Statutory Considerations on Removal Actions ................................................ 3-1 3.2 Determination of Removal Action Scope and Objectives ............................... 3-1 3.2.1 Removal Action Scope......................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2 Removal Action Objectives ................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements .................................. 3-2 3.4 Determination of Removal Schedule ............................................................... 3-2 4 Removal Action Alternatives...................................................4-1 4.1 Identification of Removal Action Alternatives ................................................ 4-1 4.2 Description of Removal Action Alternatives ................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Alternative A1: No Action ................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Alternative A2: Institutional Controls and Access Restrictions........... 4-2 4.2.3 Alternative A3: Annual Dredging and Hauling ................................... 4-2 4.2.4 Alternative A4: Sediment Basins, Setback Levees, and In- Stream Sediment Traps ........................................................................ 4-3 5 Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives...............................5-1 5.1 Individual Analysis of Alternatives.................................................................. 5-2 5.1.1 Alternative A1 – No Action .................................................................... 5-2 5.1.2 Alternative A2 – Institutional Controls and Access Restrictions......... 5-3 5.1.3 Alternative A3 – Annual Dredging and Hauling.................................. 5-5 10:START-3\12-09-0003 iii Table of Contents (cont.) Section Page 5.1.4 Alternative A4 – Sediment Basins, Setback Levees, and In- Stream Sediment Traps ........................................................................ 5-6 5.2 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ............................................................. 5-8 6 Recommended Removal Action Alternative ..........................6-1 7 References................................................................................7-1 A Summary of EPA 2012 Sampling Events......................................... A-1 B Analytical Data Reports and Validation Memoranda for EPA 2012 Sampling Events ............................................................ B-1 C Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements................. C-1 D Conceptual Design Drawings from SCSMAP Phase 1 Implementation Plan ............................................................... D-1 E Removal Action Alternative Cost Estimate Details......................... E-1 10:START-3\12-09-0003 iv List of Tables Table Page 5-1 Cost Estimate, Alternative A2, Institutional Controls and Access Restrictions...... 5-11 5-2 Cost Estimate, Alternative A3, Annual Dredging and Hauling for 10 Years.......... 5-12 5-3 Cost Estimate, Alternative A4, Sediment Basins, Setback Levees, and In- Stream Sediment Traps............................................................................................ 5-13 10:START-3\12-09-0003 v This page intentionally left blank. 10:START-3\12-09-0003 vi List of Figures Figure Page 1-1 Site Location Map...................................................................................................... 1-2 2-1 Site Layout Map....................................................................................................... 2-19 2-2 Swift Creek Alluvial Fan and Sumas River Floodplain........................................... 2-20 4-1 Alternative A1, No Action......................................................................................... 4-5 4-2 Alternative A2, Institutional Controls and Access Restrictions ................................ 4-6 4-3 Alternative A3, Annual Dredging and Hauling ......................................................... 4-7 4-4 Alternative A4, Sediment Basins, Setback Levees, and In-Stream Sediment Traps .......................................................................................................................... 4-8 10:START-3\12-09-0003 vii This page intentionally left blank. 10:START-3\12-09-0003 viii List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Definition °F degrees Fahrenheit % percent ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Ca:Mg Calcium to magnesium CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations Converse Converse Davis Dixon Associates, Inc. COPC contaminants of potential concern CPF cancer potency factor Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers DI deionized E & E Ecology and Environment, Inc. EE/CA Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit f/cc fibers per cubic centimeter GWL Great Western Lumber Company IA integrated assessment IRIS Integrated Risk Information System KWL Kerr Wood Leidal Associates, Limited µm micrometers MCL maximum contaminant level MFL millions of fibers per liter mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/L milligrams per liter mi2 square miles NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PCME phase-contrast microscopy equivalent PEL permissible exposure limit 10:START-3\12-09-0003 ix List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (cont.) PLM polarized light microscopy PSE Pacific Surveying and Engineering, Inc. RAO removal action objective s/cc structures per cubic centimeter SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SCSMAP Swift Creek Sediment Management Action Plan SCS Soil Conservation Service Site Sumas Mountain Asbestos (aka Swift Creek) Site SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure START Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team TAL Target Analyte List TBC to-be-considered TDD Technical Direction Document TEM transmission electron microscopy WDOE Washington State Department of Ecology WDFW Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife WDOH Washington State Department of Health WRCC Western Regional Climate Center yd3 cubic yards 10:START-3\12-09-0003 x Executive Summary This Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA) was prepared for the Sumas Mountain Asbestos (aka Swift Creek) Site (site) in Whatcom County, approximately 12 miles northeast of Bellingham, Washington. Swift Creek flows west from Sumas Mountain and enters the Sumas River near the towns of Everson and Nooksack, Washington. Swift Creek originates in a landslide area on Sumas Mountain, and the geological landslide material includes naturally occurring asbestos. Every year, an estimated 150,000 cubic yards (yd3) of sediment containing naturally occurring asbestos is transported
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WATER QUANTITY and QUALITY REPORT Foothills Subarea Prepared For: Whatcom County Planning & Development Services
    WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY REPORT Foothills Subarea Prepared for: Whatcom County Planning & Development Services Project No. 080056-001-01 y July 18, 2008 179 Madrone Lane North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Tel: (206) 780-9370 Fax: (206) 780-9438 www.aspectconsulting.com a limited liability company ASPECT CONSULTING Contents Acronyms ...........................................................................................................iv Executive Summary............................................................................................1 Water Quantity .......................................................................................................1 Water Quality..........................................................................................................2 Public Stormwater Facilities ...................................................................................2 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................13 2 Existing Conditions...................................................................................15 2.1 Water Quantity ...........................................................................................15 2.1.1 Surface Water ...................................................................................... 15 2.1.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................ 23 2.2 Water Quality .............................................................................................28
    [Show full text]
  • Salmon and Steelhead Limiting Factors in WRIA 1, the Nooksack Basin, 2002
    SALMON AND STEELHEAD HABITAT LIMITING FACTORS IN WRIA 1, THE NOOKSACK BASIN July, 2002 Carol J. Smith, Ph.D. Washington State Conservation Commission 300 Desmond Drive Lacey, Washington 98503 Acknowledgements This report was developed by the WRIA 1 Technical Advisory Group for Habitat Limiting Factors. This project would not have been possible without their vast expertise and willingness to contribute. The following participants in this project are gratefully thanked and include: Bruce Barbour, DOE Alan Chapman, Lummi Indian Nation Treva Coe, Nooksack Indian Tribe Wendy Cole, Whatcom Conservation District Ned Currence, Nooksack Indian Tribe Gregg Dunphy, Lummi Indian Nation Clare Fogelsong, City of Bellingham John Gillies, U.S.D.A. Darrell Gray, NSEA Brady Green, U.S. Forest Service Dale Griggs, Nooksack Indian Tribe Milton Holter, Lummi Indian Nation Doug Huddle, WDFW Tim Hyatt, Nooksack Indian Tribe Mike MacKay, Lummi Indian Nation Mike Maudlin, Lummi Indian Nation Shannon Moore, NSEA Roger Nichols, U.S. Forest Service Andrew Phay, Whatcom Conservation District Dr. Carol Smith, WA Conservation Commission Steve Seymour, WDFW John Thompson, Whatcom County Tyson Waldo, NWIFC SSHIAP Bob Warinner, WDFW Barry Wenger, DOE Brian Williams, WDFW Stan Zyskowski, National Park Service A special thanks to Ron McFarlane (NWIFC) for digitizing and producing maps, to Andrew Phay (Whatcom Conservation District) for supplying numerous figures, to Llyn Doremus (Nooksack Indian Tribe) for the review, and to Victor Johnson (Lummi Indian Nation) for supplying the slope instability figure. I also extend appreciation to Devin Smith (NWIFC) and Kurt Fresh (WDFW) for compiling and developing the habitat rating standards, and to Ed Manary for writing the “Habitat Limiting Factors Background”.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Control and Sediment Transport Study of The
    FLOOD CONTROL AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDY OF THE VEDDER RIVER by DAVID GEORGE McLEAN .A.Sc., University of British Columbia, 1975 \ THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES The Department of Civil Engineering We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1980 (5) David George McLean In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Cim / moo^i^y The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 E-6 BP 75-51 1 E ABSTRACT The Chilliwack River flows through the Cascade Mountains until reaching a narrow gorge near Vedder Crossing where it flows onto the Fraser Lowlands and eventually meets the Fraser River. Below Vedder Crossing, the river is actively building an alluvial fan by depos• iting its sediment load of gravel and sand. This deposi• tion has resulted in frequent channel shifts over the fan surface with the most recent migration occurring around 1894 when the river shifted down Vedder Creek. Over the last century the Vedder River has been undergoing very complex changes in response to changes in the incidence of severe floods, changes in sediment supply and interference from river training.
    [Show full text]
  • Swift Creek Consent Decree Final
    }: s FILFD COQ N'Y "L-FRK 1 10 k 43 2 3 4 BY ---- 5 6 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON 8 WHATCOM COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 9 STATE OF WASHINGTON, ° 9 2 0 2 7 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, NO. 37 10 Plaintiff, 11 CONSENT DECREE V. RE: SUMAS MOUNTAIN 12 LANDSLIDE WHATCOM COUNTY; WHATCOM 13 . COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT; GREAT WESTERN 14 LUMBER COMPANY; and MILLMAN FAMILY LLC, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 TABLE OF CONTENTS 19 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 20 II. JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................... 5 III. PARTIES BOUND ....................................................................................................... 6 21 IV. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................. 6 22 V. FINDINGS OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 7 VI. WORK TO BE PERFORMED ................................................................................... 14 23 VII. DURATION OF DECREE ......................................................................................... 21 VIII. DESIGNATED PROJECT COORDINATORS ......................................................... 22 24 IX. PERFORMANCE .......................................................................................................23 X. ACCESS ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Trans Mountain Expansion Project
    TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6 PROJECT NO.: 0095150-04 DISTRIBUTION: DATE: February 20, 2015 TMP ULC: 2 copies DOCUMENT NO.: 0095150-14-SUM BGC: 2 copies OTHER: 1 copy Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of the engineering design and assessment for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP), BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) has been retained to complete geotechnical feasibility assessments for horizontal directional drilling (HDD) at select stream crossings along the proposed pipeline corridor. In September 2014, BGC supervised the drilling of three boreholes adjacent to the proposed HDD alignment at Sumas River east of Abbotsford, BC. WorleyParsons, under subcontract to BGC, completed geophysical surveys at the same site in August 2013 and November 2014. Analysis of historical aerial photographs shows that the banks of Sumas River appear stable with respect to bank erosion and avulsion, and the proposed HDD alignment is not expected to be compromised by these hydrotechnical hazards. Results from the scour analysis estimate a maximum scour depth of approximately 2.0 m below the channel thalweg during a 200-year flood event, corresponding to an elevation of 1.5 m below sea level. Given this result, the depth of cover above the proposed HDD borepath remains adequate for the entire HDD length. The HDD entry and exit points are located beyond the dykes that parallel the Sumas River at an elevation of approximately 3.8 and 11.8 masl, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Swift Creek Consent Decree Final Exhibits A-E (December 2019)
    EXHIBIT A SCSMAP South Pass Setback Levee Phase I Implementation SOUTH PASS RD. Proposed Phase I Project Elements Levees Sediment Basins Upper Goodwin Reach Instream Sediment Traps . D Canyon Reach Instream S R Debris Flow/Setback Levee w N I Sediment Traps . if Roads D t W k R C e D e r r wift C Williams Pipelines S ork S e O North F E Goodwin Reach ek O L Existing Stockpile Levees G Sou O th For C Sediment Basins k Sw if Swift Creek T t A C reek O Sumas River Alluvial Fan ² Feet 0 1,000500 Lower Goodwin Reach Setback Levee MASSEY RD. Figure 1 Phase I Structure Locations EXHIBIT B SWIFT CREEK ACTION PLAN Whatcom County, Washington December 2019 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Cris Matthews (Primary contact) Toxics Cleanup Program - Bellingham Field Office 913 Squalicum Way, Suite 101 Bellingham, WA 98225 (360) 255-4379 or [email protected] Tamara Cardona-Marek Toxics Cleanup Program – NW Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 (425) 649-7058 or [email protected] Pete Kmet (Retired) Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program - Headquarters Office 300 Desmond Drive P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Previous Studies 1.3 Regulatory Framework 2.0 Site Description and History 3.0 Action Alternatives and Screening Level Analysis 4.0 Proposed Selected Action and Analysis of Compliance with MTCA 4.1 Definition of Site 4.2 Description of Proposed Action 4.3 Analysis of Selected Remedy for Compliance with MTCA 5.0 Environmental Standards 6.0 Applicable Local, State, and Federal Laws 7.0 Institutional Controls and Site Use Restrictions 8.0 Compliance Monitoring 9.0 Schedule for Implementing the Selected Action 10.0 State Environmental Policy Action Compliance References and Technical Investigations List of Tables TABLE 1 Soil / Sediment results for selected substances TABLE 2 Estimated excess lifetime cancer risks for various exposure scenarios using asbestos dust concentrations generated in August 2006 EPA activity based sampling study.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Sumas Flood Letter
    CITY OF SUMAS P. O. Box 9 Sumas, Washington 98295 Phone (360)988-5711 FAX (360)988-8855 MAYOR-Kyle Christensen COUNCIL MEETINGS FINANCE DIRECTOR-Shelley Schultz SECOND AND FOURTH [email protected] MONDAYS OF EACH MONTH November, 2018 Dear City of Sumas Resident, This letter is being sent to you for informational purposes only because our records show that your property is very likely located in the floodplain. The City is working on ways to improve and increase its circulation of and accessibility to information that pertains to the floodplain, in an effort to better educate and assist its citizens about developing and living in the floodplain. Please take the time to read the information below, and if you have further questions, or would like additional information, a variety of contact information has been supplied at the end of this document. OVERVIEW Whatcom County features one large river and smaller tributaries, or streams, that are susceptible to annual flooding events that pose threats to life and safety and cause significant property damage. The large river is the Nooksack, while streams include Johnson Creek, Sumas Creek, and the Sumas River. Snow melt from the Cascade Mountain range contributes substantially to flooding, and ongoing development within the County continues to displace natural areas that have historically functioned as flood storage. RECENT FLOODING EVENTS While some sort of seasonal flood-related damage occurs nearly every year, the flooding and associated landslide events of February and November 1990 represent the most significant flooding. In November 1990, prolonged precipitation accompanied by an early snow melt, caused by a warm-weather trend known as a “Pineapple Express,” caused many rivers and creeks throughout the Nooksack River watershed to rise to 100-year flood levels, causing flooding in both rural and urban areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Sumas Mountain/Swift Creek Sediment Management Project
    WHATCOM COUNTY qqrigin/i CONTRACT NO. JJOMOIOI 3 JOINT AGENCY AGREEMENT (20T*r sW15 , l0 5 fi# /e_c SUMAS MOUNTAIN/SWIFT CREEK SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT U.S. EPA REGION 10 WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON USEPA SF I. INTRODUCTION 1467272 Whatcom County (the County), the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District (Flood Control Zone District), the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (EPA) (collectively, "the Parties") enter into this Joint Agency Agreement ("Agreement") to reduce the risks associated with human exposure to naturally occurring asbestos within sediment transported through the Swift Creek channel from a naturally-occurring landslide on Sumas Mountain, and/or removed, dredged, transported, or otherwise managed through human activity at certain locations. To address these concerns, the Parties have evaluated alternatives, considered public comments, identified a Project Area (see map at App. 1), and developed a framework known as the Swift Creek Sediment Management Project ("the Project"). As described below, the Project consists of a set of actions intended to address flooding and asbestos concerns for a period of ten years or more. In order to implement the Project, the Parties must first satisfy a number of legal requirements, including those established by the Washington Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Parties intend for actions selected through these processes to be the subject of this Agreement. The Parties further intend for those elements of the Project implemented under MTCA to be implemented pursuant to a consent decree entered in Superior Court of the State of Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrostratigraphy and Groundwater Flow in the Sumas Area, Whatcom County, Washington Sue Culton Kahle Western Washington University, [email protected]
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR WWU Graduate School Collection WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship Winter 1990 Hydrostratigraphy and Groundwater Flow in the Sumas Area, Whatcom County, Washington Sue Culton Kahle Western Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Kahle, Sue Culton, "Hydrostratigraphy and Groundwater Flow in the Sumas Area, Whatcom County, Washington" (1990). WWU Graduate School Collection. 662. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/662 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in WWU Graduate School Collection by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HYDROSTE^TIGRAPHY AND GROUNDWATER FLOW ,IN THE SUMAS AREA, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON • by Sue Culton Kahle accepted*'in partial ccmpletion of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Advisory Committee WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Bellingham, Washington 98225 • [2Q6] 676-3000 MASTER'S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Western Washington University, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this thesis is allowable only for scholarly purposes. It is understood, however, that any copying or publication of this thesis for commercial purposes, or for financial gain, shall not be allowed without my written permission. Date ;2j MASTER’S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Western Washington University, I grant to Western Washington University the non-exclusive royalty-free right to archive, reproduce, distribute, and display the thesis in any and all forms, including electronic format, via any digital library mechanisms maintained by WWU.
    [Show full text]
  • Sumas Dyke Trails
    81 SUMAS DYKE TRAILS ABBOTSFORD Hardpacked dyke trail 13km one way • 26km return letsgobiking.net There are many flat and scenic trails to explore on the dykes around the Sumas Prairie. What was once a large lake, drained • Enjoyed this map? Explore more in the new guidebook! in the 1920s, the Sumas Prairie is now home to dairy farms and berry fields. You’ll see views of Taggart Peak, Vedder Mountain and the Cheam Mountain Range. This easy ride links VEDDER NORTH DYKE TRAIL L I A McKay Creek Trail, Sumas River Trail, Barrowtown and Vedder R T VEDDER RIVER TRAIL E River Trail, all part of The Great Trail, and there are options to K Y 5 continue on nearby dykes. 4 D BARROWTOWN PUMP STATION D R L E SUMAS RIVER TRAIL • 7km one way • 14km return L VEDDER CANAL L A 82 Vedder R A River Trails P N START at Eldridge & Atkinson Rd - Abbotsford 3 1 EAST McKay Creek trail then Sumas River Trail KEITH 2 Cross No. 3 Rd, *visit McDonald Park WILSON BRIDGE 3 EAST on dyke to trail end, at North Parallel Rd return via same route or continue: HWY 1 BARROWTOWN - VEDDER RIVER E K 6km one way • 12km return 2 DY MCDONALD NO 3 RD PARK 4 LEFT/E N. Parallel Rd - 1 km on road, just past Barrowtown Pump station go EAST 0 1 2 on dyke trail ER RIV AS 5 M IL km RIGHT/S Vedder River Trail, U RA T S T N GT at Keith Wilson bridge U T O ER M IV E R return via same route S K A A M L U S SUMAS IL A PRAIRIE R T K E E HWY 1 R C (FORMER SUMAS LAKE) Y A LEGEND K C M 80 Discovery Trail 1 Start ATKINSON Connecting Route E D G Ride Direction ELDRI Parking Washrooms TGT - The Great Trail ABBOTSFORD Sumas Dyke 14km Dykes 12km Sumas Trail 1.5km Former Lake CAMPBELL DISCLAIMER: This map is a route aid, not to scale, does not show all roads and trails.
    [Show full text]
  • Swift Creek/Sumas Mountain, Asbestos Cluster Investigation
    Sumas Mountain / Swift Creek Asbestos Cluster Investigation Summary DOH 334-225 February 2010 Background The Washington State Department of Health completed a follow-up epidemiologic cluster investigation in October 2009 after learning that the extent of naturally occurring asbestos deposited along the Sumas River in Whatcom County, Washington, was greater than previously thought. This investigation included the area around Swift Creek and the Sumas River up to the Canadian border. The source of the naturally occurring asbestos is an active landslide on Sumas Mountain. In communities where contaminants like naturally occurring asbestos have been found, the department is responsible for ensuring that the community has the best information available about associated health issues. The purpose of this investigation was to assess whether the rate of lung and bronchial cancer and mesothelioma among people living in the study area was greater than the overall rate for Washington State or whether it was no different from what would be expected by chance alone. Investigation The number of people diagnosed with lung and bronchial cancer and mesothelioma from 1992 through 2006 was obtained from the Washington State Cancer Registry. These data were adjusted to account for differences in the age distribution of the populations. The adjustment was necessary since the rate of these cancers increases with age. The rates of cancer in the study area were compared to rates for Whatcom County and Washington State. Conclusion The results of this investigation do not suggest that the naturally occurring asbestos in the Swift Creek and Sumas River study area has contributed to an increased rate of lung and bronchial cancer or mesothelioma among people living in the area when compared to rates in Whatcom County or Washington State.
    [Show full text]
  • SALMON and STEELHEAD HABITAT LIMITING FACTORS in WRIA 1, the NOOKSACK BASIN July, 2002
    SALMON AND STEELHEAD HABITAT LIMITING FACTORS IN WRIA 1, THE NOOKSACK BASIN July, 2002 Carol J. Smith, Ph.D. Washington State Conservation Commission 300 Desmond Drive Lacey, Washington 98503 Acknowledgements This report was developed by the WRIA 1 Technical Advisory Group for Habitat Limiting Factors. This project would not have been possible without their vast expertise and willingness to contribute. The following participants in this project are gratefully thanked and include: Bruce Barbour, DOE Alan Chapman, Lummi Indian Nation Treva Coe, Nooksack Indian Tribe Wendy Cole, Whatcom Conservation District Ned Currence, Nooksack Indian Tribe Gregg Dunphy, Lummi Indian Nation Clare Fogelsong, City of Bellingham John Gillies, U.S.D.A. Darrell Gray, NSEA Brady Green, U.S. Forest Service Dale Griggs, Nooksack Indian Tribe Milton Holter, Lummi Indian Nation Doug Huddle, WDFW Tim Hyatt, Nooksack Indian Tribe Mike MacKay, Lummi Indian Nation Mike Maudlin, Lummi Indian Nation Shannon Moore, NSEA Roger Nichols, U.S. Forest Service Andrew Phay, Whatcom Conservation District Dr. Carol Smith, WA Conservation Commission Steve Seymour, WDFW John Thompson, Whatcom County Tyson Waldo, NWIFC SSHIAP Bob Warinner, WDFW Barry Wenger, DOE Brian Williams, WDFW Stan Zyskowski, National Park Service A special thanks to Ron McFarlane (NWIFC) for digitizing and producing maps, to Andrew Phay (Whatcom Conservation District) for supplying numerous figures, to Llyn Doremus (Nooksack Indian Tribe) for the review, and to Victor Johnson (Lummi Indian Nation) for supplying the slope instability figure. I also extend appreciation to Devin Smith (NWIFC) and Kurt Fresh (WDFW) for compiling and developing the habitat rating standards, and to Ed Manary for writing the “Habitat Limiting Factors Background”.
    [Show full text]