DOCSLIB.ORG

January 26, 2016 Daniel Mathis Federal Highways Administration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
January 26, 2016 Daniel Mathis Federal Highways Administration UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE West Coast Region 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1 Seattle, Washington 98115 Refer to NMFS No.: WCR-2015-1989 January 26, 2016 Daniel Mathis Federal Highways Administration Suite 501 Evergreen Plaza 711 South Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98501 1284 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the 10th Avenue Bridge Local Programs Funding, Clark County, Washington (HUC 170900120401) Dear Mr. Mathis: The enclosed document contains a conference and biological opinion (opinion) prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7(a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) on the effects of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration’s proposal to fund Clark County’s construction of a new bridge over Whipple Creek, to connect NE 10th Avenue between NE 154th Street and NE 164th Street. In this opinion, NMFS concludes that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the following species: 1. Lower Columbia River (LCR) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 2. LCR coho salmon (O. kisutch) 3. LCR steelhead (O. mykiss) NMFS also concluded that the proposed action is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the designated critical habitats designated for any of the above listed fish species, nor proposed critical habitat for LCR coho salmon. As required by section 7 of the ESA, NMFS is providing an incidental take statement with this opinion. The incidental take statement describes reasonable and prudent measures NMFS considers appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take associated with this action. It also sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions, including reporting requirements, that FHWA and the applicant must comply with to carry out the reasonable and prudent measures. Incidental take from actions that meet these terms and conditions will be exempt from the ESA’s prohibition against the take of listed species. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History ........................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Action Area ......................................................................................................................... 3 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ..................................................................................................................................3 2.1 Analytical Approach ........................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Rangewide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ........................................................ 4 2.2.1 Status of the Species ................................................................................................ 5 2.2.2 Status of the Critical Habitats ................................................................................ 15 2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Effects of the Action ......................................................................................................... 20 2.4.1 Effects on Proposed Critical Habitat ..................................................................... 21 2.4.1 Effects on Listed Species ....................................................................................... 24 2.5 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 27 2.6 Integration and Synthesis .................................................................................................. 28 2.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 29 2.8 Incidental Take Statement................................................................................................. 29 2.8.1 Amount or Extent of Take ..................................................................................... 29 2.8.2 Effect of the Take .................................................................................................. 30 2.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ........................................................................ 30 2.8.4 Terms and Conditions ............................................................................................ 30 2.9 Conservation Recommendations ...................................................................................... 31 2.10 Reinitiation of Consultation ............................................................................................ 31 2.11 “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Determinations ......................................................... 32 3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION ......................................................................32 3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project ................................................................. 33 3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................................ 33 3.3 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations .................................................. 33 3.4 Statutory Response Requirement ...................................................................................... 34 3.5 Supplemental Consultation ............................................................................................... 34 4. DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW .....35 5. REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................37 -i- 1. INTRODUCTION This Introduction section provides information relevant to the other sections of this document and is incorporated by reference into Sections 2 and 3 below. 1.1 Background The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared the biological opinion (opinion) and incidental take statement portions of this document in accordance with section 7(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402. We also completed an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation on the proposed action, in accordance with section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. We completed pre-dissemination review of this document using standards for utility, integrity, and objectivity in compliance with applicable guidelines issued under the Data Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-554). A complete record of this consultation is on file at the Oregon Washington Coastal Area Office. 1.2 Consultation History On January 21, 2015, NMFS received a letter from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requesting initiation of an informal consultation for a project to fund via Local Programs, Clark County’s construction of a bridge at 10th Avenue improving traffic connection and transportation improvements between NE 154th and NE 164th streets. This project includes stormwater treatment, and mitigation for impacts to vegetation and wetlands. The FHWA determined that the project has No Effect on Pacific Eulachon or their designated critical habitat, nor on the designated critical habitat of Lower Columbia River (LCR) Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River steelhead, or Columbia River chum salmon. The FHWA determined that the project is not likely to adversely affect Columbia River chum or Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, nor adversely modify proposed critical habitat for Lower Columbia River coho salmon. The FHWA determined that the project is likely to adversely affect Lower Columbia River coho salmon and steelhead, and may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH) for Pacific salmon. We concur with the FHWA’s “Not Likely” determination on Columbia River chum. We determine that the project is likely to adversely affect Lower Columbia River coho, steelhead, and Chinook salmon, as well as critical habitat designated or proposed for these species. -1- On June 24th, the NMFS staff biologist met with representatives from WSDOT and Clark County to discuss project components, design, and potential impacts to habitat conditions. On July 16th WSDOT provided an email with design revisions to the stormwater outfall to further reduce habitat impacts, and the consultation was initiated. 1.3 Proposed Action “Action” means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies (50 CFR 402.02). “Interrelated actions” are those that are part of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Designation of Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead; Proposed Rule
    Vol. 78 Monday, No. 9 January 14, 2013 Part II Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 226 Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:31 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 2726 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Fax: 503–230–5441, Attn: Steve in the evolutionary legacy of the Stone. biological species (56 FR 58612, National Oceanic and Atmospheric • Mail: Chief, Protected Resources November 20, 1991). We determined Administration Division, Northwest Region, National that a group of Pacific steelhead Marine Fisheries Service, 1201 NE. populations qualifies as a DPS if it is 50 CFR Part 226 Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR markedly separate and significant to its [Docket No. 110726419–2714–01] 97232. taxon (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996; 71 Instructions: Comments will be FR 834, January 5, 2006). In previous RIN 0648–BB30 posted for public viewing as soon as rulemaking we determined that lower possible during the comment period. All Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June Endangered and Threatened Species; comments received are a part of the 28, 2005) and Puget Sound steelhead (72 Designation of Critical Habitat for public record and will generally be FR 26722, May 11, 2007) are each DPSs Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon posted to http://www.regulations.gov that warrant protection as threatened and Puget Sound Steelhead without change.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Yacolt Quadrangle, Clark County, Washington
    Geologic Map of the Yacolt Quadrangle, Clark County, Washington By Russell C. Evarts Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 2901 2006 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey INTRODUCTION This map is a contribution to a program designed to improve the geologic database for the GEOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGIC SETTING Portland Basin region of the Pacific Northwest urban The Yacolt 7.5' quadrangle is situated in the corridor, the densely populated Cascadia forearc foothills of the western Cascade Range of region of western Washington and Oregon. Better southwestern Washington approximately 35 km and more detailed information on the bedrock and northeast of Portland, Oregon (fig. 1). Since late surficial geology of the basin and its surrounding area Eocene time, the Cascade Range has been the locus is needed to refine assessments of seismic risk (Yelin of an active volcanic arc associated with and Patton, 1991; Bott and Wong, 1993), ground- underthrusting of oceanic lithosphere beneath the failure hazards (Madin and Wang, 1999; Wegmann North American continent along the Cascadia and Walsh, 2001) and resource availability in this Subduction Zone. Volcanic and shallow-level rapidly growing region. intrusive rocks emplaced early in the history of the arc underlie most of the Yacolt quadrangle, forming a PREVIOUS GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS dissected and partly glaciated terrain with elevations between 250 and 2180 ft (75 and 665 m). The Previous geologic mapping in the Yacolt bedrock surface slopes irregularly but steeply to the area, generally carried out as part of broad regional southwest, forming the eastern margin of the Portland reconnaissance investigations, established the basic Basin, and weakly consolidated Miocene and stratigraphic framework and distribution of geologic younger basin-fill sediments lap up against the units in the quadrangle.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction and Overview
    Factors that Influence Evolutionarily Significant Unit Boundaries and Status Assessment in a Highly Polymorphic Species, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in the Columbia Basin by Kathryn Kostow Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Information Report #2003-04 October 15, 2003 This document was prepared under an Interagency Personnel Agreement (IPA) between Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division, Portland OR. and NOAA Fisheries, NW Fisheries Science Center, Seattle WA. Funding for this project was provided by NOAA Fisheries and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Contents Page Executive Summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Evolutionary Relationship between Trout and Steelhead -------------------------------- 4 Status of ESUs that Contain both Trout and Steelhead ----------------------------------- 5 Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Scope and Intent of this Document ------------------------------------------------------------ 7 Constraints on Data Availability --------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Overview of Conditions that Influence Trout Distribution and Abundance in the Columbia Basin ------------------------------------------------------- 10 Evidence about the Evolutionary Relationship between Trout and Steelhead Populations --------------------------------------------------------------13 Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Cutthroat Trout in Washington State: Status and Management
    Coastal Cutthroat Trout in Washington State: Status and Management Jon. D. Anderson Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501- 1091 [email protected] Introduction The coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) inhabits a diverse and ecologically varied suite of habitats in Washington State. Cutthroat have responded to this variability, as evidenced by their exhibiting four basic life history forms (Wydoski and Whitney 2003), anadromous, adfluvial, fluvial and resident. A summary of the status of the anadromous form of coastal cutthroat trout in Washington State was published by Leider (1997). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) completed the salmonid stock inventory (SaSI) assessment process for coastal cutthroat trout (Blakley et al. 2000), which expanded upon the Washington Department of Game Sea-Run Cutthroat Status Report (DeShazo 1980). In the SaSI, the coastal cutthroat populations were described as “stock complexes”. These complexes were defined as a group of closely related stocks located within a single watershed or other relatively limited geographic area. The number of stocks within a stock complex may never be known with any confidence. The inventory identified 40 coastal cutthroat stock complexes and determined their status (healthy, depressed, critical, unknown or extinct), origin (native, non-native or unknown) and production type (wild, cultured or unknown). This paper is intended to provide updated information subsequent to that paper, and to document the response of the WDFW to the proposed listing of this population under the Endangered Species Act. In response to a petition to list coastal cutthroat trout as threatened or endangered under the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Lewis River & Vancouver Lake
    LEWIS RIVER–VANCOUVER LAKE WATER TRAIL P ADDLING GUIDE table Of cOntents overview Map/legend ............................................. 1 welcome .................................................................... 2 How to Use guide ..................................................... 3 safety ......................................................................... 4 etiquette .................................................................... 5 Trail Maps .............................................................. 6-21 n. Fork lewis river: woodland ........................6-7 e. Fork lewis river: la center ..........................8-9 lake river: n. ridgefield ................................ 10-11 Bachelor Island slough/ridgefieldr efuge ....12-13 lake river: s. ridgefield ................................14-15 lake river: s. green lake ...............................16-17 vancouver lake: west ....................................18-19 vancouver lake: east .....................................20-21 gear checklist ......................................................... 22 resources ................................................................ 23 credits & acknowledgements .............................. 24 notes ....................................................................... 25 Overview Map shOwing all rOutes he 32 river miles in this water trail include Vancouver TLake (more than 5 miles to circumnavigate), the full extent of Lake River (~11.5 miles), a section of the Columbia River along the west side of Bachelor
    [Show full text]
  • Lewis River to Vancouver Lake Water Trail Report
    Lewis River - Vancouver Lake Water Trail Plan Report and Recommendations October 2012 Lewis River - Vancouver Lake Water Trail Plan Acknowledgements Vancouver-Clark Parks and Recreation Staff Laura Hudson, Interim Director Jean Akers, park planner Partnering Agency Staff Michael Linde Dan Miller Stakeholders Gail Alexander Eric D. Anderson Jon Babcock Katy Brooks Brian Calkins Rob Carpenter Bill Dygert Chuck Frayer Brent Grening Chris Hathaway Lehman Holder Mike Houck Carolyn Johnson Patrick Lee Cheri Martin Dale Miller Jeff Mize David Morgan Ron Onslow Jim Presser Anita Roberts William Robison Chris Robison Eric Rosewall Alan Stewart Steven Wall Toni Wise and others... Lewis River - Vancouver Lake Water Trail Plan October 2012 Lewis River - Vancouver Lake Water Trail Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary.......................................1 Frequently Asked Questions.........................3 Scope and Purpose.......................................7 River Inventory, Maps and Conditions........13 Economic and Program Opportunities....... 31 Recommendations..................................... 35 October 2012 Lewis River - Vancouver Lake Water Trail Plan Lewis River - Vancouver Lake Water Trail Plan Executive Summary The Vancouver-Clark Parks and Recreation While the project planning began in the summer of Department (VCPRD) in collaboration with 2010 with a grant application to the National Park the National Park Service: Rivers, Trails, and Service RTCA for technical assistance, recognition Conservation Assistance Program led a
    [Show full text]
  • Watersheds in Washington with Salmon And/Or Steelhead Identified As NMFS Listed Resources of Concern for EPA's PGP
    Watersheds in Washington with Salmon and/or Steelhead identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern for EPA's PGP ESU Watershed Name Cat Unit 10 digit HUC Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon Chief Joseph Subbasin/Upper Columbia/Swamp Creek Watershed 17020005 1702000505 Upper Columbia River Steelhead Chief Joseph Subbasin/Upper Columbia/Swamp Creek Watershed 17020005 1702000505 Upper Columbia River Steelhead Upper Okanogan River Watershed 17020006 1702000601 Upper Columbia River Steelhead Okanogan River/Bonaparte Creek Watershed 17020006 1702000602 Upper Columbia River Steelhead Salmon Creek Watershed 17020006 1702000603 Upper Columbia River Steelhead Okanogan River/Omak Creek Watershed 17020006 1702000604 Upper Columbia River Steelhead Lower Okanogan River Watershed 17020006 1702000605 Upper Columbia River Steelhead Similkameen Subbasin/Lower Similkameen River Watershed 17020007 1702000704 Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon Lost River Watershed 17020008 1702000801 Upper Columbia River Steelhead Lost River Watershed 17020008 1702000801 Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon Upper Methow River Watershed 17020008 1702000802 Upper Columbia River Steelhead Upper Methow River Watershed 17020008 1702000802 Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon Upper Chewuch River Watershed 17020008 1702000803 Upper Columbia River Steelhead Upper Chewuch River Watershed 17020008 1702000803 Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon Lower Chewuch River Watershed 17020008 1702000804 Upper Columbia River Steelhead Lower Chewuch River Watershed
    [Show full text]
  • Organizing the Civilian Conservation Corps
    “No Goldbricking Here” Oral Histories of the CCC in the Columbia National Forest, 1933-1942 Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest and History Department Portland State University 1 “No Goldbricking Here” Oral Histories of the CCC in the Columbia National Forest, 1933-1942 edited by Donna Sinclair and Richard McClure August 2003 Heritage Program Gifford Pinchot National Forest and History Department Portland State University With support from Northwest Service Academy, AmeriCorps 2 Table of Contents Pages Introduction 1-7 Narrator Company CCC Camp Service Period Phil Amoruso 944 Hemlock 1935-1938 8-25 Carroll Aust 2907 Vancouver 1937-1938 27-43 Barracks Wesley Betts 945 Twin Buttes 1937-1938 44-61 Philip Brumbaugh 602 Twin Buttes 1933-1934 62-69 Kenneth Good 604 Peterson Prairie 1933-1934 70-79 Paul Grooms 5481 Sunset 1936-1939 80-93 Lynn Hazen 944 Hemlock 1937-1938 94-109 Fred Hemenway 2919 Lower Cispus 1939-1941 110-127 Jack Leonard 944 Hemlock 1937-1939 128-149 Ben Marshall 945 Lower Cispus 1935-1936 150-161 Charlie McMahan 933 Lower Cispus 1938-1940 162-175 Pete Paladeni 944 Hemlock 1934-1937 176-203 Jack Pollari 944 Hemlock 1938-1941 204-217 Frank Pratt 933 Lower Cispus 1933-1934 218-233 Kenneth Ray 1456 Hemlock 1941-1942 234-251 Charles Sethe 2919 Lower Cispus 1934-1936 252-265 Cliff Smedley 2919 Lower Cispus 1934-1936 266-279 Pat Sutherland 944 Hemlock 1939-1940 280-307 Index 308 -312 3 Upper photo: CCC Director Robert Fechner visits CCC Camp Lower Cispus, 1933. The group includes, from left to right: C.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Legacy Lands Brochure
    Clark County Legacy Lands wildlife, and provides recreational opportunities. Preserving The program’s primary county revenue source is Stewardship the Conservation Futures levy. It has supported more than 45 distinct acquisitions. Local revenues a lasting legacy combined with grants and donations purchased and volunteering Clark County’s diverse natural landscape consists these scenic properties. You can play an important role in maximizing the of broad river valleys, narrow creek canyons, natural value of lands through resource protection, In addition, acquisitions occurred through the wetlands, lakes, riparian zones, forests, mountains, restoration and site stewardship. Volunteer to state Department of Natural Resources Trust meadows, foothills and farms. Clark County’s Legacy work with our partner agencies to remove invasive Land Transfer Program and privately owned Lands Program (Conservation Futures Program) is species and litter, plant native trees and shrubs, land donations. The county also coordinates managed by Environmental Services. This program repair trails and maintain these beautiful sites. its acquisitions with other land conservation was instituted in October 1985, when the Board of entities such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, County Commissioners adopted a property tax levy Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, of 6.25 cents per $1,000 of valuation to protect open cities, towns and private land trusts. space from threats such as urban development and habitat degradation. Protected lands provide a vital Find out more about the program green infrastructure that connects our community, and properties at protects our water and air, preserves corridors for www.clark.wa.gov/legacylands. Volunteers planting trees Discover Find out more about the program and properties at www.clark.wa.gov/legacylandsVolunteers planting trees .
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 15 Water
    Chapter 15 Water This chapter describes water resources (watersheds, riparian buffers, Words in bold floodplains, surface water, and groundwater) in the project area, and how the and acronyms project alternatives could affect these resources. Related soils information are defined in can be found in Chapter 14, Geology and Soils. Information on water Chapter 32, resources within wetlands can be found in Chapter 16, Wetlands. Related Glossary and information about hydrologic changes, sediment delivery, and floodplain and Acronyms. riparian impacts can be found in Chapter 19, Fish, and Appendix K, Assessment of Relative Fish Habitat and Fish Population Impacts of I-5 Corridor Reinforcement Project Alternatives and Options. 15.1 Affected Environment 15.1.1 Watersheds The action alternatives cross three major watersheds in Washington: the Cowlitz, Lewis, and Salmon/Washougal watersheds (Water Resource Inventory Areas 26, 27, and 28) (see Map 15-1). In Cowlitz County, the alternatives cross the following major sub-watersheds: the Lacamas, Delameter, Lower Cowlitz, Ostrander, Lower Coweeman, Upper Coweeman, Lower Kalama, Middle Kalama, Cathlapotle, Lake Merwin, and Cougar. In Clark County, the alternatives cross the following major sub-watersheds: the Yacolt, Cedar Creek/Chelatchie Creek, Canyon Creek/Fly Creek, Vancouver, Horseshoe Falls, Lacamas Lake, Rock Creek, Little Washougal, West Fork Washougal, and Mount Zion. In Oregon, the project crosses the Columbia River and two watersheds: the eastern end of the Columbia Slough-Frontal Columbia River watershed and the western edge of the Beaver Creek-Sandy River watershed. Both are sub-watersheds of the Lower Willamette watershed in Multnomah County. Watershed conditions vary among and within these sub-watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • East Fork Lewis River Schriber Riparian Reforestation Project
    WATER QUALITY COMBINED FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Organization: Clark County - Public Works Department WQC-2021-ClCoPW-00033 General Information Project Title East Fork Lewis River Schriber Riparian Reforestation Project Project Short Description This project will plant trees and shrubs on 12.25 acres of county-owned property stretching nearly 4000 feet along the south bank of the East Fork Lewis River. Portions of the southern bank have a mature Oregon ash component, but the understory is dominated by Reed Canary Grass. Conifer presence is limited, and there are significant open areas. The proposed planting area is identified by the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s EFLR Habitat Conservation Plan as having significant shade deficit . Project Long Description The East Fork Lewis River (EFLR) watershed is located primarily within Clark County in southwest Washington. The EFLR extends from the confluence with the North Fork Lewis River to the Gifford Pinchot National Forest near river mile (RM) 32. The watershed is located within WRIA 27. The headwaters of the EFLR are located in the western crest of the Cascade Mountain range, and the river flows west until reaching its confluence with the North Fork Lewis River. The upper watershed is primarily timber land. Throughout the middle and lower watersheds, land use changes to a more mixed-used landscape of forest, agriculture, developed, and residential areas. The towns of La Center and Yacolt are located within the watershed, and Battle Ground and Ridgefield are at its boundaries. Washington State’s Department of Ecology (DOE) selected the EFLR for a water quality improvement project in 2004 because segments of the river and its tributaries are impaired by heat (measured as temperature), as listed in the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) lists.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Improves High Priority Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Along East Fork Lewis River
    August 29, 2017 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Debrah Marriott, Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, 503‐226‐1565 x227 Patrick Lee, Clark County Legacy Lands Program, 360‐397‐2121 x 4070 Steve Manlow, Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, 360‐425‐1553 Project Improves High Priority Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Along East Fork Lewis River The Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership (Estuary Partnership) and multiple local partners are improving habitats important for salmon and steelhead within two side channels along the East Fork Lewis River. Off‐channel and floodplain habitats are critical for juvenile salmon and used to be abundant along the East Fork Lewis, but now these habitats are rare. Construction begins in early September and will be done by the end of the month. The Estuary Partnership crew will excavate the side channels to reconnect them to the East Fork Lewis, allowing salmon to access critical off‐channel habitat. The project also will add more than 175 pieces of large wood to the mainstem and side channels to create pools for salmon rearing. In addition, crew members will remove invasive plants, and over the next few years, will replant 12 acres of native riparian trees and shrubs to shade and cool the water to temperatures favorable for fish and wildlife. The project is part of a large‐scale, multi‐phase project to restore critical habitat for juvenile salmonids on the East Fork Lewis River between La Center and Daybreak, Washington. Other phases included the La Center Floodplain Wetlands Restoration Project, which restored 453 acres of floodplain habitat in 2015, and another site upstream, proposed for design in 2018.
    [Show full text]