DOCSLIB.ORG

Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wild and Scenic River CLASSIFICATION NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama** WILD William B. Bankhead National Forest 5,455 106 5,561 SCENIC William B. Bankhead National Forest 3,396 456 3,852 Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama** Totals 8,851 562 9,413 Alabama Totals 8,851 562 9,413 Arizona Fossil Creek, Arizona** WILD Coconino National Forest 1,767 0 1,767 Tonto National Forest 1,149 0 1,149 RECREATIONAL Coconino National Forest 1,137 4 1,141 Tonto National Forest 1,130 6 1,136 Fossil Creek, Arizona** Totals 5,183 10 5,193 Verde, Arizona** WILD Coconino National Forest 525 0 525 Tonto National Forest 6,234 0 6,234 SCENIC Coconino National Forest 2,862 0 2,862 Prescott National Forest 2,148 25 2,173 Tonto National Forest 649 0 649 Verde, Arizona** Totals 12,418 25 12,443 Arizona Totals 17,601 35 17,636 Arkansas Big Piney Creek, Arkansas** SCENIC Ozark National Forest 6,448 781 7,229 Big Piney Creek, Arkansas** Totals 6,448 781 7,229 Refresh Date: 10/22/2016 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wild and Scenic River CLASSIFICATION NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Buffalo, Arkansas** WILD Ozark National Forest 2,870 0 2,870 SCENIC Ozark National Forest 1,915 0 1,915 Buffalo, Arkansas** Totals 4,785 0 4,785 Hurricane Creek, Arkansas** WILD Ozark National Forest 754 1 755 SCENIC Ozark National Forest 2,949 147 3,096 Hurricane Creek, Arkansas** Totals 3,703 148 3,851 Little Missouri, Arkansas** WILD Ouachita National Forest* 1,017 0 1,017 SCENIC Ouachita National Forest* 2,987 100 3,087 Little Missouri, Arkansas** Totals 4,004 100 4,104 Mulberry River, Arkansas** SCENIC Ozark National Forest 1,653 293 1,946 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 134 134 RECREATIONAL Ozark National Forest 2,689 769 3,458 Mulberry River, Arkansas** Totals 4,342 1,196 5,538 North Sylamore Creek, Arkansas** SCENIC Ozark National Forest 3,600 47 3,647 North Sylamore Creek, Arkansas** Totals 3,600 47 3,647 Refresh Date: 10/22/2016 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wild and Scenic River CLASSIFICATION NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Richland Creek, Arkansas** WILD Ozark National Forest 1,189 2 1,191 SCENIC Ozark National Forest 2,371 126 2,497 Richland Creek, Arkansas** Totals 3,560 128 3,688 Cossatot River, Arkansas SCENIC Ouachita National Forest* 2,595 215 2,810 RECREATIONAL Ouachita National Forest* 965 326 1,291 Cossatot River, Arkansas Totals 3,560 541 4,101 Arkansas Totals 34,002 2,941 36,943 California Bautista Creek, California** RECREATIONAL San Bernardino National Forest 2,998 229 3,227 Bautista Creek, California** Totals 2,998 229 3,227 Big Sur, California WILD Los Padres National Forest 5,913 0 5,913 Big Sur, California Totals 5,913 0 5,913 Black Butte River, California** WILD Mendocino National Forest 4,545 694 5,239 SCENIC Mendocino National Forest 430 632 1,062 Mendocino Other 4 0 4 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 279 279 Black Butte River, California** Totals 4,979 1,605 6,584 Cottonwood Creek, California** WILD Inyo National Forest* 5,407 0 5,407 Cottonwood Creek, California** Totals 5,407 0 5,407 Refresh Date: 10/22/2016 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wild and Scenic River CLASSIFICATION NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Eel, California** WILD Mendocino National Forest 6,552 333 6,885 Six Rivers National Forest 4,096 511 4,607 Eel, California** Totals 10,648 844 11,492 Feather, California WILD Plumas National Forest 10,623 461 11,084 SCENIC Plumas National Forest 3,586 42 3,628 RECREATIONAL Plumas National Forest 5,217 415 5,632 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 3,573 3,573 Feather, California Totals 19,426 4,491 23,917 Fuller Mill Creek, California** SCENIC San Bernardino National Forest 599 234 833 RECREATIONAL San Bernardino National Forest 110 95 205 Fuller Mill Creek, California** Totals 709 329 1,038 Kern, California WILD Inyo National Forest* 9,577 0 9,577 Sequoia National Forest 10,828 0 10,828 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 81 81 SCENIC Inyo National Forest* 1,442 218 1,660 Kern, California Totals 21,847 299 22,146 Kern, California** RECREATIONAL Inyo National Forest* 216 0 216 Sequoia National Forest 2,942 98 3,040 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 10 10 Kern, California** Totals 3,158 108 3,266 Refresh Date: 10/22/2016 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wild and Scenic River CLASSIFICATION NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Kings, California WILD Sequoia National Forest 1,772 0 1,772 Sierra National Forest 2,982 0 2,982 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 18 18 RECREATIONAL Sequoia National Forest 2,971 0 2,971 Kings, California Totals 7,725 18 7,743 Klamath, California WILD Klamath National Forest* 101 10 111 SCENIC Klamath National Forest* 5,384 380 5,764 RECREATIONAL Klamath National Forest* 38,852 4,917 43,769 Six Rivers National Forest 2,520 31 2,551 Klamath, California Totals 46,857 5,338 52,195 Merced, California WILD Sierra National Forest 5,042 48 5,090 SCENIC Sierra National Forest 831 45 876 RECREATIONAL Sierra National Forest 1,511 105 1,616 Stanislaus National Forest 1,513 189 1,702 Stanislaus Other 3 0 3 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 723 723 Merced, California Totals 8,900 1,110 10,010 North Fork American, California WILD Tahoe National Forest 8,326 195 8,521 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 3,283 3,283 North Fork American, California Totals 8,326 3,478 11,804 Refresh Date: 10/22/2016 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wild and Scenic River CLASSIFICATION NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage North Fork San Jacinto, California** WILD San Bernardino National Forest 1,473 687 2,160 SCENIC San Bernardino National Forest 453 0 453 RECREATIONAL San Bernardino National Forest 306 72 378 North Fork San Jacinto, California** Totals 2,232 759 2,991 Owens River Headwaters, California** WILD Inyo National Forest* 1,734 0 1,734 SCENIC Inyo National Forest* 1,952 0 1,952 RECREATIONAL Inyo National Forest* 1,773 21 1,794 Owens River Headwaters, California** Totals 5,459 21 5,480 Palm Canyon Creek, California** WILD San Bernardino National Forest 2,405 0 2,405 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 45 45 Palm Canyon Creek, California** Totals 2,405 45 2,450 Piru Creek, California** WILD Angeles National Forest 597 0 597 Los Padres National Forest 550 0 550 RECREATIONAL Angeles National Forest 508 0 508 Los Padres National Forest 441 0 441 Piru Creek, California** Totals 2,096 0 2,096 Sespe Creek, California WILD Los Padres National Forest 7,149 105 7,254 SCENIC Los Padres National Forest 1,209 324 1,533 Sespe Creek, California Totals 8,358 429 8,787 Refresh Date: 10/22/2016 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wild and Scenic River CLASSIFICATION NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Sisquoc, California WILD Los Padres National Forest 10,084 18 10,102 Sisquoc, California Totals 10,084 18 10,102 Smith River, California WILD Six Rivers National Forest 26,596 165 26,761 SCENIC Six Rivers National Forest 10,770 111 10,881 RECREATIONAL Six Rivers National Forest 27,758 1,318 29,076 Smith River, California Totals 65,124 1,594 66,718 Trinity, California WILD Six Rivers National Forest 28 0 28 Trinity National Forest 14,902 708 15,610 SCENIC Six Rivers National Forest 31 0 31 Trinity National Forest 7,245 1,984 9,229 RECREATIONAL Six Rivers National Forest 8,809 5,718 14,527 Trinity National Forest 11,551 2,438 13,989 Trinity, California Totals 42,566 10,848 53,414 Tuolumne, California WILD Stanislaus National Forest 6,641 49 6,690 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 367 367 SCENIC Stanislaus National Forest 1,233 0 1,233 RECREATIONAL Stanislaus National Forest 89 0 89 Tuolumne, California Totals 7,963 416 8,379 California Totals 293,180 31,979 325,159 Refresh Date: 10/22/2016 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wild and Scenic River CLASSIFICATION NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Colorado Cache la Poudre, Colorado WILD Roosevelt National Forest 4,984 150 5,134 RECREATIONAL Roosevelt National Forest 11,108 3,672 14,780 Cache la Poudre, Colorado Totals 16,092 3,822 19,914 Colorado Totals 16,092 3,822 19,914 Georgia Chattooga, North Carolina,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System, As of September 30, 2019
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Areas of the National Forest System As of September 30, 2019 Forest Service WO Lands FS-383 November 2019 Metric Equivalents When you know: Multiply by: To fnd: Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters Feet (ft) 0.305 Meters Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers Acres (ac) 0.405 Hectares Square feet (ft2) 0.0929 Square meters Yards (yd) 0.914 Meters Square miles (mi2) 2.59 Square kilometers Pounds (lb) 0.454 Kilograms United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2019 As of September 30, 2019 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250-0003 Website: https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar-index.shtml Cover Photo: Mt. Hood, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon Courtesy of: Susan Ruzicka USDA Forest Service WO Lands and Realty Management Statistics are current as of: 10/17/2019 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 58 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 17 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. TOTAL NFS ACRES = 192,994,068 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 112 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 503 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 149 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States and 456 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The Forest Service also administers several other types of nationally designated
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-78 Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound July 2006 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Techni- cal Memorandum NMFS series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Documents published in this series may be referenced in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS- F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Techni- cal Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be cited as follows: Ruckelshaus, M.H., K.P. Currens, W.H. Graeber, R.R. Fuerstenberg, K. Rawson, N.J. Sands, and J.B. Scott. 2006. Independent populations of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-78, 125 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-78 Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound Mary H. Ruckelshaus,
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory for Fens and Associated Rare Plants on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest
    Inventory for fens and associated rare plants on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Looking west over cloud-enshrouded upper portion of the 9020-310 wetland/fen, Snoqualmie Ranger District. Elev. = 3140 ft. Rick Dewey Deschutes National Forest March 2017 1 Berries of the fen-loving, bog huckleberry (Vaccinium uliginosum) at Government Meadow. Note the persistent sepals characteristic of this species. Government Meadow is the only project site at which V. uliginosum was detected. Acknowledgements This project was funded by a USFS R6 ISSSSP grant spanning 2016-2017. Thanks to Kevin James, MBS NF Ecology and Botany Program Manager, and Shauna Hee, North Zone (Mt. Baker and Darrington Districts) MBS NF Botanist. Special thanks to James for facilitation during the period of fieldwork, including spending a field day with the project lead at the 7080 rd. wetland and at Government Meadow. Thanks also to Sonny Paz, Snoqualmie District Wildlife Biologist, for a day of assistance with fieldwork at Government Meadow, and to the Carex Working Group for assistance in the identification of Carex flava at the Headwaters of Cascade Creek wetland. 2 Summary Sites on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF that were reasonably suspected to include groundwater-fed wetlands (fens) were visited between 8/15-9/28 2006. The intent of these visits was to inventory for rare plants associated with these wetlands, and to record a coarse biophysical description of the setting. Twelve of the 18 sites visited were determined in include notable amounts of fen habitat. Five rare target species and two otherwise notable rare species accounting for eight distinct occurrences/populations at six wetlands were detected during site visits.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State
    Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Alabama Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama WILD William B. Bankhead National Forest 6,134 110 6,244 SCENIC William B. Bankhead National Forest 3,550 505 4,055 Sipsey Fork West Fork, Alabama Totals 9,685 615 10,300 Alabama Totals 9,685 615 10,300 Arizona Fossil Creek, Arizona WILD Coconino National Forest 1,720 0 1,720 Tonto National Forest 1,085 0 1,085 RECREATIONAL Coconino National Forest 1,137 4 1,141 Tonto National Forest 1,136 0 1,136 Fossil Creek, Arizona Totals 5,078 4 5,082 Verde, Arizona WILD Coconino National Forest 525 0 525 Tonto National Forest 6,234 0 6,234 SCENIC Coconino National Forest 2,862 0 2,862 Prescott National Forest 2,148 25 2,173 Tonto National Forest 649 0 649 Verde, Arizona Totals 12,418 25 12,443 Arizona Totals 17,496 29 17,525 2020 Land Areas Report Refresh Date: 10/17/2020 Table 13 - National Wild and Scenic Rivers by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary development State National Wild and Scenic River Classification Unit Name NFS Acreage Other Acreage Total Acreage Arkansas Big Piney Creek, Arkansas SCENIC Ozark National Forest 6,448 781 7,229 Big Piney Creek, Arkansas Totals 6,448 781 7,229 Buffalo, Arkansas WILD Ozark National Forest 2,871 0 2,871 SCENIC Ozark National Forest 1,915 0 1,915 Buffalo, Arkansas Totals 4,785 0 4,786
    [Show full text]
  • Gold and Fish Pamphlet: Rules for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining
    WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Gold and Fish Rules for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining May 2021 WDFW | 2020 GOLD and FISH - 2nd Edition Table of Contents Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining Rules 1 Agencies with an Interest in Mineral Prospecting 1 Definitions of Terms 8 Mineral Prospecting in Freshwater Without Timing Restrictions 12 Mineral Prospecting in Freshwaters With Timing Restrictions 14 Mineral Prospecting on Ocean Beaches 16 Authorized Work Times 17 Penalties 42 List of Figures Figure 1. High-banker 9 Figure 2. Mini high-banker 9 Figure 3. Mini rocker box (top view and bottom view) 9 Figure 4. Pan 10 Figure 5. Power sluice/suction dredge combination 10 Figure 6. Cross section of a typical redd 10 Fig u re 7. Rocker box (top view and bottom view) 10 Figure 8. Sluice 11 Figure 9. Spiral wheel 11 Figure 10. Suction dredge . 11 Figure 11. Cross section of a typical body of water, showing areas where excavation is not permitted under rules for mineral prospecting without timing restrictions Dashed lines indicate areas where excavation is not permitted 12 Figure 12. Permitted and prohibited excavation sites in a typical body of water under rules for mineral prospecting without timing restrictions Dashed lines indicate areas where excavation is not permitted 12 Figure 13. Limits on excavating, collecting, and removing aggregate on stream banks 14 Figure 14. Excavating, collecting, and removing aggregate within the wetted perimeter is not permitted 1 4 Figure 15. Cross section of a typical body of water showing unstable slopes, stable areas, and permissible or prohibited excavation sites under rules for mineral prospecting with timing restrictions Dashed lines indicates areas where excavation is not permitted 15 Figure 16.
    [Show full text]
  • EIS-0386-DEIS-02-2007.Pdf
    Draft WWEC PEIS September 2007 DOCUMENT CONTENTS VOLUME I Executive Summary Chapter 1: Why Are Federal Agencies Proposing to Designate Energy Corridors in the West? Chapter 2: What Are the Alternatives Evaluated in This PEIS? Chapter 3: What Are the Potential Environmental Consequences of Corridor Designation and Land Use Plan Amendment? Chapter 4: How Are Cumulative Impacts Evaluated? Chapter 5: What Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Might Be Caused by Corridor Designation and Land Use Plan Amendment? Chapter 6: The Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity Chapter 7: What Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Would Be Involved with Implementation of the Alternatives? Chapter 8: List of Preparers Chapter 9: References Chapter 10: Glossary VOLUME II Appendix A: Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments Appendix B: Summary of Public Scoping Comments for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western States (DOE/FS-0386) Appendix C: Tribal Consultation Appendix D: Federal and State Regulatory Requirements Potentially Applicable When Designating Energy Corridors Appendix E: Energy Transport Technologies and Hypothetical Energy Transport Projects Appendix F: Section 368 Corridor Parameters Appendix G: Sensitive Resource Areas That Would Be Intersected by Proposed West-wide Energy Corridors Appendix H: Geographic Information System Data Appendix I: Summary of WWEC PEIS Webcasts for Corridor Review and Revision, 6/19/06 to 4/24/07
    [Show full text]
  • Illabot Creek Habitat Restoration Feasibility Study
    Illabot Creek Habitat Restoration Feasibility Study *** FINAL DRAFT FOR REVIEW *** By Devin Smith and Kate Ramsden Skagit River System Cooperative January 17, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 5 2 Watershed Description............................................................................................ 6 2.1 Geography........................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Flow regime ........................................................................................................ 7 2.3 Fish use............................................................................................................. 10 2.4 Land ownership and Land use .......................................................................... 15 2.5 Past Habitat Restoration Projects...................................................................... 17 2.5.1 Forest Road Sediment Reduction.............................................................. 17 2.5.2 Off-channel Habitat Construction............................................................. 20 2.5.3 Conservation Acquisition..........................................................................21 3 Habitat Assessment............................................................................................... 23 3.1 Historic Conditions..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Puget Sound Salmon Habitat Assessment: Landscape Level Subwatershed Prioritization
    CONSERVATION PRIORITIES: AN ASSESSMENT OF FRESHWATER HABITAT FOR PUGET SOUND SALMON PREFACE This report entitled Conservation Priorities: An assessment of freshwater habitat for Puget Sound Salmon was prepared at the request of the Trust for Public Land (TPL) to provide a regional snapshot of Puget Sound’s most pristine, intact freshwater salmon habitat. TPL is a leading land conservation organization whose mission includes conserving land for people which often means protecting habitat critical to the health of salmon and other species. We believe the assessment can complement and enhance the work of many organizations that are striving to recover our Puget Sound salmon runs. The assessment is a synthesis of existing information and expert opinion. The report describes or attempts to draw from what is known, published and described by experts within agencies, tribes and watershed groups having direct knowledge of these ecosystems and populations. The assessment provides a priority listing and map of the most intact freshwater habitats for salmon in the Puget Sound. The prioritized list of habitats, together with the summarized information and compiled sources, can be used to help guide cost- effective conservation decision making in the near term for the benefit of salmon and encompasses the whole Puget Sound basin. Dr. Chris Frissell, of the Flathead Lake Biological Station at the University of Montana; Peter Morrison, Pacific Biodiversity Institute; Jim Kramer, natural resource consultant; and Marie Mentor, a consultant and former TPL Washington State Director, were retained to produce the assessment. This effort would not have been possible without the significant support provided by The Brainerd Foundation, the Kongsgaard-Goldman Foundation, King County, the Bullitt Foundation, and in-kind contributions from Pacific Biodiversity Institute and TPL.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2015 Newsletter
    SPRING 2015 SKAGIT UPDATE NEWSLETTER OF THE SKAGIT LAND TRUST Forever Wild Illabot Creek Largest Ranch on Illabot Creek Conserved Forever By Jane Zillig, Land Specalist Just east of Rockport you will find Illabot Creek, one of the most important tributaries of the Skagit River. This flourishing creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook, chum, coho and pink salmon; bulltrout and steelhead. With such a wild fish smorgasbord, it’s no surprise that one of the largest bald eagle wintering areas in the lower 48 is adjacent to Illabot Creek. Because of this ecological richness, Illabot Creek has been the focus of a variety of wildlife habitat protection and restoration projects through the decades. Recognizing the importance of this tributary, several years ago Skagit Land Trust reached out to the landowners of the largest remaining private tract in the lower Illabot watershed to propose a project that would benefit salmon habitat as well as farmland. Ken and Velma Perrigoue bought 100 acres with a half mile of frontage on Illabot Creek in 1986. They had a history of farming and ranching and this property allowed them to continue a lifestyle they loved. Over the years, they have observed cougar, bear, bobcat, deer and coyotes on their land. Woodland Park Zoo released rehabilitated and tagged bald eagles on their property. When the Trust contacted the Perrigoues, the key was finding the right tool to both protect the land for salmon habitat conservation along with supporting their ranching lifestyle. PHOTOS: THE OLD SAYING “SALMON SO THICK YOU CAN WALK ACROSS THE RIVER ON THEIR BACKS” STILL HOLDS TRUE FOR ILLABOT CREEK.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus Confluentus)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Top left: Clackamas bull trout reintroduction, Clackamas River, Oregon. David Herasimtschuk, Freshwaters Illustrated; Top, right: Glines Canyon Dam removal, Elwha River, Washington. John Gussman, Doubleclick Productions; Center: South Fork Skagit River and Skagit Bay, Washington. City of Seattle; Bottom: Riverscape surveys, East Fork Quinault River, Washington. National Park Service, Olympic National Park Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) September 2015 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Lacey, Washington and Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office Portland, Oregon Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. A-1 Current Status of Bull Trout in the Coastal Recovery Unit ........................................................ A-6 Factors Affecting Bull Trout in the Coastal Recovery Unit ....................................................... A-8 Ongoing Coastal Recovery Unit Conservation Measures (Summary) ..................................... A-32 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation ..................................................................................... A-37 Recovery Measures Narrative ................................................................................................... A-38 Implementation Schedule for
    [Show full text]
  • JANUARY MEETING Thursday, January 5Th, 7:30 P.M
    JANUARY 1989 BOEING EMPLOYEES ALPINE SOCIETY, INC. PresideW;~,.,., ... Ken Johnson .. OU·31 .. 342-3974 Conservation ........ Eric Kasiulis.. 81-16 .. 773-57 42 Vice Pr~llnt;. .... .steveMason.. 97 -1.7 ...237 -5820 Echo Editor......... .Rob Freeman .. 6N -95 ..234-0468 Treas=.......... EIden Altiz.er .. 97-17 ...234'1721 Equipm~nt ........... Gareth Beale .. 7A-35 .. 865-5375 Secre~_ .. , .. _.. _•• JolinSumner.• 2.6-63 ... 655~9882 Librarian ............ Rik Anderson .. 76-15 .. 237 -9645 Past Pmsident..A:mbrose. Bittner.. OT-06 ... 342-5140 Membership.. Richard Babunovic.. 6L-15 .. 235-7085 ·Aeti,:tilts ..........MelissaStorey .. 1R-40... 633-3730 Programs.......... Tim .Backman . .4M-02.. 655-4502 Photo: Nevado Huandoy by Mark Dale D. OTT 5K-25 * FROM: 6L-15 R_BABUNOVIC JANUARY MEETING Thursday, January 5th, 7:30 P.M. Oxbow Rec Center CROSS COUNTRY SKI ROUTES ON MT. HOOD AND CENTRAL OREGON The January meeting will feature a slide presentation by Klindt vielbig, mountaineer as well as skier and author of "Cross Country Ski Routes Of Oregons' Cascades". Klindt will show slides illustrating many of the tours described in his book including Mt. )iood, the Wallowa Mtns., Crater Lake, Broken Top Crater, and Mt. Shasta. The diversity of ski tours makes this program a great aid in learning more about oregon skiing. Additionally, Boealps member Jim Blilie will give a short ~esentation on ice climbing. This is an appetizer to Jim's Feb.4-5 Leavenworth ice climbing/knuckle bashing weekend extravaganza. Belay Stance Well November's powder has yielded to December's thaw. Where has all the snow gone. What had started as a great ski season is now looking somewhat questionable.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. March 25, 2020 Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington Effective March 5, 2020 The following provisions are in effect for Clean Water Act Purposes with these few exceptions: EPA disapproved the following: • 2 Human Health Criteria associated with arsenic • Narrative language at WAC 173-201A-240(3) • Part of the variance provision at WAC 173-201 A-420(5)(a) Chapter 173-201A WAC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SURFACE WATERS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Last Update: 12/30/19 WAC PART I - INTRODUCTION 173-201A-010 Purpose. 173-201A-020 Definitions. PART II - DESIGNATED USES AND CRITERIA 173-201A-200 Fresh water designated uses and criteria. 173-201A-210 Marine water designated uses and criteria. 173-201A-230 Establishing lake nutrient criteria. 173-201A-240 Toxic substances. 173-201A-250 Radioactive substances. 173-201A-260 Natural conditions and other water quality criteria and applications. PART III - ANTIDEGRADATION 173-201A-300 Description. 173-201A-310 Tier I—Protection and maintenance of existing and designated uses. 173-201A-320 Tier II—Protection of waters of higher quality than the standards. 173-201A-330 Tier III—Protection of outstanding resource waters. PART IV - TOOLS FOR APPLICATION OF CRITERIA AND USES 173-201A-400 Mixing zones.
    [Show full text]