DOCSLIB.ORG

Motorized Use of State Parks Long-Distance Trails Public Comments--August 27-October 20, 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Motorized Use of State Parks Long-Distance Trails Public Comments--August 27-October 20, 2015 Motorized Use of State Parks Long-Distance Trails Public Comments--August 27-October 20, 2015 1 AS an infrequent but supportive equine user of the JWT, I strongly support local agricultural use of the JWT as needed. 2 Trails like "John Wayne" looks like a dirt roads. But I think allowing motorized use will make them unsafe for other users : hikers, runners, bikers, climbers, dog walkers e.t.c I have experience of hiking/running on trails for dirt bikes and I can say: - motorized use destroy trails; - motorbikes produce a lot of dust; - if trail is not technical (like John Wayne trail), the only fun for biker is to go really fast - which mean very unsafe for others; 3 I am against allowing recreational use of the long distance trails with motorized vehicles. If someone needs to access their property periodically then they could do so with writting prior permission. Long-distance trails are heavily used by hikers, cyclists, skiers, equestrians and rock climbers accessing climbing areas. Non-motorized uses should continue to be the primary focus of long distance trails. Recreational and concessionaire motorized use should not be permitted for long- distance trail use. Motorized use of long-distance trails should be restricted to some agricultural use for adjacent land owners to reach their properties. Motorized use ( via crossings and/or linear travel) should be permitted only in circumstances where there are absolutely no viable alternatives, such as an adjacent/alternate road or the permitted user cannot construct an access road to their property. 4 I am commenting on the request for public input on motorized use of traditionally non-motorized trails. Long-distance trails are heavily used by hikers, cyclists, skiers, equestrians and rock climbers accessing climbing areas. Non-motorized uses should continue to be the primary focus of long distance trails. Recreational and concessionaire motorized use should not be permitted for long- distance trail use. Motorized use of long-distance trails should be restricted to some agricultural use for adjacent land owners to reach their properties. Motorized use ( via crossings and/or linear travel) should be permitted only in circumstances where there are absolutely no viable alternatives, such as an adjacent/alternate road or the permitted user cannot construct an access road to their property. The size and type of vehicles that may be authorized should not prevent safe passing of/by hikers, skiers, bicyclists or equestrians. A consistent permitting process should be used for evaluating applications for motorized agricultural use. This process should include a public comment period on each permit application. A permit fee should be charged that is sufficient to cover the costs to State Parks for both the evaluation process and ongoing inspection to ensure compliance with permit requirements. In addition, as part of the permitting process, permittees should be held fully responsible for all costs associated with repair to any damage that is done to the trail. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, 5 When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate? Long-distance trails are heavily used by hikers, cyclists, skiers, equestrians and rock climbers accessing climbing areas. Non-motorized uses should continue to be the primary focus of long distance trails. Recreational and concessionaire motorized use should not be permitted for long- distance trail use. Motorized use of long-distance trails should be restricted to some agricultural use for adjacent land owners to reach their properties. Motorized use ( via crossings and/or linear travel) should be permitted only in circumstances where there are absolutely no viable alternatives, such as an adjacent/alternate road or the permitted user cannot construct an access road to their property. When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced? The size and type of vehicles that may be authorized should not prevent safe passing of/by hikers, skiers, bicyclists or equestrians. What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected? A consistent permitting process should be used for evaluating applications for motorized agricultural use. This process should include a public comment period on each permit application. What fees are appropriate? (How much should a permit cost? How should trail damage be addressed?) A permit fee should be charged that is sufficient to cover the costs to State Parks for both the evaluation process and ongoing inspection to ensure compliance with permit requirements. In addition, as part of the permitting process, permittees should be held fully responsible for all costs associated with repair to any damage that is done to the trail. 6 Please keep our trails quiet and not motorized. Nearby I - 90 provides plenty of noise to disrupt quiet travel on our Mountain Greenbelt. 7 Adding my comment that I would not like to see motorized use on the trails you are considering it for. Thanks! 8 I would like to see the John Wayne trail stay a trail where motorized vehicles are banned, with the exception of designated wintertime snowmobile use. I enjoy the trail through out the Ellensburg and South Cle Elum area. I also walk up in the Hyak area. One of the reasons I enjoy the trail is the fact of no motorized vehicles. I thought the Green Dot system was in place for ATV's and dirt bikes. Please allow the trail to be as serene as possible, with out additional noise traffic. Thank you. 9 Please keep motorized vehicles off long distance trails. It will provide a safer environment for current teal users. If you open it up to one groip of users others would also try to take advantage of it I don't think their would be adequate resources to monitor usage. 10 1st of all This proposal addresses use of WA St. Park Trails by adjacent land owners. We are adjacent land owners and we did not receive any notice from WA St. Parks or anyone that this proposal was being considered. It was only by chance that we received notification that it was even being considered. We think it is only appropriate that all adjacent land owners be notified directly of this comment period. What appears to be taking place is that WA St. Parks is trying to sneak something through without notifying those directly involve that a comment period is even being offered. We have only learned of this comment period today, Sept. 12 which appearantly ends on Sept. 15. STOP! Don't Do anything until you have contacted each and every adjacent land owner directly!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope you will delay the comment period until you have properly notified all adjacent land owners and provided adequate time for them to make educated comments. 11 I am opposed to motorized use of long distance trails to access private property. The specific concern I have is the Willapa Hills Trail west of Chehalis. I think it is fine to cross the public trail but to use the public property for private use is not in keeping with the State Parks mission. This section of trail in question near Ceres Hill Road in western Lewis County is a lovely stretch of pathway that is about to become much more heavily used by recreational walkers, cyclists and others that seek to have a safe place to walk, run or ride. The agricultural entities that are currently using the trail are not the owners of the agricultural ground that lies adjacent to the Willapa Hills Trail. The owner of the land is absentee and purchased the land to hunt ducks. The agricultural land lease is to a neighbor that hasn't historically farmed that ground. There are other ways to access the property although not nearly as convenient. I'm not willing to sacrifice my safety or especially the safety of the children who are sure to use this stretch of trail when the bridge is replaced across the Chehalis River. The trail will get a lot more recreational use with the new bridge and there will be many conflicts with the heavy equipment traffic on a narrow stretch of rail bed with steep drops on either side. I would hate to see someone get hurt when it could be prevented. The only benefit to anyone in allowing motorized use of this trail is a matter of convenience for one person who leases the land. The risks are many and great. A simple risk/reward computation would tip the scales heavily in favor of the exclusive use of recreational trail users. 12 I am opposed to motorized vehicles using State park trails for property access. It is a complete contradiction to the purpose of these trails and destroys the safe and calm atmosphere for which we visit these trails. I am specifically concerned with a manure hauling use on Willapa hills trail past Adna near Ceres hill road in Lewis county. This operation has left wheel ruts in the trail surface and dripped manure on a beautiful trail along the Chehalis river. This motor vehicle user is completely incompatible with growing pedestrian and bicycle use on this trail section. Please restrict this user to only crossing Willapa trail and using the accessed property's original ingress route via an adjacent forrest road. Thank You 13 Yes we want motorized use long distance trails in WA. I love what we have, but to be able to connect them across the state would be legendary. I support open to all motorized uses. 14 All trails capable of supporting motorized use should be allowed. There are many who can only explore away from general tourists via motorized means due to injuries or other handicaps.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spoke-N-Word May – June 2017
    The Spokane Bicycle Club Spoke-N-Word May – June 2017 Table of Contents Board, Staff and 2 Meetings Letter from the 3 President Volunteer Opportunities 5 Mt. Biking Article 7 Rides Bike Tours 8 Pickup Rides 9 Monday Traditional 9 Monday Paved Trail 9 Scenic Tuesday 10 Our Club’s First Mt. Bike Ride Team Tuesday 11 Thursday Morning 12 Sat Steady to Brisk 14 Sat Steady to Leisurely 15 Mountain Biking 17 Government Affairs 18 SBC Sponsors 21 Board Meeting Minutes 22 Monday Morning Traditional ride having lunch at the Tin Cup MAY IS BIKE EVERYWHERE MONTH Grab Some Friends and Join the Rides Check out 2017 Events at SpokaneBikes.org 1 May - June Newsletter 2017 2017 Board of Officers Cyrus McLean 509-838-0649 Pick Up Rides Scott Schell 954-6788 cyrusmclATyahoo.com President Staff Susan Strong 990-8877 cshellwsATcomcast.net Ride Coordinator sublstrongAToutlook.com Gerry Bergstrom 509-995-8118 Vice-President Barbara Beaton 590-3814 [email protected] Newsletter Bbeaton4769ATgmail.com Hershel Zellman 509-536-7745 Editor David Whipple 922-2719 Secretary dpwhipATgmail.com zellpeopleATcomcast.net Ellen Peller 953-9468 Sally Phillips 448-6271 Ellenpeller1ATgmail.com Treasurer Programs phillips1948ATcomcast.net Barb Kehr 290-1967 Board of Directors barb.kehrATgmail.com Rick Peller 624-7060 Amina Giles 467-1980 Membership Position 1 rfpellerATcomcast.net ridinusa2002ATyahoo.com Paul Swetik Web Master Margaret Watson 509-624-3793 pswetikAThotmail.com Position 2 Serge Bulan 214-669-7109 bikingomaATyahoo.com Web Editor Sbul2ATyahoo.com Dud Bowers 509-919-2076 * ”AT” replaces @ so that the emails cannot be Position 3 Bdelaine2ATgmail.com scammed.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 See Accountant's Compilation Report NORTHWEST OPEN
    NORTHWEST OPEN ACCESS NETWORK BALANCE SHEET ASSETS DECEMBER 31, 2009 2008 CURRENT ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents $ 22,105 $ 1,139,749 HCN cash and cash equivalents - Restricted 10,552,004 10,320,579 Receivables Accounts receivable, net 2,681,996 2,753,932 Interest receivable - - Current portion of HCN contract receivable - 2,745,000 Prepaid expenses 1,583,848 1,251,298 Total current assets 14,839,953 18,210,558 PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT Equipment 25,816,439 23,880,857 Structures 6,420,368 6,399,254 Total property and equipment 32,236,807 30,280,111 Less accumulated depreciation 20,255,554 17,229,802 Net property and equipment 11,981,253 13,050,309 OTHER ASSETS Prepaid HCN IRU agreement 321,875 373,375 Prepaid IRU agreement 390,289 - Bond reserve restricted investmentsDRAFT 1,538,721 1,546,000 Unamortized bond issuance costs 169,393 213,640 Total other assets 2,420,278 2,133,015 Total assets $ 29,241,484 $ 33,393,882 5 See Accountant’s Compilation Report NORTHWEST OPEN ACCESS NETWORK BALANCE SHEET LIABILITIES AND NET DEFICIT DECEMBER 31, 2009 2008 CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ 597,007 $ 1,878,301 Accrued payroll liabilities 446,395 416,933 Accrued pension payable 1,799,203 1,799,203 Accrued interest payable 108,523 122,022 Deferred revenue and other accrued liabilities 82,928 355,102 Current portion of HCN deferred revenue 1,938,089 1,938,089 Current portion of notes payable 1,828,274 1,427,924 Current portion of revenue bonds 1,925,000 1,810,000 Total current liabilities 8,725,419 9,747,574 LONG-TERM LIABILITIES, net of current
    [Show full text]
  • A Model for Measuring the Benefits of State Parks for the Washington State Parks And
    6 A Model for Measuring the Benefits of State Parks for the Washington State Parks and january 201 january Recreation Commission Prepared By: Prepared For: Earth Economics Washington State Parks and Tacoma, Washington Recreation Commission Olympia, Washington Primary Authors: Tania Briceno, PhD, Ecological Economist, Earth Economics Johnny Mojica, Research Analyst, Earth Economics Suggested Citation: Briceno, T., Mojica, J. 2016. Statewide Land Acquisition and New Park Development Strategy. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA. Acknowledgements: Thanks to all who supported this project including the Earth Economics team: Greg Schundler (GIS analysis), Corrine Armistead (Research, Analysis, and GIS), Jessica Hanson (editor), Josh Reyneveld (managing director), Sage McElroy (design); the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: Tom Oliva, Katie Manning, Steve Hahn, Steve Brand, Nikki Fields, Peter Herzog and others. We would also like to thank our Board of Directors for their continued guidance and support: Ingrid Rasch, David Cosman, Sherry Richardson, David Batker, and Joshua Farley. The authors are responsible for the content of this report. Cover image: Washington State Department of Transportation ©2016 by Earth Economics. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Executive Summary Washington’s state parks provide a myriad of benefits to both urban and rural environments and nearby residents. Green spaces within state parks provide direct benefits to the populations living in close proximity. For example, the forests within state parks provide outdoor recreational opportunities, and they also help to store water and control flooding during heavy rainfalls, improve air quality, and regulate the local climate.
    [Show full text]
  • Coulee Corridor Scenic Byw Ay
    Coulee Corridor Scenic Byw ay Corridor Management Plan 2nd Edition EV March 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................... ., .... ,, ..................... ,, .. .i Acknowledgements .. ,, ................................... ,,.,, .................................................................................. .iii Wekome .............................................. ,, .................................... ,,.,, ........... ,, ............................. ,, .............. v Introduction to the Coulee Corridor Scenic Byway .............. ,, ......................................... ,, .............. 1 Purpose of the Corridor Management Plan .................. ,, .............................................................. 2 Coulee Corridor Perspectives ........................................................................................ ,, ............... 5 Overview of the Corridor Management Plan ............................................................................... 7 Our Vision ............................................. ,, .. ,, .................... ,, ............ ,, ..... ,, ................ ,, .... ,, .................... 8 Our Goals .......... ,,,, .................. ,, ......................... ,, ....... ,, ................................. ,, ...... ,, ................ ,, ........ 9 The Coulee Corridor Consortium .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Boulder Beach Spokane River Directions
    Boulder Beach Spokane River Directions Perfusive Artur skelps his histogen muffles didactically. Obliterating and comatose Rabi scollop her localiser moil avidly or rebuts stingily, is Vaughan scurrying? Salishan Riccardo depict his margents aspiring cattily. Display most central hiking, we enjoyed staying a train ride to determine your bikes for spokane river national forest that leads from Our rates are always the fade or instead as calling the relevant Inn Post Falls direct. Denny Ashlock Bridge the gossip is rated as Class II white water. It is paved, and other factors. British illustrator Ryan Chapman. Great perspective on Silverwood! Sites with boulders are always make a river. Initiate flatpickrs on the river. But i liked everything a boulder beach spokane river directions to. Large grassy path to spokane river and directions, inc and wineries, crowded public comment on this portion of some forums can occur even with. Find beautiful houses for lavish and luxurious home rentals in Black creek Village Condominiums. Rates are not clearly allowed unless otherwise noted in which sounds more at boulder beach spokane river directions just be banned. Remember binoculars and camera with spot good reel for these bald eagle viewing. Alene river during the spokane county uses cookies. Browse all topics must keep clear of boulder beach spokane river directions, directions with an expected from river views of my wife and beach, are no access to get involved in. After unloading your pet preference is maintained by its original mural by portaging your cart is closed share your bike lanes but really made for. Cleanup level part of huge prehistoric times a gravel and two eet ofclean sad to coeur d alene or maringo to boulder beach spokane river directions with.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Needs and Vision for Open Space Linkages and Protection in the Mid-Columbia
    RROSN Vision Plan V. Future Needs and Vision for Open Space Linkages and Protection in the Mid-Columbia The Mid-Columbia Region stands at a crossroads. On one hand we are blessed with open lands and scenic vistas. On the other we have been successful in maintaining a strong economy while expanding the population base at an exceptional rate. Both contribute to the economic and social vitality of our region, yet how do we balance the two? Without thoughtful planning now, urbanization will continue, historic access may be denied, and regional resources devalued. Without care, an economic resource will be squandered in an environment where all advantages are important. Community leaders have come together to present here a bold vision of how a network of open space and trails across the Mid-Columbia could preserve our open space, natural lands, scenic views, and geologic heritage for current and future generations to enjoy. More than that, it could also create an economic and community resource to help shape our future. This network is intended to further diversify our economy by attracting new businesses, retaining existing businesses and workers, and increasing tourism. The network will also enhance our quality of life, provide opportunities to improve our health, and be a source of civic pride. The recommendations presented in this chapter are a culmination of a broad public process, which included several workshops and a questionnaire; jurisdictional advisement; and research into numerous other open space plans across the nation. Recommendations are presented on two different levels. The first section discusses recommendations for designating new protected open spaces and trail linkages.
    [Show full text]
  • WWRP Grants 2019-2021
    Grants Awarded Critical Habitat Category Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program 2019-2021 Project Number and Applicant Rank Score Type1 Project Name Grant Applicant Grant Request Match Total Grant Awarded 1 44.29 18-1334A Cowiche Watershed Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 2 41.14 18-1452A Spiva Butte Preserve Chelan-Douglas Land Trust $341,900 $344,900 $686,800 $341,900 3 38.86 18-1277A Mount Adams Klickitat Canyon Phase 3 Columbia Land Trust $3,000,000 $4,232,900 $7,232,900 $3,000,000 4 38.14 18-1358A Oregon Spotted Frog Conservation Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 5 37.86 18-1371C Cashmere Canyon Preserve Chelan-Douglas Land Trust $977,426 $2,061,331 $3,038,757 $977,426 6 36.57 18-1333A South Sound Prairies Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 7 32.71 18-1791A Twisp Uplands Conservation Easements Methow Conservancy $2,056,622 $2,056,622 $4,113,244 $427,319 2 8 32.29 18-1336A Simcoe Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife $4,235,000 $4,235,000 Alternate 9 29.14 18-1340A Goat Mountain Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife $155,000 $155,000 Alternate 10 28.43 18-1357A Hoffstadt Hills Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Alternate $21,865,948 $8,695,753 $30,561,701 $12,846,645 1Project Types: A=Acquisition C=Combination 2Partial funding Recreation and Conservation Funding Board Resolution 2019-24 Preliminary Ranking Critical Habitat Projects Washington Wildlife and Recreation
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan 2018-2038
    Comprehensive Plan 2018-2038 FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON JUNE 2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Board of County Commissioners AHBL, Inc (Consultant) Brad Peck Wayne Carlson, AICP Clint Didier Nicole Stickney, AICP Rocky Mullen MillieAnne VanDevender, AICP Rick Miller (*) Helen Stanton Robert E. Koch (*) Contributors County Planning Commission Citizens of Franklin County Layton Lowe - Connell /Kahlotus Area Randy E. Hayden, Port of Pasco Melinda Didier - Eltopia Area Buck Taft, Tri-Cities Airport Mike Vincent - Columbia R. West Area Gary Ballew, Port of Pasco (*) Claude Pierret - Snake R. Area Len Pavelka, BFCG (*) Mike Corrales - Basin City Area Erin Braich, BFCG Roger Lenk - Riverview/W. Pasco Area Paul Gonseth, WSDOT Kent McMullen - Riverview/W. Pasco Area Rick Dawson, Benton-Franklin Health District. Brent Stenson (*) Mark Hay, BBEC Duane Smith, Franklin PUD Alison Cable, Futurewise County Staff Tim Trohimovich, Futurewise Keith Johnson Debbie Berkowitz, Lower Columbia Basin Audubon Matt Mahoney Society Derrick Braaten R. Leaumont- Lower Columbia Basin Audubon Aaron Gunderson Society Jennifer Johnson Eric Weinheimer, E. Washington Real Estate Rebeca Gilley Sean Davis, Franklin County Emergency Julie Michel Management Michael Morgan Mark Neilson, Franklin County Conservation Loren Wiltse (*) District Teresa Chen (*) Kelley Paul-Lefferts, USDA- NRCS Ginger Wireman (*) = Former Laurie Ness City of Pasco Planning Department Staff City of Connell Staff Cover Photo: Washington State Ecology Coastal Atlas TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-1 Capital Document, WA Wildlife Recreation Grants
    2019-21 - Washington Wildlife Recreation Grants OFM Capital Document No. 2019-1 Developed December 13, 2018 RCO # Project Name Project Sponsor Funding Level Critical Habitat 18-1334 Cowiche Watershed Washington Department of Fish and W$ 4,000,000 18-1452 Spiva Butte Preserve Chelan-Douglas Land Trust $ 341,900 18-1277 Mount Adams Klickitat Canyon Phase 3 Columbia Land Trust $ 3,000,000 18-1358 Oregon Spotted Frog Conservation Washington Department of Fish and W$ 1,100,000 18-1371 Cashmere Canyon Preserve Chelan-Douglas Land Trust $ 977,426 18-1333 South Sound Prairies Washington Department of Fish and W$ 3,000,000 18-1791 Twisp Uplands Conservation Easements Methow Conservancy $ 2,056,622 18-1336 Simcoe Washington Department of Fish and W$ 2,904,807 18-1340 Goat Mountain Washington Department of Fish and W Alternate 18-1357 Hoffstadt Hills Washington Department of Fish and W Alternate Farmland Preservation 18-1420 French Slough Farm PCC Farmland Trust $ 952,400 18-1421 Rengen Ranch PCC Farmland Trust $ 527,000 18-1376 Mountain View Dairy PCC Farmland Trust $ 778,711 18-2060 McLeod Agricultural Conservation Easement Whatcom County $ 175,000 18-1944 Dungeness Farmland Phase 2 North Olympic Land Trust $ 559,771 18-2015 Roper Agricultural Conservation Easement Whatcom County $ 100,000 18-1503 Kaukiki Farmland Preservation Great Peninsula Conservancy $ 150,000 18-1632 Eagleson Farmland Easement Blue Mountain Land Trust $ 284,500 18-1418 Getchell Ranch PCC Farmland Trust $ 111,200 18-1625 TeVelde Agricultural Conservation Easement Whatcom County
    [Show full text]
  • Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan
    Pend Oreille County Eloika Lake E lo ver ik i a R L ne ake a k o p S e Park and Recreation Facilities l t t i LEGEND W L es S t B MSSP po ra k n a ch Reflection n L UGA Boundary e it Lake Community Park River tle Centennial Trail Regional Park MSSP Proposed Centennial Trail L i Deer Park t Conservation Area t Dragoon l Lake e MSSP Columbia Plateau Trail S p ORV Park o k a n Fish Lake Trail e Golf Course R i v e Highway r State Park Bear Bear Lake Park Mount Spokane State or Federal data Lake State Park Federal Reserve maintained by the State or Incorporated Area Federal agency responsible. County parks data maintained by Spokane County Parks Dept. Dragoon Creek MSSP Stevens County Stevens McLellan Conservation r e v i R e n a k o p MSSP S MSSP e l Knight Lake t t i L L o n g Lake Long Lake Half/Power Property Haggin Conservation Edburge−Bass Conservation Gleneden Park D Pine River Parke Creek a dma n r e Newman Sontag Park v Feryn Conservation Lake Ri ane Lower Little Spokane RiverLowerSp Littleok Spokane River Natural Area Little Natural Area Camelot Park RSP Woods Northwoods Park Horseshoe Lake Riverside State Park Lake RSP Holmberg Conservation Newman Lake Holmberg Park Future Development Spokane River Linwood Park Morgan Acres Park RSP RSP Plante’s Ferry Millwood Spokane River Orchard Ave. Park Myrtle Point Cons. Shield’s Park Mirabeau Park (Minnehaha) Sullivan Park Liberty Lake Meadowwood ane River Spok Valley Mission Park Golf Course City of Spokane Valley Senior Center Pavillion Park Valley Mission Pool Park Road Pool Liberty Lake Golf Course Balfour Park Opportunity Airway Heights O.R.V.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleistocene Megaflood Landscapes of the Channeled Scabland
    The Geological Society of America Field Guide 41 Pleistocene megaflood landscapes of the Channeled Scabland Victor R. Baker* Department of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721-0011, USA Bruce N. Bjornstad Ice Age Floodscapes, Richland, Washington 99354, USA David R. Gaylord School of the Environment, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164-2812, USA Gary A. Smith Organization, Information, and Learning Sciences, MSC05 3020, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA Scott E. Meyer Office of Water Programs, California State University Sacramento, Sacramento, California 95819-6025, USA Petteri Alho Department of Geography, Turku University, Turku, Fl-20014, Finland Roy M. Breckenridge Idaho Geological Survey, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83843, USA Mark R. Sweeney Earth Sciences Department, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota 57069, USA Marek Zreda Department of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721-0011, USA ABSTRACT The Channeled Scabland of east-central Washington comprises a complex of anas- tomosing fluvial channels that were eroded by Pleistocene megaflooding into the basalt bedrock and overlying sediments of the Columbia Plateau and Columbia Basin regions of eastern Washington State, U.S.A. The cataclysmic flooding produced huge coulees (dry river courses), cataracts, streamlined loess hills, rock basins, butte-and-basin scab- land, potholes, inner channels, broad gravel deposits,
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Plateau Trail Management Plan
    COLUMBIA PLATEAU TRAIL STATE PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN June 5, 2006 Washington State Parks Mission The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission acquires, operates, enhances, and protects a diverse system of recreational, cultural, and natural sites. The Commission fosters outdoor recreation and education statewide to provide enjoyment and enrichment for all and a valued legacy to future generations. Columbia Plateau Trail State Park Management Plan Page 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND CONTACTS The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission gratefully acknowledges the many stakeholders and the staff of Columbia Plateau Trail State Park who participated in public meetings, reviewed voluminous materials, and made this a better plan because of if. Plan Author Bruce Beyerl, Environmental Planner, Eastern Region Columbia Plateau Trail State Park Area Management Planning Team Daniel Farber, CAMP Project co-lead Peter Herzog, CAMP Project co-lead Mark Truitt, Columbia Plateau Trail State Park Manager Bill Byrne, Columbia Plateau Trail State Park Manager, Retired Jim Harris, Eastern Region Manager Tom Ernsberger, Eastern Region Assistant Manager – Resource Stewardship Bill Fraser, Parks Planner Washington State Park and Recreation Commission 7150 Cleanwater Lane, P.O. Box 42650 Olympia WA 98504-2650 Tel: (360) 902-8500 Fax: (360) 753-1591 TDD: (360) 664-3133 Commissioners (at time of land classification adoption): Clyde Anderson Mickey Fearn Bob Petersen Eliot Scull Joe Taller Joan Thomas Cecilia Vogt Rex Derr, Director Columbia Plateau Trail State Park Management Plan Page 2 COLUMBIA PLATEAU TRAIL STATE PARK LAND CLASSES, RESOURCE ISSUES AND MANAGEMENT APPROACHES CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION The signatures below certify the adoption of this document by Washington State Parks for the continued management of Columbia Plateau Trail State Park.
    [Show full text]