DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Cumulative Impacts Analysis Final Cumulative Impacts Analysis Skamania County November 2020 Final Cumulative Impacts Analysis Skamania County Shoreline Master Program Update Submitted to Skamania County Stevenson, Washington November 2020 Submitted by WSP USA Inc. 210 East 13th Street, Suite 300 Vancouver, Washington 98660 A15.0208.02 FINAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS Skamania County Shoreline Master Program Update TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ IV INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 State Requirements ..................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Scope ............................................................................................................................ 3 NATURAL PROCESSES.............................................................................................................. 4 CURRENT CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 8 3.1 Current Watershed Conditions .................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 WRIA 26 Cowlitz .............................................................................................. 9 3.1.2 WRIA 27 Lewis ...............................................................................................10 3.1.3 WRIA 28 Salmon-Washougal ........................................................................10 3.1.4 WRIA 29 Wind-White Salmon........................................................................10 3.1.5 Impervious Surfaces ......................................................................................16 3.2 Current Shoreline Conditions ....................................................................................19 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT .........................................................................................................26 4.1 Shoreline Environment Designations ........................................................................26 4.2 Development Trends ..................................................................................................30 4.2.1 Population Growth .........................................................................................31 4.2.2 Developable Land ..........................................................................................32 4.3 Foreseeable Development .........................................................................................35 4.3.1 Inside GPNF ....................................................................................................35 4.3.2 Outside GPNF .................................................................................................38 DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS AND SMP PROVISIONS ................................................................42 5.1 Main Tools for Protecting Shorelines ........................................................................42 5.1.1 Shoreline Environment Designations ...........................................................42 5.1.2 Critical Areas Regulations and Buffers ........................................................42 5.1.3 Vegetation Conservation Standards .............................................................43 5.2 Residential Development...........................................................................................44 5.2.1 Effects ............................................................................................................44 5.2.2 SMP Provisions ..............................................................................................45 5.3 Forest Practices .........................................................................................................46 5.3.1 Effects ............................................................................................................46 5.3.2 SMP Provisions ..............................................................................................47 5.4 Recreational Development ........................................................................................47 5.4.1 Effects ............................................................................................................47 Skamania County WSP USA Inc., 310000043 Final Cumulative Impacts Analysis November 2020 Ecology Grant No. G1500044 Page i of vii 5.4.2 SMP Provisions ..............................................................................................47 5.5 Agriculture ..................................................................................................................48 5.5.1 Effects ............................................................................................................48 5.5.2 SMP Provisions ..............................................................................................48 5.6 Aquaculture ................................................................................................................49 5.6.1 Effects ............................................................................................................49 5.6.2 SMP Provisions ..............................................................................................49 5.7 Mining .........................................................................................................................49 5.7.1 Effects ............................................................................................................49 5.7.2 SMP Provisions ..............................................................................................49 5.8 Stormwater .................................................................................................................50 5.8.1 Effects ............................................................................................................50 5.8.2 SMP Provisions ..............................................................................................50 5.9 Shoreline Stabilization ...............................................................................................51 5.9.1 Effects ............................................................................................................51 5.9.2 SMP Provisions ..............................................................................................51 5.10 Boating Facilities and Overwater Structures ...........................................................51 5.10.1 Effects ............................................................................................................51 5.10.2 SMP Provisions ..............................................................................................51 5.11 Nonconforming Development ....................................................................................53 5.11.1 Effects ............................................................................................................53 5.11.2 SMP Provisions ..............................................................................................53 5.12 Other Impacts .............................................................................................................53 OTHER PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................66 6.1 County Programs ........................................................................................................66 6.2 State Regulations ......................................................................................................66 6.3 Federal Regulations ...................................................................................................68 6.4 Non-Regulatory Programs ..........................................................................................69 NO NET LOSS ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................79 7.1 Vegetation Conservation ...........................................................................................80 7.1.1 Vegetation Conservation in Science and Ecology Guidance .......................80 7.1.2 Vegetation Conservation Provisions in the SMP .........................................82 7.2 How No Net Loss Is Achieved ....................................................................................84 7.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................87 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................88 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Changes in Population and Housing Units, 2010 to 2015 ................................................... 8 Table 2. Impervious Surface Percentages within Shoreline Jurisdiction by Watersheds .............. 16 Table 3. Summary of Characteristics ................................................................................................ 21 Table 4. Approximate Length of Lake Shoreline in each Shoreline Environment Designation ...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Decision Framework for Managing the Spirit Lake and Toutle River System at Mount St
    THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24874 SHARE A Decision Framework for Managing the Spirit Lake and Toutle River System at Mount St. Helens (2018) DETAILS 336 pages | 6 x 9 | PAPERBACK ISBN 978-0-309-46444-4 | DOI 10.17226/24874 CONTRIBUTORS GET THIS BOOK Committee on Long-Term Management of the Spirit Lake/Toutle River System in Southwest Washington; Committee on Geological and Geotechnical Engineering; Board on Earth Sciences and Resources; Water Science and Technology Board; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Environmental Change and Society; FIND RELATED TITLES Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine SUGGESTED CITATION National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018. A Decision Framework for Managing the Spirit Lake and Toutle River System at Mount St. Helens. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24874. Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get: – Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports – 10% off the price of print titles – Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests – Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. (Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy
    [Show full text]
  • Sediment Data-Collection Techniques" (SW1 091TC) (Al 06002.01.362.530)
    CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSES TRIP REPORT SUBJECT: U.S. Geological Survey training course entitled "Sediment Data-Collection Techniques" (SW1 091TC) (Al 06002.01.362.530) DATE/PLACE: March 13-18, 2005 Castle Rock, Washington AUTHOR: Donald Hooper, Research Scientist Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) at Southwest Research Instituter (SwRlt) DISTRIBUTION: CNWRA NRC-NMSS SwRl Contracts W. Patrick J. Trapp Record Copy B (IQS) CNWRA Directors D. DeMarco CNWRA Element Managers B. Meehan S. Mohanty J. Rubenstone R. Benke J. Guttman L. Gutierrez E. Whitt CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSES TRIP REPORT SUBJECT: U.S. Geological Surveytraining course entitled "Sediment Data-Collection Techniques" (SW1091TC) (Al 06002.01.362.530) DATE/PLACE: March 13-18, 2005 Castle.Rock, Washington AUTHOR: Donald Hooper, Research Scientist Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) at Southwest Research Institutee (SwRl~ PERSONS PRESENT: One staff member from the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses attended the training course. A total of 32 scientists enrolled in the course, which was taught by a team of U.S. Geological Survey staff members with John Gray as course leader and coordinator. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF TRIP: This training course in Castle Rock, Washington, near Mount St. Helens, provided instruction in basic sediment data-collection'techniques with principal emphasis on the following: (i) basic sediment concepts; (ii) sampler characteristics; (iii) field techniques; (iv) direct sampling with suspended sediment, bed material, and bedload samplers; (v) computation of sediment discharge records; (vi) quality-assurance procedures; and (vii) estimating sediment properties from surrogate technologies based on bulk optic, digital optic, laser, acoustic, and pressure- differential principles.
    [Show full text]
  • FLOOD HAZARDS ALONG the TOUTLE and COWLITZ RIVERS, WASHINGTON, from a HYPOTHETICAL FAILURE of CASTLE LAKE BLOCKAGE by Antonius L
    FLOOD HAZARDS ALONG THE TOUTLE AND COWLITZ RIVERS, WASHINGTON, FROM A HYPOTHETICAL FAILURE OF CASTLE LAKE BLOCKAGE By Antonius Laenen and L. L. Orzol U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4055 Prepared in cooperation with the STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Portland, Oregon 1987 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: Oregon Office Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section 847 N.E. 19th Ave., Suite 300 Federal Center Portland, OR 97232 Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 IV CONTENTS Page Abstract --------------------------------------------------------- 1 Introduction ----------------------------------------------------- 2 Purpose and scope ------------------------------------------- 2 Acknowledgments --------------------------------------------- 3 Hypothetical blockage failure and start of flood ----------------- 6 Flood routing ---------------------------------------------------- 7 The bulking process ----------------------------------------- 10 The debulking process --------------------------------------- 11 The hypothetical flood -------------------------------------- 11 Hypothetical flood with the lake level lowered -------------- 26 Sensitivity of the routing model ---------------------------- 26 Summary and conclusions ------------------------------------------ 26 References cited -------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II, Chapter 8 Cowlitz Subbasin—Lower Cowlitz
    Volume II, Chapter 8 Cowlitz Subbasin—Lower Cowlitz TABLE OF CONTENTS 8.0 COWLITZ SUBBASIN—LOWER COWLITZ ......................................................... 8-1 8.1 Subbasin Description.................................................................................................. 8-1 8.1.1 Topography & Geology ....................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.2 Climate................................................................................................................. 8-1 8.1.3 Land Use/Land Cover.......................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Focal Fish Species....................................................................................................... 8-5 8.2.1 Fall Chinook—Cowlitz Subbasin (Lower Cowlitz).............................................. 8-5 8.2.2 Coho—Cowlitz Subbasin ..................................................................................... 8-8 8.2.3 Chum—Cowlitz Subbasin .................................................................................. 8-12 8.2.4 Winter Steelhead—Cowlitz Subbasin (Cowlitz)................................................. 8-14 8.2.5 Cutthroat Trout—Cowlitz River Subbasin......................................................... 8-17 8.3 Potentially Manageable Impacts ............................................................................... 8-19 8.4 Hatchery Programs...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mount St. Helens Long-Term Sediment Management Plan (CEQ Project Number 20180179; Region 10 Project Number 84-193-COE)
    ~ US Army Corps Mount St. Helens of Engineers• Long-Term Sediment Portland District Management Plan Record of Decision September 2018 Sediment retention structure and upstream sediment plain on the North Fork Toutle River U.S. Army Corps of Engineers photo RECORD OF DECISION MOUNT ST. HELENS, WASHINGTON LONG-TERM SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN The Mount St. Helens Limited Re-Evaluation Report (LRR) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), both dated 2018, address long-term sediment management actions necessary to maintain flood risk reduction for the cities of Castle Rock, Lexington, Kelso, and Longview, Washington. The purpose of the proposed action is to manage flood risk to established levels of protection (LOP) for the cities of Castle Rock, Lexington, Kelso and Longview, Washington through the year 2035, as authorized by Public Law No. 99‐88 (1985) and Section 339 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (Public Law No. 106- 541), and to do so in a manner that does not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. The recommended plan and preferred alternative described in the LRR and SEIS represent a complete and complementary effort that maintains the congressionally-authorized LOP. The recommend plan is contained in the LRR and is the preferred alternative identified in the SEIS. The 2018 LRR and SEIS are incorporated herein by reference. Based on these reports, the reviews of other Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, input from the public, and review by my staff, I find the plan recommended by the Commander, Portland District, to be technically feasible, economically justified, in accordance with environmental statutes, and in the public interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Response to 14 Engineered Log Jams on the North Fork Toutle River, WA Sediment Plain
    Portland State University PDXScholar Master of Environmental Management Project Reports Environmental Science and Management 2014 Plant Response to 14 Engineered Log Jams on the North Fork Toutle River, WA Sediment Plain Todd Ashley Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/mem_gradprojects Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, and the Natural Resource Economics Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Ashley, Todd, "Plant Response to 14 Engineered Log Jams on the North Fork Toutle River, WA Sediment Plain" (2014). Master of Environmental Management Project Reports. 45. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/mem_gradprojects/45 https://doi.org/10.15760/mem.47 This Project is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Environmental Management Project Reports by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Plant Response to 14 Engineered Log Jams on the North Fork Toutle River, WA Sediment Plain by Todd Ashley A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Management Thesis Committee: Dr. Jennifer Allen, Chair Dr. Joseph Maser Paul Sclafani Portland State University ©2014 Abstract I sought to evaluate the vegetative response to the installation of the 14 engineered log jams (ELJs) on the North Fork Toutle River (NFTR) Sediment Plain. The NFTR sediment plain is constantly being reworked due to channel bank erosion caused by a combination of processes including flow erosion and gravitational mass failure.
    [Show full text]
  • Surveys on Gifford Pinchot NF, 2008
    2008 Bridgeoporus nobilissimus surveys on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Report authors: Kelli Van Norman, Darci Rivers-Pankratz, Andrea Ruchty, John Scott Introduction Bridgeoporus nobilissimus (BRNO8) is a fungal species that produces a perennial polypore (conk). The host species is noble fir (Abies procera), though one conk on the Olympic National Forest was found on a Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis). The distinctive conks have been found only on very large (> 36-inch DBH, diameter breast height) snags, stumps, and a few green trees within about 4 feet of the ground and up to 6 feet from the base of the host tree growing from the host’s root collar and root crown. It has been found in stands with very few large noble fir, in dry to moist areas, and on all topographic aspects (pers. comm. Terry Fennell). Additional information is available in a species fact sheet (Lebo 2007). The Goat Marsh Research Natural Area southwest of Mount St. Helens on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest has a population of BRNO8. However, relatively few other areas on the Gifford Pinchot NF have been surveyed for BRNO8 though there are other stands of large noble fir. Surveys were conducted in 2006, approximately 100 acres, as part of an effort to evaluate a BRNO8 habitat model developed by Dr. Robin Lesher (Lippert et al., 2006). The objective of the 2008 survey effort was to inventory large-diameter noble fir stands working away from the known population at Goat Marsh. In particular, we speculated that there may be potential habitat to the northeast of Goat Marsh within the Mount.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of the Eruptions of Mount St. Helens on Physical, Chemical, And
    Effects of the Eruptions of Mount St. Helens on Physical, Chemical, RECEIVED and Biological Characteristics of U.S.G,S AUG 2 i 1996 Surface Water, Ground Water, WATER Kco. J , .^^ o L'i"" and Precipitation in the Western ROLLA, MQ. United States United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2438 Effects of the Eruptions of Mount St. Helens on Physical, Chemical, and Biological Characteristics of Surface Water, Ground Water, and Precipitation in the Western United States By DOUGLAS B. LEE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2438 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1996 For sale by the U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Box 25286, Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Lee, Douglas B. Effects of the eruptions of Mount St. Helens on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of surface water, ground water, and precipitation in the Western United States by Douglas B. Lee p. 124 cm. -- (U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper: 2438) Includes bibliographical references. Supt.ofDocs.no.: I 19.3:2438 1. Volcanic ash, tuff, etc. Environmental aspects Northwest, Pacific. 2. Volcanic ash, tuff etc. Environmental aspects Colorado. 3. Water Pollution Northwest, Pacific. 4. Water Pollution Colorado. 5. Saint Helens, Mount (Wash.) Eruption, 1980 Environmental aspects. I. Title II. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2438.
    [Show full text]
  • For Shorelines in Cowlitz County and the Cities of Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso, and Woodland
    COWLITZ COUNTY Grant No. G1200052 SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN for Shorelines in Cowlitz County and the Cities of Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso, and Woodland Prepared for: Cowlitz –Wahkiakum Council of Governments 207 4th Avenue North Kelso, WA 98626 Prepared by: Finalized April 2015 The Watershed Company Reference Number: 110922 This report was funded in part The Watershed Company through a grant from the Washington Contact Person: Department of Ecology. Dan Nickel / Sarah Sandstrom Cite this document as: The Watershed Company. April 2015. Shoreline Restoration Plan for Shorelines in Cowlitz County and the Cities of Castle Rock, Kalama, Kelso, and Woodland. Prepared for the Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments, Kelso, WA. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................ 1 1.1. Purpose .............................................................................................. 1 1.2. Restoration Plan Requirements ....................................................... 2 1.3. Types of Restoration Activities ........................................................ 3 1.4. Restoration Plan Approach .............................................................. 4 2. Restoration Goals ...................................................................... 5 3. Existing Conditions ................................................................... 5 3.1. Unincorporated Cowlitz County ....................................................... 6 3.1.1. Columbia River Assessment Unit
    [Show full text]
  • Roadside Geology of Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument and Vicinity
    ROADSIDE GEOLOGY OF MOUNT ST. HELENS NATIONAL VOLCANIC MONUMENT AND VICINITY by Patrick T. Pringle WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Geology and Earth Resources Information Circular 88 1993 [Revised Edition 2002] Shaded relief map of the Mount St. Helens area showing areas affected by1980 eruption processes. The image was created from 30 m digital elevation data. ROADSIDE GEOLOGY OF MOUNT ST. HELENS NATIONAL VOLCANIC MONUMENT AND VICINITY by Patrick T. Pringle WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF Natural Resources Doug Sutherland - Commissioner of Public Lands Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Information Circular 88 1993 [Revised Edition 2002) WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Doug Sutherland-Commissioner of Public Lands DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Ron Teissere-State Geologist This publication is available from: Publication Sales Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources PO Box 47007 Olympia, WA 98504-7007 For more information or a list of publications, call (360) 902-1450 or e-mail [email protected]. Also see our website at http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/ger / This book is also available through the Mount St. Helens visitors centers courtesy of the Mount St. Helens Institute. For more information on how you can get involved in ongoing support of research and education at Mount St. Helens, contact: Mount St. Helens Institute PO Box 820762 Vancouver, WA 98682-0017 (360) 891-5206 www.mshinstitute.org Front Cover. Mount St. Helens from the north shore of Spirit Lake, about 7 mi (11 km) north-northeast of the crater. Photo taken in 1982 by Lyn Topinka, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Volcano Pg 1-7 020225Ra
    Visitors Guide to Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument • Summer 2002 Welcome To Nature’s Laboratory Cover Photo by David Korzilius Welcome! Contents It is my great pleasure to welcome you to Mount St. Helens; Nature’s Laboratory. Some of you will be drawn to the dramatic views of the steaming lava dome, or to the miles of spectacular Contact Information................ 2 hiking trails. Others will explore ancient lava tubes or visit our state-of-the-art visitor centers. All of you can make your own discoveries and learn from discoveries of those that came before Plan Your Visit .........................3 you. Driving Times .........................3 In 1980, scientists swarmed to Mount St. Helens to study this erupting volcano in our midst, Teacher’s Corner ......................3 but that was only the beginning. Mount St. Helens has continued to be a natural laboratory for scientists, students and visitors. Over the past 22 years, hundreds of scientists have conducted Discover Hwy 504 ................4,5 research here. Thousands of students have visited the volcano and learned from their Explore FR 83 & 90 .............6,7 discoveries. Millions of visitors have had their experiences enriched by these lessons. Monument Map ...................8,9 For this important work to continue I need your help and cooperation. Please help protect this volcanic landscape and Rove Forest Road 99 .........10,11 these unique research opportunities by respecting all rules and Climbing ..............................12 regulations. This will allow future generations of scientists, students and visitors to benefit from the research that takes Backcountry ...........................13 place here. With this in mind, I invite you to come explore, and make your own discoveries at Mount St.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington's 2014 Big Game Hunting Seasons & Regulations Pamphlet
    2014 BIG GAME SEASONS AND REGULATIONS PAMPHLET CORRECTIONS AS OF SEPT. 2, 2014 Page 28 (added June 30) Second deer hunt choice 1323, East Okanogan, should not have any hunt note listed. Page 46 (added May 19) The footnote for the Master Hunter Elk General Season 3911 states to “See License Dealer”. These tags are NOT sold at license dealer locations. Page 47 (added April 22) The footnote for Elk Area 4601 under the Late Archery General Elk Season, Western Archery section is incorrect. It should have the footnote, “Majority of the area is private land. Access is limited. Hunters are advised not to try hunting these areas without making prior arrangements.” Page 47 (added May 19) The footnote for the Master Hunter Elk General Season 3911 states to “See License Dealer”. These tags are NOT sold at license dealer locations. Page 48 (added April 22) The footnote for Elk Area 4601 under the Early Muzzleloader General Elk Season, Western Muzzleloader section is incorrect. It should have the footnote, “Majority of the area is private land. Access is limited. Hunters are advised not to try hunting these areas without making prior arrangements.” Page 48 (added May 19) The footnote for the Master Hunter Elk General Season 3911 states to “See License Dealer”. These tags are NOT sold at license dealer locations. Page 55 (added June 3) Antlerless elk hunt choices 2310 - Boistfort, and 2313 – Wildwood, should have a hunt note “C” indicator. Page 58 (added April 22) Master Hunter Elk Hunts should include hunt choice 2707, Skagit River, in the listing of special permit hunt choices.
    [Show full text]