DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 26 Cumulative Impacts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 26 Cumulative Impacts Chapter 26 Cumulative Impacts The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act require the assessment of cumulative Words in bold impacts in the decision-making process for proposed federal projects. and acronyms are defined in Cumulative impacts are defined as the impact on the environment which Chapter 32, results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, Glossary and present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency Acronyms. (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). As stated in the CEQ handbook, "Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act" (CEQ 1997), cumulative impacts should be analyzed in terms of the specific resource, ecosystem, and human community being affected and should focus on effects that are truly meaningful. This chapter provides an analysis of potential cumulative impacts related to the Proposed Action, the I-5 project. The analysis was accomplished using the following four steps: Step 1 - Identify Potentially Affected Resources Resources were identified that potentially could be cumulatively affected by the I-5 project when combined with other actions (see Section 26.1, Affected Resources and Resource Boundaries). Step 2 - Establish Boundaries Spatial (i.e., location) and temporal (i.e., time) boundaries were established for the consideration of other potentially cumulative actions (see Section 26.1, Affected Resources and Resource Boundaries). Step 3 - Identify Potentially Cumulative Actions Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were identified that have contributed, or could contribute, to cumulative impacts on the resources identified in Step 1 (see Section 26.2, Cumulative Actions). These actions fall within the spatial and temporal boundaries established in Step 2. Step 4 - Analyze Cumulative Impacts For each resource, the actions identified in Step 3 were analyzed in combination with the impacts of the I-5 project. This analysis describes the overall cumulative impact related to each resource and the I-5 project’s contribution to this cumulative impact (see Section 26.3, Cumulative Impacts Analysis). 26.1 Affected Resources and Resource Boundaries To identify resources that could be cumulatively affected by the I-5 project and other actions (Step 1), BPA considered a large geographic area within the general vicinity of the project area and the likelihood that various other actions, with a wide range of potential effects on many I-5 Corridor Reinforcement Project Final EIS 26-1 Chapter 26 Cumulative Impacts resources, have taken or could take place within this area. Accordingly, BPA determined that all of the same resources described in the affected resource chapters in this EIS (see Chapters 5 through 22) should be considered in the cumulative analysis. BPA then established reasonable boundaries for the consideration of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (Step 2). These boundaries are in terms of where the other actions are located (e.g., spatial boundaries), and when in time these actions took place or will take place (e.g., temporal boundaries). Accordingly, for each resource, the spatial boundary is the area where other past, present, and reasonably future actions have, are, or could take place and create cumulative impacts on the affected resource when combined with the impacts of the I-5 project. Appropriate spatial boundaries can vary for each resource; the boundaries identified for this analysis are described by resource (see Section 26.3, Cumulative Impacts Analysis). The temporal boundary describes how far into the past, and forward into the future, other actions should be considered in the cumulative impact analysis. For the purposes of this analysis, past and present actions that have shaped the landscape since about the first European settlement in the general vicinity (i.e., since about the early to mid 1800s) are considered, to the extent that they have had lasting effects contributing to cumulative impacts. The reasonably foreseeable nature of potential future actions helps define the forward-look temporal boundary. While BPA acknowledges that the proposed project could exist for 50 or more years and could contribute to cumulative impacts during that timeframe, it would be speculative to consider actions beyond what is reasonably foreseeable (see Section 26.2.2, Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions). Given this limitation, the forward-looking temporal boundary has been established generally at about 10 years following the expected completion of construction of the proposed project, which is a reasonable timeframe by which the reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Section 26.2.2 likely would be implemented. 26.2 Cumulative Actions After establishing appropriate spatial and temporal boundaries, BPA identified other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions potentially contributing to cumulative effects along with the I-5 project (Step 3). To identify these other actions, BPA used information gathered in the course of developing the analysis of direct impacts related to the I-5 project, reviewed web posted project lists, and consulted various federal, tribal, state, local jurisdictions, and project sponsors. The following discussion provides more information on how potentially cumulative past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were identified; and describes the cumulative actions that have been identified for the cumulative analysis in this EIS. 26.2.1 Past and Present Actions Past actions relevant to the cumulative analysis in this EIS are those that have previously taken place and are largely complete, but that have lasting effects on one or more resources that also would be affected by the I-5 project. For these past actions, CEQ has issued a guidance memo entitled "Guidance on Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis." This guidance states that consideration of past actions is only necessary in so far as it informs agency decision-making. Typically the only types of past actions considered are those that continue to have present effects on the affected resources. In addition, the guidance states that "[a]gencies 26-2 I-5 Corridor Reinforcement Project Final EIS Chapter 26 Cumulative Impacts are not required to list or analyze the effects of individual past actions unless such information is necessary to describe the cumulative effect of all past actions." Accordingly, agencies are allowed to aggregate the effects of past actions without "delving into the historical details of individual past actions." In this EIS, impacts from past actions are largely captured in the sections of each resource chapter that discuss the affected environment (see Chapters 5 through 22). Present actions are those that are currently occurring and also result in impacts to the same resources as would be affected by the I-5 project. Present actions generally include on-going land management and use activities (such as farming), and ongoing or recently completed residential, commercial, and industrial development. Similar to past actions, relevant present actions have largely been captured in Chapters 5 through 22 of this EIS. The following summarizes some of the more significant past and present actions in the general vicinity of the proposed project that have created cumulative impacts relevant to this analysis: Agricultural use—Beginning with European settlement in the early to mid 1800s, thousands of acres of land were converted from native prairie and floodplain to agriculture and pasture. These uses tend to be located in the flatter, lower elevation areas near the cities of Camas, Vancouver, and the Columbia River crossing. The conversion of undeveloped land to cropland largely stopped in the mid 1900s as most available and agriculturally suitable lands had already been converted. In recent years, as suburban development has expanded, agricultural land has been subdivided for residential development, reducing the amount of agricultural use. Timber clearing—European settlers also cleared native forest from thousands of acres for agricultural and other uses. Much of the tree clearing for agriculture took place on the flatter, lower elevation areas suitable for agriculture. In addition, as communities throughout the Lower Columbia River region were being developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s, nearby foothills and other wooded areas often were partially or fully cleared so trees could be used for houses, barns, fences, and other structures in and near these communities. Some cleared areas were allowed over time to revegetate and have become forested once again, while other areas were subsequently developed for other uses and remain occupied by these uses. Timber harvest—Over the years, large areas of native forest have been converted into timber stands managed for timber harvests. Timber harvest in the Lower Columbia River region began in the 1860s (NMFS and USFWS 2006); however, at that time, the general practice was to clear cut an area rather than actively manage it for ongoing production, as is more the standard practice today. Today, most lands managed for timber harvest in the general vicinity are in Cowlitz County. Additional timber lands are in the eastern part of Clark County. The large tracts of forest under timber harvest management in these counties exist in various age classes across
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington by Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein
    Prepared in Cooperation with the Water Resources Program of the Yakama Nation Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington By Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3315 Photograph showing Mount Adams andesitic stratovolcano and Signal Peak mafic shield volcano viewed westward from near Mill Creek Guard Station. Low-relief rocky meadows and modest forested ridges marked by scattered cinder cones and shields are common landforms in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field. Mount Adams (elevation: 12,276 ft; 3,742 m) is centered 50 km west and 2.8 km higher than foreground meadow (elevation: 2,950 ft.; 900 m); its eruptions began ~520 ka, its upper cone was built in late Pleistocene, and several eruptions have taken place in the Holocene. Signal Peak (elevation: 5,100 ft; 1,555 m), 20 km west of camera, is one of largest and highest eruptive centers in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field; short-lived shield, built around 3.7 Ma, is seven times older than Mount Adams. 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Introductory Overview for Non-Geologists ...............................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2 Physiography, Environment, Boundary Surveys, and Access ......................................................6 Previous Geologic
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropological Study of Yakama Tribe
    1 Anthropological Study of Yakama Tribe: Traditional Resource Harvest Sites West of the Crest of the Cascades Mountains in Washington State and below the Cascades of the Columbia River Eugene Hunn Department of Anthropology Box 353100 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-3100 [email protected] for State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW contract # 38030449 preliminary draft October 11, 2003 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary 5 Map 1 5f 1. Goals and scope of this report 6 2. Defining the relevant Indian groups 7 2.1. How Sahaptin names for Indian groups are formed 7 2.2. The Yakama Nation 8 Table 1: Yakama signatory tribes and bands 8 Table 2: Yakama headmen and chiefs 8-9 2.3. Who are the ―Klickitat‖? 10 2.4. Who are the ―Cascade Indians‖? 11 2.5. Who are the ―Cowlitz‖/Taitnapam? 11 2.6. The Plateau/Northwest Coast cultural divide: Treaty lines versus cultural 12 divides 2.6.1. The Handbook of North American Indians: Northwest Coast versus 13 Plateau 2.7. Conclusions 14 3. Historical questions 15 3.1. A brief summary of early Euroamerican influences in the region 15 3.2. How did Sahaptin-speakers end up west of the Cascade crest? 17 Map 2 18f 3.3. James Teit‘s hypothesis 18 3.4. Melville Jacobs‘s counter argument 19 4. The Taitnapam 21 4.1. Taitnapam sources 21 4.2. Taitnapam affiliations 22 4.3. Taitnapam territory 23 4.3.1. Jim Yoke and Lewy Costima on Taitnapam territory 24 4.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State
    Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State Earth Economics i Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State January 2015 Report Version 1.2 Prepared By: Prepared For: Earth Economics Washington Recreation and Conservation Office Tacoma, Washington Olympia, Washington Primary Authors: Tania Briceno, Ecological Economist, Earth Economics Greg Schundler, GIS and Research Analyst, Earth Economics Suggested Citation: Briceno, T., Schundler, G. 2015. Economic Analysis of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA. Production Team: Aaron Schwartz, Research Analyst, Earth Economics Angela Fletcher, Research Analyst and Graphic Designer, Earth Economics Johnny Mojica, Research Assistant, Earth Economics Peter Casey, Research Assistant, Earth Economics Contributors: Wendy Brown, Advisor and Editor, Washington Recreation and Conservation Office Jim Fox, Advisor and Editor, James Fox Consulting John Loomis, Advisor and Editor, Colorado State University Acknowledgements: Leslie Connelly and Kaleen Cottingham from Washington’s Recreation and Conservation Office provided valuable feedback as well as Jim Cahill from the Washington State Office of Financial Management. Rebecca Hill from Colorado State University provided feedback on IMPLAN modelling and Randy Rosenberger from Oregon State University helped through his recreation value database. We would also like to thank all the agencies and associations that collaborated with data collection. Thanks to Brenden Mclane, Chelsey Aiton, and Professor Robert Aguirre who provided assistance as part of course work for the University of Washington Professional Master’s Program in GIS & Sustainability Management. Cover image by Jon DeJong, a creative commons image, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/. ©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.
    [Show full text]
  • Lewis River Hydroelectric Project Relicensing
    United StatesDepartment of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 DesmondDr. SE, Suite 102 Lacey,Washington 98503 In ReplyRefer To: SCANNED 1-3-06-F-0177 sEPI 5 2006 MagalieR. Salas,Secretary F6deralEnergy Regulatory Commission 888First Sffeet,NE WashingtonD.C. 24426 Attention:Ann Ariel Vecchio DearSecretary Salas: This documenttransmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's(Service) Biological Opinion on the effectsto bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus),northern spotted owls (Srrlxoccidentalis caurina)and bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) fromthe relicensingof the Lewis River HydroeiectricProjects: Merwin (FERC No. 935),Yale (FERC No. 2071),Swift No. 1 (FERC No. Zr 11),and swift No. 2 (FERCNo. 2213). Theaction that comprises this consultationunder theEndangered Species Act of 1973,as amended (16 U.S.C. l53I et seq.)is therelicensing of the Lewis-RiverHydroelectric Projects by the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission and the interdependentactions contained in the SettlementAgreement (PacifiCorp et aL.2004e),dated November30,2004,and Washington Department of Ecology's401 Certifications. Consultationfor the relicensingof the Lewis River Plojectswas initiated by the Commission's letterto the Servicewhich was received in our officeon October11,2005. Based on our letter datedMarch15,2006,the deadline for completingthis consultationwas extended by mutual agreementuntil May 5, 2006. On June12,2006,with concurrenceby thelicensees,we submittedanother request for an extensionto SeptemberI,2006, to
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail FY 2017 Appropriations Request
    Photo ©2016 Alasdair Fowler Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail FY 2017 Appropriations Request Prepared by: Pacific Crest Trail Association www.pcta.org Graphic design donated by Cover Photos by Alasdair Fowler, Shonda Feather and Carolyn Tepolt Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail FY2017 Appropriations Request The Pacific Crest Trail Association (PCTA) respectfully asks Congress to support the following FY2017 appropriations to protect, preserve and promote the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT): I. Land PCT Corridor Acquisition Projects & Water U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Budget Request Conservation $7.0 million Fund California—Landers Meadow, trail and resource (LWCF) protection within the Sequoia National Forest; Trinity Divide, trail and resource protection within the Shasta- Trinity National Forest, Donomore Meadows, trail and resource protection within the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Washington—Columbia Gorge, trail and resource protection in and adjacent to the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area; Stevens Pass, purchase portion of the trail that currently has no easement. $250,000—LWCF line item for program administration Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Budget Request $515,000 California—California Desert Southwest, purchase parcels within the San Gorgonio Wilderness to create an uninterrupted wilderness experience. Oregon—Cascade-Siskiyou Area, trail and resource $7.8 million protection in southern Oregon near the Klamath Basin. U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Budget Request II. Capital $2.1 million—allocation
    [Show full text]
  • Soc 1-1 10.1 Socioeconomics Resource Study (Soc 1)
    PacifiCorp/Cowlitz PUD Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects FERC Project Nos. 935, 2071, 2111, 2213 TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.0 SOCIOECONOMICS.................................................................................... SOC 1-1 10.1 SOCIOECONOMICS RESOURCE STUDY (SOC 1).......................... SOC 1-1 10.1.1 Study Objectives......................................................................... SOC 1-1 10.1.2 Study Area .................................................................................. SOC 1-2 10.1.3 Methods ...................................................................................... SOC 1-5 10.1.4 Key Questions............................................................................. SOC 1-7 10.1.5 Results......................................................................................... SOC 1-8 10.1.6 Discussion................................................................................. SOC 1-49 10.1.7 Schedule.................................................................................... SOC 1-51 10.1.8 References................................................................................. SOC 1-52 10.1.9 Comments and Responses on Draft Report .............................. SOC 1-57 SOC 1 Appendix 1 Text of RCW 54.28.050 SOC 1 Appendix 2 Descriptive Text of Money Generation Model LIST OF TABLES Table 10.1-1. Local sources of socioeconomic information...................................SOC 1-5 Table 10.1-2. 1990 population distribution by age in the secondary study area. ................................................................................................SOC
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Scientific Assessment Report Vancouver Watershed Health
    INTEGRATED SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT VANCOUVER WATERSHED HEALTH ASSESSMENT Prepared for City of Vancouver, Washington Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. and Pacific Groundwater Group Note: Some pages in this document have been purposely skipped or blank pages inserted so this document will copy correctly when duplexed. INTEGRATED SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT VANCOUVER WATERSHED HEALTH ASSESSMENT Prepared for City of Vancouver Surface Water Management 4500 Southeast Columbia Way Vancouver, Washington 98661 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1001 Southeast Water Avenue, Suite 290 Portland, Oregon 97214 Telephone: 503-228-4301 and Pacific Groundwater Group 2377 Eastlake Avenue East Suite #200 Seattle, Washington 98102 Telephone: 206-329-0141 February 20, 2019 CONTENTS Abbreviations and Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... vii 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Overview ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Study Area and Vicinity ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Clark County, Washington: a Preliminary Report
    Portland State University PDXScholar Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations Anthropology 1999 Archaeological Investigations at 45CL1 Cathlapotle (1991-1996) , Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Clark County, Washington: a Preliminary Report Kenneth M. Ames Portland State University, [email protected] Cameron M. Smith Portland State University William L. Cornett Portland State University Elizabeth A. Sobel Portland State University Stephen C. Hamilton Portland State University SeeFollow next this page and for additional additional works authors at: https:/ /pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/anth_fac Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Ames, K. M., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service., & Portland State University. (1999). Archaeological investigations at 45CL1 Cathlapotle (1991-1996), Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, Clark County, Washington: A preliminary report. Portland, Or: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Authors Kenneth M. Ames; Cameron M. Smith; William L. Cornett; Elizabeth A. Sobel; Stephen C. Hamilton; John Wolf; Doria Raetz; United States. Department of the Interior; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1; and Portland State University. Department of Anthropology This technical report is available at PDXScholar: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/anth_fac/61 Archaeological Investigations at 45CL1 Cathlapotle (1991-1996) , Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Clark County, Washington A Preliminary Report by Kenneth M. Ames, Cameron M. Smith, William L.
    [Show full text]
  • Cougar Swimming Nov
    2008-09 Washington State Women’s Swimming Schedule Date DAY OPPONENT SITE TIME WASHINGTON STATE Oct. 17-18 Fri.-Sat. TYR Pacific Invite Stockton, Calif. TBA Oct. 24-25 Fri.-Sat. Debbie Pipher Memorial Invite Pullman 5 p.m./Noon Nov. 1 Sat. Nevada Reno, Nev. 11:30 a.m. Nov. 15 Sat. Northern Arizona Pullman 10 a.m. COUGAR SWIMMING Nov. 22 Sat. Seattle Pullman TBA Dec. 4-6 Thurs.-Sat. Texas Invite Austin, Texas TBA Jan. 3 Sat. UC Irvine Invite Irvine, Calif. TBA Jan. 16-19 Fri.-Mon. Long Beach Grand Prix Long Beach, Calif. TBA Jan. 23 Fri. Idaho Moscow, Idaho TBA Jan. 25 Sun. Boise State Pullman 11 a.m. Jan. 31 Sat. Oregon State Corvallis, Ore. 11 a.m. Feb. 7 Sat. Washington Pullman 11 a.m. Feb. 25-28 Wed.-Sat. Pacific-10 Championships Federal Way, Wash. 11 a.m./6 p.m. March 1 Sun. Pacific-10 Invitational Federal Way, Wash. 11 a.m. March 19-21 Thurs.-Sat. NCAA Championships College Station, Texas 11 a.m./7 p.m. Home meets in Bold and held at Gibb Pool All times Pacific 2008–09 SWIMMING 2008–09 WSU WOMEN’S SWIMMING ROSTER Michaela Melissa Sierra Jessie Jennifer Andrea AHLIN BOGERT BURTON CRAIG DEAN EMDE Sarah Shawna Rachael Kristen Kelsey Jamie HICKS KELLER KRAGER LEGRO LYNCH MACLEOD Kristin Michelle Rugile Emma Danielle Elyse MARCEAU MCDONALD MILEISYTE NEELY PalUMBO PETERSON Afton Talor Lorraine Erica Lindsay Lina PICKETT WhitaKER ZANNINI QUAM HENAHAN DAUGVILAITE Head Coach Assistant Coach Student Assistant Coach WASHINGTON State UNIVERSITY Swimming Quick Facts Contents Why Washington State? ..................................2-3 General Information Cougar Media Relations All-Americans ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • RV Sites in the United States Location Map 110-Mile Park Map 35 Mile
    RV sites in the United States This GPS POI file is available here: https://poidirectory.com/poifiles/united_states/accommodation/RV_MH-US.html Location Map 110-Mile Park Map 35 Mile Camp Map 370 Lakeside Park Map 5 Star RV Map 566 Piney Creek Horse Camp Map 7 Oaks RV Park Map 8th and Bridge RV Map A AAA RV Map A and A Mesa Verde RV Map A H Hogue Map A H Stephens Historic Park Map A J Jolly County Park Map A Mountain Top RV Map A-Bar-A RV/CG Map A. W. Jack Morgan County Par Map A.W. Marion State Park Map Abbeville RV Park Map Abbott Map Abbott Creek (Abbott Butte) Map Abilene State Park Map Abita Springs RV Resort (Oce Map Abram Rutt City Park Map Acadia National Parks Map Acadiana Park Map Ace RV Park Map Ackerman Map Ackley Creek Co Park Map Ackley Lake State Park Map Acorn East Map Acorn Valley Map Acorn West Map Ada Lake Map Adam County Fairgrounds Map Adams City CG Map Adams County Regional Park Map Adams Fork Map Page 1 Location Map Adams Grove Map Adelaide Map Adirondack Gateway Campgroun Map Admiralty RV and Resort Map Adolph Thomae Jr. County Par Map Adrian City CG Map Aerie Crag Map Aeroplane Mesa Map Afton Canyon Map Afton Landing Map Agate Beach Map Agnew Meadows Map Agricenter RV Park Map Agua Caliente County Park Map Agua Piedra Map Aguirre Spring Map Ahart Map Ahtanum State Forest Map Aiken State Park Map Aikens Creek West Map Ainsworth State Park Map Airplane Flat Map Airport Flat Map Airport Lake Park Map Airport Park Map Aitkin Co Campground Map Ajax Country Livin' I-49 RV Map Ajo Arena Map Ajo Community Golf Course Map
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Plan
    Final Shoreline Restoration Plan Prepared by: Prepared For: June 2011 ESA Adolfson Clark County Coalition This Page Intentionally Left Blank Final Shoreline Restoration Plan Clark County Coalition June 2011 Phase 4, Year 1, Restoration Plan, Revisit Phase 3 Grant No. G1000058 Task 4A This Page Intentionally Left Blank Clark County Coalition SMP Update - Shoreline Restoration Plan - Grant No. G1000058 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was prepared with guidance from a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Shoreline Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SSAC). The Clark County Coalition gratefully acknowledges the committee members for contributing to this effort. Shoreline Management Master Program Update Technical Advisory Committee Name Affiliation – Expertise Barb Aberle WDOT – Environmental Manager George Bluhm Citizen – Engineer/Hydrology John Bromley WDNR – Geology & Earth Resources Brad Murphy Ecology – Wetlands/Shoreline Permitting Kim Van Zwalenburg Ecology – Shoreline Permitting Brent Davis Clark County Environmental Services – Wetlands Dick Dyrland Citizen – Hydrologist Bob Flores US Fish & Wildlife – Refuge Manager George Fornes Clark County Environmental Services – Habitat Bernadette Graham Hudson Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board – Salmon Recovery & Watershed Planning Kevin Grosz The Resource Company – Wetlands Biologist Steve Hartsell WDNR – Forest Practices Elaine Huber Battle Ground – Public Works Nick Jeremiah NOAA Fisheries – Fish Habitat Warren Knuth Clark Regional Wastewater District – Wastewater Engineering Jeroen Kok/Jean
    [Show full text]
  • Burnt Bridge Creek Watershed
    Burnt Bridge Creek Watershed • The Burnt Bridge Creek Watershed is the area of land in Clark County where all of the water drains into Burnt Bridge Creek. • It is a mostly flat area and it covers about 28 square miles. About two-thirds of this area is in the City of Vancouver. • It starts in large wetland area, then forms ditches and channels. Eventually it flows as a creek on its way into Vancouver Lake. • This watershed is a highly developed area with a lot of paved surfaces. • Only 4% of the watershed is left as a forest. • Coho salmon are only found in the very lowest segments of the creek, west of Interstate 5. • Clark County hopes to improve the health of this creek by making greenspaces along the creek. • All of the trees and vegetation will help absorb stormwater and any non-point source pollution that it has picked up while flowing over the watershed. Cedar Creek Watershed • The Cedar Creek watershed is the area of land in Clark County where all of the water drains into Cedar Creek. • This creek is a major tributary of the North Fork Lewis River which starts on Mount Adams. • Cedar Creek drains about 56 square miles of land and is mostly privately owned. • The watershed contains about 8% developed land and 55% forested land. • The upper watershed is in good to excellent health. • The lower part of the watershedis impacted by forestry and agricultural practices. • Cedar Creek supports populations of coho salmon, Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, Pacific lamprey, and freshwater mussels.
    [Show full text]