DOCSLIB.ORG

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Trans Mountain Expansion Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Trans Mountain Expansion Project TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6 PROJECT NO.: 0095150-04 DISTRIBUTION: DATE: February 20, 2015 TMP ULC: 2 copies DOCUMENT NO.: 0095150-14-SUM BGC: 2 copies OTHER: 1 copy Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of the engineering design and assessment for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP), BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) has been retained to complete geotechnical feasibility assessments for horizontal directional drilling (HDD) at select stream crossings along the proposed pipeline corridor. In September 2014, BGC supervised the drilling of three boreholes adjacent to the proposed HDD alignment at Sumas River east of Abbotsford, BC. WorleyParsons, under subcontract to BGC, completed geophysical surveys at the same site in August 2013 and November 2014. Analysis of historical aerial photographs shows that the banks of Sumas River appear stable with respect to bank erosion and avulsion, and the proposed HDD alignment is not expected to be compromised by these hydrotechnical hazards. Results from the scour analysis estimate a maximum scour depth of approximately 2.0 m below the channel thalweg during a 200-year flood event, corresponding to an elevation of 1.5 m below sea level. Given this result, the depth of cover above the proposed HDD borepath remains adequate for the entire HDD length. The HDD entry and exit points are located beyond the dykes that parallel the Sumas River at an elevation of approximately 3.8 and 11.8 masl, respectively. The HDD exit point is approximately 4.7 m above 200-year flood elevation for the Sumas River and is not expected to be at risk of flooding during the 200-year flood event. However, the HDD entry point is approximately 3.3 m below the 200-year flood elevation, and is at risk of being inundated in the event that the dyke system fails. BGC understands the dykes along the Sumas River are designed to contain a peak flow of 350 m3/s (a 50-year flood event) that includes potential flow from the Nooksack River (Klohn, 1989). Large peak flows for the Sumas River are possible due to the overflow of the Nooksack River during high flow events. Due to the close proximity of the proposed HDD crossing to the downstream confluence of the Sumas River with the Fraser River, flood levels at the crossing point could be influenced by the Fraser River (NHC, 2008). Consequently, the HDD entry point could be inundated should a large flood event occur in the Fraser River; however, this flood depth is not expected to result in sufficient scour to expose the HDD entry point (BGC, 2015). Results of geotechnical drilling indicate that the site is underlain by a thin layer (approximately 3 m) of loose, uniform sand from the HDD entry point to beneath the Sumas River. This changes to a well graded colluvial sand and gravel layer beneath the HDD exit point. The thin sand layer is underlain by very soft, stratified lacustrine silt and sand, while the surficial sand and gravel colluvium in the west floodplain extends to a depth ranging from approximately 10 to 20 m (downward sloping to the east). Beneath these layers is a very soft glaciolacustrine silt and clay unit that is interpreted to extend beyond the depths of the boreholes drilled. The presence of boulders or cobbles was not evident during the investigative drilling program. Bedrock was not encountered during investigative drilling; however, seismic refraction geophysical survey results indicate that the bedrock surface may be approximately 10 metres 0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page i BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04 below ground surface (mbgs) along the base of Sumas Mountain beneath the HDD exit point. Based on geophysical surveys and the drilling results, bedrock is not expected to be encountered along the proposed the HDD borepath, but the exact depth to the bedrock interface is uncertain. Minor sloughing was encountered within the lacustrine sand and the colluvial sand and gravel deposits in BH-BGC14-SUM-03, and within the stratified sand and silt unit in BH-BGC14-SUM- 02. Drilling fluid circulation losses during investigative drilling were minimal (10%) throughout drilling all three boreholes. Some drilling fluid losses may be encountered along the HDD borepath, and will have to be addressed through the use of the appropriate drilling fluids, the use of casing or by other techniques. Coarse grained colluvial deposits are interpreted at the HDD exit point. Given the cohesionless nature of these deposits combined with the relative difference in elevation between the exit and entry points, drilling mud pressures during construction should be carefully controlled throughout this region to prevent the release of drilling fluids to the surface. Beneath the river bed, the minimum separation depth between the proposed HDD borepath and the river bed is approximately 22 m. Assuming hydrostatic pressures, the anticipated drill fluid pressures should not exceed the confining stress provided by the overburden above the drill path considering the small elevation difference between the river and the entry/exit points. As such, the risk of loss of containment where drilling fluids may enter the river is anticipated to be low. However, given the nature of the soft soils observed during investigative drilling, the risk of loss of containment should be further assessed by the HDD design team using the borepath geometry for frictional losses and the HDD rig and pumping characteristics. Given the above, and based on the observations from the three boreholes and the geophysics, an HDD crossing at this location can be considered feasible from a geotechnical perspective provided concerns associated with loss of containment in the soft lacustrine deposits and cohesionless sediments as well as borehole stability within the softer fluvial/glaciofluvial sand and glaciolacustrine silts can all be addressed during design and construction of the crossing. The conclusions presented herein are based solely on the limited scope of the investigation undertaken at this time for the purpose of obtaining preliminary information, and additional investigation should be considered as part of detailed design. 0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page ii BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................iv LIST OF DRAWINGS ........................................................................................................iv LIST OF APPENDICES ....................................................................................................iv LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................... v 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................. 2 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION, GEOLOGY AND HYDROTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ....... 3 3.1. Overview ............................................................................................................... 3 3.2. Surficial Geology ................................................................................................. 4 3.3. Bedrock Geology ................................................................................................. 4 3.4. Terrain Mapping ................................................................................................... 5 Terrain Types ................................................................................................ 5 3.5. Hydrotechnical Assessment ............................................................................... 6 Setting ........................................................................................................... 6 Flood Frequency Analysis ............................................................................. 6 Scour ............................................................................................................ 8 Bank Erosion ................................................................................................. 8 Avulsion ........................................................................................................ 9 4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION ..........................................................................................10 4.1. Geotechnical Drilling Data .................................................................................10 4.2. Geophysical Survey Data ...................................................................................11 5.0 INFERRED GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ALONG THE HDD BOREPATH .....14 5.1. Eastern Floodplain (HDD Entry Point)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Salmon and Steelhead Limiting Factors in WRIA 1, the Nooksack Basin, 2002
    SALMON AND STEELHEAD HABITAT LIMITING FACTORS IN WRIA 1, THE NOOKSACK BASIN July, 2002 Carol J. Smith, Ph.D. Washington State Conservation Commission 300 Desmond Drive Lacey, Washington 98503 Acknowledgements This report was developed by the WRIA 1 Technical Advisory Group for Habitat Limiting Factors. This project would not have been possible without their vast expertise and willingness to contribute. The following participants in this project are gratefully thanked and include: Bruce Barbour, DOE Alan Chapman, Lummi Indian Nation Treva Coe, Nooksack Indian Tribe Wendy Cole, Whatcom Conservation District Ned Currence, Nooksack Indian Tribe Gregg Dunphy, Lummi Indian Nation Clare Fogelsong, City of Bellingham John Gillies, U.S.D.A. Darrell Gray, NSEA Brady Green, U.S. Forest Service Dale Griggs, Nooksack Indian Tribe Milton Holter, Lummi Indian Nation Doug Huddle, WDFW Tim Hyatt, Nooksack Indian Tribe Mike MacKay, Lummi Indian Nation Mike Maudlin, Lummi Indian Nation Shannon Moore, NSEA Roger Nichols, U.S. Forest Service Andrew Phay, Whatcom Conservation District Dr. Carol Smith, WA Conservation Commission Steve Seymour, WDFW John Thompson, Whatcom County Tyson Waldo, NWIFC SSHIAP Bob Warinner, WDFW Barry Wenger, DOE Brian Williams, WDFW Stan Zyskowski, National Park Service A special thanks to Ron McFarlane (NWIFC) for digitizing and producing maps, to Andrew Phay (Whatcom Conservation District) for supplying numerous figures, to Llyn Doremus (Nooksack Indian Tribe) for the review, and to Victor Johnson (Lummi Indian Nation) for supplying the slope instability figure. I also extend appreciation to Devin Smith (NWIFC) and Kurt Fresh (WDFW) for compiling and developing the habitat rating standards, and to Ed Manary for writing the “Habitat Limiting Factors Background”.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Control and Sediment Transport Study of The
    FLOOD CONTROL AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDY OF THE VEDDER RIVER by DAVID GEORGE McLEAN .A.Sc., University of British Columbia, 1975 \ THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES The Department of Civil Engineering We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1980 (5) David George McLean In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Cim / moo^i^y The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 E-6 BP 75-51 1 E ABSTRACT The Chilliwack River flows through the Cascade Mountains until reaching a narrow gorge near Vedder Crossing where it flows onto the Fraser Lowlands and eventually meets the Fraser River. Below Vedder Crossing, the river is actively building an alluvial fan by depos• iting its sediment load of gravel and sand. This deposi• tion has resulted in frequent channel shifts over the fan surface with the most recent migration occurring around 1894 when the river shifted down Vedder Creek. Over the last century the Vedder River has been undergoing very complex changes in response to changes in the incidence of severe floods, changes in sediment supply and interference from river training.
    [Show full text]
  • Swift Creek Consent Decree Final
    }: s FILFD COQ N'Y "L-FRK 1 10 k 43 2 3 4 BY ---- 5 6 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON 8 WHATCOM COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 9 STATE OF WASHINGTON, ° 9 2 0 2 7 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, NO. 37 10 Plaintiff, 11 CONSENT DECREE V. RE: SUMAS MOUNTAIN 12 LANDSLIDE WHATCOM COUNTY; WHATCOM 13 . COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT; GREAT WESTERN 14 LUMBER COMPANY; and MILLMAN FAMILY LLC, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 TABLE OF CONTENTS 19 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 20 II. JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................... 5 III. PARTIES BOUND ....................................................................................................... 6 21 IV. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................. 6 22 V. FINDINGS OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 7 VI. WORK TO BE PERFORMED ................................................................................... 14 23 VII. DURATION OF DECREE ......................................................................................... 21 VIII. DESIGNATED PROJECT COORDINATORS ......................................................... 22 24 IX. PERFORMANCE .......................................................................................................23 X. ACCESS ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Swift Creek Consent Decree Final Exhibits A-E (December 2019)
    EXHIBIT A SCSMAP South Pass Setback Levee Phase I Implementation SOUTH PASS RD. Proposed Phase I Project Elements Levees Sediment Basins Upper Goodwin Reach Instream Sediment Traps . D Canyon Reach Instream S R Debris Flow/Setback Levee w N I Sediment Traps . if Roads D t W k R C e D e r r wift C Williams Pipelines S ork S e O North F E Goodwin Reach ek O L Existing Stockpile Levees G Sou O th For C Sediment Basins k Sw if Swift Creek T t A C reek O Sumas River Alluvial Fan ² Feet 0 1,000500 Lower Goodwin Reach Setback Levee MASSEY RD. Figure 1 Phase I Structure Locations EXHIBIT B SWIFT CREEK ACTION PLAN Whatcom County, Washington December 2019 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Cris Matthews (Primary contact) Toxics Cleanup Program - Bellingham Field Office 913 Squalicum Way, Suite 101 Bellingham, WA 98225 (360) 255-4379 or [email protected] Tamara Cardona-Marek Toxics Cleanup Program – NW Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 (425) 649-7058 or [email protected] Pete Kmet (Retired) Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program - Headquarters Office 300 Desmond Drive P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Previous Studies 1.3 Regulatory Framework 2.0 Site Description and History 3.0 Action Alternatives and Screening Level Analysis 4.0 Proposed Selected Action and Analysis of Compliance with MTCA 4.1 Definition of Site 4.2 Description of Proposed Action 4.3 Analysis of Selected Remedy for Compliance with MTCA 5.0 Environmental Standards 6.0 Applicable Local, State, and Federal Laws 7.0 Institutional Controls and Site Use Restrictions 8.0 Compliance Monitoring 9.0 Schedule for Implementing the Selected Action 10.0 State Environmental Policy Action Compliance References and Technical Investigations List of Tables TABLE 1 Soil / Sediment results for selected substances TABLE 2 Estimated excess lifetime cancer risks for various exposure scenarios using asbestos dust concentrations generated in August 2006 EPA activity based sampling study.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis for the Sumas Mountain Asbestos (Aka Swift Creek) Site
    Draft Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis Sumas Mountain Asbestos (aka Swift Creek) Site Whatcom County, Washington TDD: 12-02-0006 Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, ECL-113 Seattle, Washington 98102 Prepared by: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 720 Third Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, Washington 98104 July 2013 This page intentionally left blank. 10:START-3\12-09-0003 ii Table of Contents Executive Summary.................................................................................xi 1 Introduction ..............................................................................1-1 2 Site Characterization................................................................2-1 2.1 Site Description and History ............................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Site Ownership History ........................................................................ 2-1 2.1.2 Site Operations and Waste Characteristics........................................... 2-1 2.2 Physical Characteristics of the Site .................................................................. 2-3 2.2.1 Topography and Hydrology ................................................................. 2-3 2.2.2 Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................................. 2-3 2.2.3 Soils...................................................................................................... 2-4 2.2.4 Meteorology ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • City of Sumas Flood Letter
    CITY OF SUMAS P. O. Box 9 Sumas, Washington 98295 Phone (360)988-5711 FAX (360)988-8855 MAYOR-Kyle Christensen COUNCIL MEETINGS FINANCE DIRECTOR-Shelley Schultz SECOND AND FOURTH [email protected] MONDAYS OF EACH MONTH November, 2018 Dear City of Sumas Resident, This letter is being sent to you for informational purposes only because our records show that your property is very likely located in the floodplain. The City is working on ways to improve and increase its circulation of and accessibility to information that pertains to the floodplain, in an effort to better educate and assist its citizens about developing and living in the floodplain. Please take the time to read the information below, and if you have further questions, or would like additional information, a variety of contact information has been supplied at the end of this document. OVERVIEW Whatcom County features one large river and smaller tributaries, or streams, that are susceptible to annual flooding events that pose threats to life and safety and cause significant property damage. The large river is the Nooksack, while streams include Johnson Creek, Sumas Creek, and the Sumas River. Snow melt from the Cascade Mountain range contributes substantially to flooding, and ongoing development within the County continues to displace natural areas that have historically functioned as flood storage. RECENT FLOODING EVENTS While some sort of seasonal flood-related damage occurs nearly every year, the flooding and associated landslide events of February and November 1990 represent the most significant flooding. In November 1990, prolonged precipitation accompanied by an early snow melt, caused by a warm-weather trend known as a “Pineapple Express,” caused many rivers and creeks throughout the Nooksack River watershed to rise to 100-year flood levels, causing flooding in both rural and urban areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Sumas Mountain/Swift Creek Sediment Management Project
    WHATCOM COUNTY qqrigin/i CONTRACT NO. JJOMOIOI 3 JOINT AGENCY AGREEMENT (20T*r sW15 , l0 5 fi# /e_c SUMAS MOUNTAIN/SWIFT CREEK SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT U.S. EPA REGION 10 WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON USEPA SF I. INTRODUCTION 1467272 Whatcom County (the County), the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District (Flood Control Zone District), the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (EPA) (collectively, "the Parties") enter into this Joint Agency Agreement ("Agreement") to reduce the risks associated with human exposure to naturally occurring asbestos within sediment transported through the Swift Creek channel from a naturally-occurring landslide on Sumas Mountain, and/or removed, dredged, transported, or otherwise managed through human activity at certain locations. To address these concerns, the Parties have evaluated alternatives, considered public comments, identified a Project Area (see map at App. 1), and developed a framework known as the Swift Creek Sediment Management Project ("the Project"). As described below, the Project consists of a set of actions intended to address flooding and asbestos concerns for a period of ten years or more. In order to implement the Project, the Parties must first satisfy a number of legal requirements, including those established by the Washington Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Parties intend for actions selected through these processes to be the subject of this Agreement. The Parties further intend for those elements of the Project implemented under MTCA to be implemented pursuant to a consent decree entered in Superior Court of the State of Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrostratigraphy and Groundwater Flow in the Sumas Area, Whatcom County, Washington Sue Culton Kahle Western Washington University, [email protected]
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR WWU Graduate School Collection WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship Winter 1990 Hydrostratigraphy and Groundwater Flow in the Sumas Area, Whatcom County, Washington Sue Culton Kahle Western Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Kahle, Sue Culton, "Hydrostratigraphy and Groundwater Flow in the Sumas Area, Whatcom County, Washington" (1990). WWU Graduate School Collection. 662. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/662 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in WWU Graduate School Collection by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HYDROSTE^TIGRAPHY AND GROUNDWATER FLOW ,IN THE SUMAS AREA, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON • by Sue Culton Kahle accepted*'in partial ccmpletion of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Advisory Committee WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Bellingham, Washington 98225 • [2Q6] 676-3000 MASTER'S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Western Washington University, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this thesis is allowable only for scholarly purposes. It is understood, however, that any copying or publication of this thesis for commercial purposes, or for financial gain, shall not be allowed without my written permission. Date ;2j MASTER’S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Western Washington University, I grant to Western Washington University the non-exclusive royalty-free right to archive, reproduce, distribute, and display the thesis in any and all forms, including electronic format, via any digital library mechanisms maintained by WWU.
    [Show full text]
  • Sumas Dyke Trails
    81 SUMAS DYKE TRAILS ABBOTSFORD Hardpacked dyke trail 13km one way • 26km return letsgobiking.net There are many flat and scenic trails to explore on the dykes around the Sumas Prairie. What was once a large lake, drained • Enjoyed this map? Explore more in the new guidebook! in the 1920s, the Sumas Prairie is now home to dairy farms and berry fields. You’ll see views of Taggart Peak, Vedder Mountain and the Cheam Mountain Range. This easy ride links VEDDER NORTH DYKE TRAIL L I A McKay Creek Trail, Sumas River Trail, Barrowtown and Vedder R T VEDDER RIVER TRAIL E River Trail, all part of The Great Trail, and there are options to K Y 5 continue on nearby dykes. 4 D BARROWTOWN PUMP STATION D R L E SUMAS RIVER TRAIL • 7km one way • 14km return L VEDDER CANAL L A 82 Vedder R A River Trails P N START at Eldridge & Atkinson Rd - Abbotsford 3 1 EAST McKay Creek trail then Sumas River Trail KEITH 2 Cross No. 3 Rd, *visit McDonald Park WILSON BRIDGE 3 EAST on dyke to trail end, at North Parallel Rd return via same route or continue: HWY 1 BARROWTOWN - VEDDER RIVER E K 6km one way • 12km return 2 DY MCDONALD NO 3 RD PARK 4 LEFT/E N. Parallel Rd - 1 km on road, just past Barrowtown Pump station go EAST 0 1 2 on dyke trail ER RIV AS 5 M IL km RIGHT/S Vedder River Trail, U RA T S T N GT at Keith Wilson bridge U T O ER M IV E R return via same route S K A A M L U S SUMAS IL A PRAIRIE R T K E E HWY 1 R C (FORMER SUMAS LAKE) Y A LEGEND K C M 80 Discovery Trail 1 Start ATKINSON Connecting Route E D G Ride Direction ELDRI Parking Washrooms TGT - The Great Trail ABBOTSFORD Sumas Dyke 14km Dykes 12km Sumas Trail 1.5km Former Lake CAMPBELL DISCLAIMER: This map is a route aid, not to scale, does not show all roads and trails.
    [Show full text]
  • Swift Creek/Sumas Mountain, Asbestos Cluster Investigation
    Sumas Mountain / Swift Creek Asbestos Cluster Investigation Summary DOH 334-225 February 2010 Background The Washington State Department of Health completed a follow-up epidemiologic cluster investigation in October 2009 after learning that the extent of naturally occurring asbestos deposited along the Sumas River in Whatcom County, Washington, was greater than previously thought. This investigation included the area around Swift Creek and the Sumas River up to the Canadian border. The source of the naturally occurring asbestos is an active landslide on Sumas Mountain. In communities where contaminants like naturally occurring asbestos have been found, the department is responsible for ensuring that the community has the best information available about associated health issues. The purpose of this investigation was to assess whether the rate of lung and bronchial cancer and mesothelioma among people living in the study area was greater than the overall rate for Washington State or whether it was no different from what would be expected by chance alone. Investigation The number of people diagnosed with lung and bronchial cancer and mesothelioma from 1992 through 2006 was obtained from the Washington State Cancer Registry. These data were adjusted to account for differences in the age distribution of the populations. The adjustment was necessary since the rate of these cancers increases with age. The rates of cancer in the study area were compared to rates for Whatcom County and Washington State. Conclusion The results of this investigation do not suggest that the naturally occurring asbestos in the Swift Creek and Sumas River study area has contributed to an increased rate of lung and bronchial cancer or mesothelioma among people living in the area when compared to rates in Whatcom County or Washington State.
    [Show full text]
  • REGION 2 - Lower Mainland the Management Unit Boundaries Indicated on the Map Below Are Shown Only As a Reference to Help Anglers Locate Waters in the Region
    REGION 2 - Lower Mainland The Management Unit boundaries indiCated on the map below are shown only as a referenCe to help anglers loCate waters in the region. For more preCise Management Unit boundaries, please Consult one of the CommerCial Recreational Atlases available for B.C. FOR SALMON INFORMATION Fisheries and Oceans Canada District Offices (DFO) Chilliwack: (604) 824-3300 Delta: (604) 666-8266 Fish and Wildlife Regional Office R.A.P.P. Langley: (604) 607-4150 (604) 586-4400 Report All Poachers and Polluters Mission: (604) 814-1055 200-10428 153 St Conservation Officer 24 Hour Hotline Squamish (604) 892-3230 Surrey BC V3R 1E1 1-877-952-RAPP (7277) Steveston (604) 664-9250 Cellular Dial #7277 Vancouver (604) 666-0384 Fraser Valley Trout Hatchery Please refer to page 94 for more information Shellfish Information line: (604) 666-2828 (604) 504-4709 www.rapp.bc.ca 34345 Vye Rd Exotic Alert: Atlantic Salmon Abbotsford BC V2S 7P6 Please refer to the salmon section, p. 4 Conservation Officer Service REGION 2 Please call 1-877-952-7277 for reCorded information or to make an appointment at any of the following Field Offices: ChilliwaCk, Maple Ridge, North VanCouver, C r T r a D Powell River, Sechelt, C Surrey and Squamish s y e 5-6 k 100 Mile House e Tatlayoko l o s o Lake r M R C 5-5 5-3 Cr CHILKO ig B Bonaparte n LAKE r L u R R h Taseko C te o ar hk 5-4 Lakes 3-31 ap at on m FR B R Ho A S Y E a R n l a R a k m o d m a 3-32 R e Bish rd D 2-15 op o L R R So Carpenter uthg ate ge Lake R Brid Gold ive Cache Creek Kamloops r 1-15 2-14 Bridge
    [Show full text]
  • SALMON and STEELHEAD HABITAT LIMITING FACTORS in WRIA 1, the NOOKSACK BASIN July, 2002
    SALMON AND STEELHEAD HABITAT LIMITING FACTORS IN WRIA 1, THE NOOKSACK BASIN July, 2002 Carol J. Smith, Ph.D. Washington State Conservation Commission 300 Desmond Drive Lacey, Washington 98503 Acknowledgements This report was developed by the WRIA 1 Technical Advisory Group for Habitat Limiting Factors. This project would not have been possible without their vast expertise and willingness to contribute. The following participants in this project are gratefully thanked and include: Bruce Barbour, DOE Alan Chapman, Lummi Indian Nation Treva Coe, Nooksack Indian Tribe Wendy Cole, Whatcom Conservation District Ned Currence, Nooksack Indian Tribe Gregg Dunphy, Lummi Indian Nation Clare Fogelsong, City of Bellingham John Gillies, U.S.D.A. Darrell Gray, NSEA Brady Green, U.S. Forest Service Dale Griggs, Nooksack Indian Tribe Milton Holter, Lummi Indian Nation Doug Huddle, WDFW Tim Hyatt, Nooksack Indian Tribe Mike MacKay, Lummi Indian Nation Mike Maudlin, Lummi Indian Nation Shannon Moore, NSEA Roger Nichols, U.S. Forest Service Andrew Phay, Whatcom Conservation District Dr. Carol Smith, WA Conservation Commission Steve Seymour, WDFW John Thompson, Whatcom County Tyson Waldo, NWIFC SSHIAP Bob Warinner, WDFW Barry Wenger, DOE Brian Williams, WDFW Stan Zyskowski, National Park Service A special thanks to Ron McFarlane (NWIFC) for digitizing and producing maps, to Andrew Phay (Whatcom Conservation District) for supplying numerous figures, to Llyn Doremus (Nooksack Indian Tribe) for the review, and to Victor Johnson (Lummi Indian Nation) for supplying the slope instability figure. I also extend appreciation to Devin Smith (NWIFC) and Kurt Fresh (WDFW) for compiling and developing the habitat rating standards, and to Ed Manary for writing the “Habitat Limiting Factors Background”.
    [Show full text]