DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 6 Recreation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 6 Recreation Chapter 6 Recreation Words in bold and acronyms This chapter describes existing recreation resources in the project area, and are defined in how the project alternatives could affect these resources. Related Chapter 32, information can be found in Chapter 5, Land and Chapter 7, Visual Resources. Glossary and Economic values of recreation in the project area are discussed in Chapter 11, Acronyms. Socioeconomics. 6.1 Affected Environment Recreation resources are found in both urban and rural portions of the project area within Cowlitz and Clark counties, Washington, and Multnomah County, Oregon. These resources include urban parks and greenways, developed facilities in rural areas such as campgrounds or trailheads, and undeveloped rural areas. Recreational activities within the three counties include boating, fishing, hunting, target practice, camping, hiking, swimming, picnicking, sports games, wildlife watching, ATV use, sightseeing, horseback riding, and mountain biking. These activities occur in dedicated areas such as parks and other developed recreation facilities, on motorized and non-motorized trails, and in dispersed areas such as open space (see Maps 6-1A through 6-1E). Although these maps show recreation resources throughout the project area, for this analysis, a study area for recreation resources was identified to include a 2,000-foot-wide corridor along the entire route of each action alternative, 1,000 feet on either side of the transmission line centerline. This study area includes all project facilities. In the western and southern portions of the study area, recreation resources are closely spaced, urban, and generally more fragmented. In the eastern portion, recreation resources tend to be larger, more contiguous, and more rural. There are many recreation resources scattered throughout Cowlitz, Clark, and Multnomah counties outside of the study area (see Maps 6-1A through 6-1E). Recreation resources within the study area are owned by public and private entities within Cowlitz, Clark, and Multnomah counties, and the cities of Castle Rock, Vancouver, Camas, Washougal, Fairview, and Troutdale. These resources are managed under the following plans: Cowlitz County Comprehensive Park Plan Update (Cowlitz County 2010b) Cowlitz Regional Trails Plan (Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments (CWCOG) 2006) Vancouver-Clark Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (Vancouver- Clark Parks and Recreation Department 2007) Final Recreation Resource Management Plan, Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Project Nos. 935, 2071 and 2111 (EDAW, Inc. and PacifiCorp 2008) Western Yacolt Burn Forest Recreation Plan (WDNR 2010a) City of Troutdale, Parks Master Plan (City of Troutdale 2006) I-5 Corridor Reinforcement Project Final EIS 6-1 Chapter 6 Recreation City of Camas; Park, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan (City of Camas 2007) City of Fairview Comprehensive Plan (City of Fairview 2004) City of Castle Rock and Castle Rock School District Park and Recreation Plan (CWCOG 2011a) Washington State Scenic and Recreational Highways Strategic Plan (Washington Department of Revenue 2010) Portland-Vancouver Bi-State Trails System Plan (Intertwine Alliance 2010) Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan (Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area Management Plan Amended, 2011). Recreation resources within the study area were identified as existing (a dedicated recreation use, or funded and scheduled for development in 2015; see Table 6-1 and Sections 6.1.1 through 6.1.8) or planned (not a dedicated recreation use, and scheduled for funding or development after 2015; see Table 6-2). 6-2 I-5 Corridor Reinforcement Project Final EIS I-5 Corridor Reinforcement Project ST411 Map 6-1A: Recreation Rock ") Casey Road C r e INSET MAP Substation Site ek C ") ") ") B ") ") ") a o 5 ") r ") x ¨¦§ e ") t e w iv r R l i t z e R tl u o T Baxter Road C i r v e 411 ST e Substation Site e k r W ee s s Castle Rock H.S. t t Castle Rock H.S. s s andand AlAl HelenbergHelenberg i i Memorial Boat Launch Riverfront d Memorial Boat Launch d Trail (East) e e H piri Mo w it L n S Lake a A y M h Cre e a n ek k a e r Castle Rock m n See Inset Map High School and o s Al Helenberg r Seaquest i a Memorial ia State Park s Boat Launch l H wy C ST504 re e k Silver Lake Riverfront Castle .! Trail (East) k Rock e Monahan Creek C re Substation Site er et m a l e D LEGEND rander st C ") re Proposed Transmission Towers O e k Preferred Substation Site L )" e ck )" Other Proposed Substation Sites le r C r Preferred Alternative - Central Alternative e using Central Option 1 (not drawn to scale) e C o w l i t z C o k Original Central Alternative Other Proposed Alternatives and Options (not drawn to scale) 4 ST New Access Roads Riverside .! k Park S e o r e Existing Public or Private Roads to be Improved .! Ostrander nder C u tra t s Temporary Roads Pa h c O i Lexington f ic F k o Airport W or Roy a Morse y Park Ocean Mint Valley Beach .! City or Town Golf Course Nevad e a vv D 411 M Longview r ST AA " Dam t Country Club ) t S 4 cc ST ii o ff l i Urban Area l i o c e c o 38th Ave v a A a A P R P County Boundary Rd Industrial Way hh t t 0 NN AA 0 Hwy 3 y State Boundary 3 .! l l s Al t ll t le o n tt o S Tam "O" n SS n G .! Note: The Preferred Alternative has been refined to further G Shatner Park - - Longview/Kelso r minimize and avoid impacts to the natural and human ee r M a C environment whereM possible. 432 vv d o a ST w a AA y e y SS g g cc Lake ii S e e e f Recreation Type Sacajawea f K i i t r r Park c e c e a a R 7th7th AveAve R 15th15th AveAve ll Greenway s m R P P d d i o a n v e G Park D T Three Rivers rr o Golf Course a r ll Dispersed Recreational Area ll b e le y C Recreational Facility o r W e e 433 a ST a k y Marina or Boat Launch ST432 y Golf Course Trails ¤£30 Motorized Non-Motorized .! Miles 30 0 0.75 1.5 3 Rainier ¤£ C o L l o u Map 6-1A: Recreation w e m r b 5 C ¨¦§ o i l a µ u m b b i i a a R R i d Columbia Co i d v C RR v R e ll e la iill r t r s HH i k v nn a r r H R H n e e e w i w K i F a v F l This producte was made for informational and display purposes only and was r a e y r y ma R created with best available data at time of production. It does not represent iv any legal information or boundaries. Sources: BPA 2015, Clark County 2011d, er Clark County 2015a, CWCOG 2015, Metro 2011, Metro 2015, USGS 2009 and WDNR 2015a. K a la m a LEGEND Baird I-5 Corridor Reinforcement Project Mtn )" Preferred Substation Site Map 6-1B: Recreation )" Other Proposed Substation Sites Preferred Alternative - Central Alternative using Central Option 1 (not drawn to scale) Co we r em e Original Central Alternative a iv n R Other Proposed Alternatives and Options (not drawn to scale) New Access Roads Existing Public or Private Roads to be Improved rk Temporary Roads Fo Gob h le G rt C o re o Airport o N ek River b le C .! City or Town r e a e m )" Dama k Elk l Mtn a KUrban Area reek C o w l i t z C o Goble C County Boundary State Boundary W i l Georges Note: The Preferred Alternative has been refined to further d minimize and avoid impacts to the natural and human H Peak k o e environment where possible. Baldy Mtn r e s Shelley r e C Recreation Type C Mtn k l Greenway r k E e e r e e e r iv Park C k R r k a Dispersed Recreational Area e e B Recreational Facility e r Marina or Boat Launch C K alam r a Golf Course a b Trails o Pigeon G Motorized Springs Lakeview Peak Non-Motorized K S a p l a e m A r e a n l o y l a Miles d i K 0 0.75 1.5 3 C n C r o r e w e e e l r k k e t iv R o C r R n e e o µ k c k C r e e k e k a L e l Davis 503 a Peak ST Y This product was made for informational and display purposes only and was created with best available data at time of production. It does not represent any legal information or boundaries. Sources: BPA 2015, Clark County 2011d, Clark County 2015a, CWCOG 2015, Metro 2011, Metro 2015, USGS 2009 Lake Merwin and WDNR 2015a. k Speely e a i C reek e C o w l i t z C o Map 6-1B: Recreation r C n o s n h o )" J Lake Merwin Siouxon LEGEND k Speelyai Speely e Picnic a k ") Area i C ree dd Proposed Transmission Towers e C o wk l i t z C o R r e R e ee C r gg )" Preferred Substation Site iidd C rr n Cresap Bay MERWIN Campground BB Saddle o Other Proposed Substation Sites e e Dam Park )" l l s n i DAM Lake Green M aa n oun Merwin tain YY Preferred Alternative - Central Alternative lv Park h .! 503 o )" ST using Central Option 1 (not drawn to scale) Lewis River o C )" Motorcyle Track J YALE Original Central Alternative L Ariel ew re wis iiver Rd 503 SEE INSET p C e k R ST r MAP 1 u DAM Other Proposed Alternatives and Options Haapa Boat ve P Lewis River Launch i (not drawn to scale) Golf Course R Ca k ny n e dd o C e RR C Existing Public or Private Roads to be Improved e r Lewis d ar Cre ee r ek C gg e iid SEE INSET n rr ek New Access Roads h BB MAP 2 o ee J l NE Cedar l Temporary Roads r a C a r k Tumtum e Y e Y e e k e Mtn E r E o Airport R N Bald d C N Mtn d NE 399th St ie .! City or Town Bratton Canyon ela tch Ch 503 INSET MAP 1 S Amboy )" Dam Territorial Lake Park Marwin .! Urban Area Park Amboy F l NE 379 y County Boundary Northern Clark 9tth Stt County Scenic Drive F r L ake Hwy C E F arg he rr y r State Boundary ") NN e k C e e ") ST503 e k Note: The Preferred Alternative has been refined to further e ") d minimize and avoid impacts to the natural and human r a environment where possible.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix B – Communications Received
    APPENDIX B – COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED This appendix contains all the communications received during the post-centerline release period from November 18, 2010 through December 31, 2011. In addition, the table below contains contact and organization names and the communication identification number assigned to each communication. The communication text in this appendix is ordered by the communication identification number. For reference, the table below is ordered by last name followed by illegible and anonymous signatures. Referenced attachments can be found by searching for the communication on the project website http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/I-5-EIS/search.cfm. Number Date Name - First Name - Last Organization 13665 7/20/2011 ANDREW ABBOTT 13665 7/20/2011 JACK ABERNATHY 13665 7/20/2011 CRYSTAL L ADAMS 13395 1/29/2011 PHIL AKELY 13667 7/20/2011 AMBER ALEXANDER 13665 7/20/2011 BOB ALEXANDER 13665 7/20/2011 CHEE ALLISON 13755 10/6/2011 ROBERT AMMONS 13683 8/3/2011 CANDICE D ANDERSON 13418 2/10/2011 CURTIS L ANDERSON 13207 12/2/2010 M. ANDERSON 13073 11/22/2010 GINA L ANDREWS STATE OF WASHINGTON, RECREATION AND 13836 12/15/2011 JIM ANEST CONSERVATION OFFICE 13665 7/20/2011 TRAVIS APP 13665 7/20/2011 BOB APPLING 13665 7/20/2011 JEREMY ARIONUS 13665 7/20/2011 CHUCK ARNST 13322 12/8/2010 DALE W AROLA 13321 12/9/2010 DALE W AROLA 13320 12/10/2010 DALE W AROLA 13527 1/28/2011 DALE W AROLA 13320 12/10/2010 DARREN F AROLA 13527 1/28/2011 DARREN F AROLA 13321 12/9/2010 DWAYNE D AROLA 13527 1/28/2011 DWAYNE D AROLA 13665 7/20/2011 BRIAN ASBURRY 13665
    [Show full text]
  • 1998 WA State Scenic River Assessment
    ------------------- Washington· State Scenic River Assessment September 1988 SCBNIC RIVBR WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Edward T. Luders, Chair Queenie H. Allado Dick Dixon Glenna S. Hall Moyes Lucas John L. (Jack) Shreve Melvin D. Wortman Jan Tveten, Director T. J. France, Assistant Director, Resources Development Scenic Rivers Program Steven A. Starlund, Manager Committee of Participating Agencies: Jim Scott, Department of Ecology Lorinda Anderson, lnteragency Committee for Outdoor Recreation George Volker, Department of Wildlife Sam Wright, Department of Fisheries Jerry Probst, Department of Natural Resources Don Lund, Department of Transportation Doug Baker, Association of Washington Cities Tom Niemann, Represents Washington Association of Counties Melvin W. Oleson, Citizen Donn Charnley, Citizen ------------------- ------------------- Washington State Scenic River Assessment September 1988 Prepared by the Washington State Scenic Rivers Program Committee of Participating Agencies with the National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission ------------------- September 1988 Dear Citizen, The rivers of Washington are among the state's outstanding resources. We enjoy them in many ways, from the pleasures of their scenic beauty, natural quality, and evidence of history and prehistory to the more pragmatic benefits of their fisheries, power supply capabilities, and potential to supply water for irrigation, consumption, and recreation. As the population of our state grows, all of the emotional and physical demands we place on rivers will increase. While there are many state programs which allow or encourage the development of rivers to meet the pragmatic goals of power supply and irrigation, there were, until 1977, none that focussed solely on maintaining some of our rivers in their natural condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Older Forests Used by Northern Spotted Owls Functioned As Re Refugia
    Older forests used by northern spotted owls functioned as re refugia during large wildres, 1987–2017 Damon B Lesmeister ( [email protected] ) USDA Forest Service Pacic Northwest Research Station https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1102-0122 Raymond J. Davis USDA Forest Service Region 6: USDA Forest Service Pacic Northwest Region Stan G. Sovern USDA Forest Service Pacic Northwest Research Station Zhiqiang Yang USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Research Article Keywords: Northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, wildre severity, RdNBR, climate change, re refugia Posted Date: March 12th, 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-280175/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Page 1/27 Abstract Background The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) is an Endangered Species Act-listed subspecies that requires forests with old-growth characteristics for nesting. With climate change, large, severe wildres are expected to be more common and an increasing threat to spotted owl persistence. Understanding re severity patterns related to nesting forest can be valuable for forest management that supports conservation and recovery, especially if nesting forest functions as re refugia (i.e., lower re severity than surrounding landscape). We examined the relationship between re severity and nesting forests in 472 large wildres (> 200 ha) that occurred rangewide during 1987–2017. We mapped re severities (unburned-low, moderate, high) within each re using relative difference normalized burn ratios and quantied differences in severity between pre-re nesting forest (edge and interior) and non-nesting forest. We also quantied these relationships within areas of three re regimes (low severity, very frequent; mixed severity, frequent; high severity, infrequent).
    [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]
  • RCFB April 2021 Page 1 Agenda TUESDAY, April 27 OPENING and MANAGEMENT REPORTS 9:00 A.M
    REVISED 4/8/21 Proposed Agenda Recreation and Conservation Funding Board April 27, 2021 Online Meeting ATTENTION: Protecting the public, our partners, and our staff are of the utmost importance. Due to health concerns with the novel coronavirus this meeting will be held online. The public is encouraged to participate online and will be given opportunities to comment, as noted below. If you wish to participate online, please click the link below to register and follow the instructions in advance of the meeting. Technical support for the meeting will be provided by RCO’s board liaison who can be reached at [email protected]. Registration Link: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_JqkQAGCrRSOwbHLmg3a6oA Phone Option: (669)900-6833 - Webinar ID: 967 5491 2108 Location: RCO will also have a public meeting location for members of the public to listen via phone as required by the Open Public Meeting Act, unless this requirement is waived by gubernatorial executive order. In order to enter the building, the public must not exhibit symptoms of the COVID-19 and will be required to comply with current state law around personal protective equipment. RCO staff will meet the public in front of the main entrance to the natural resources building and escort them in. *Additionally, RCO will record this meeting and would be happy to assist you after the meeting to gain access to the information. Order of Presentation: In general, each agenda item will include a short staff presentation and followed by board discussion. The board only makes decisions following the public comment portion of the agenda decision item.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects FERC Project Nos
    Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects FERC Project Nos. 935, 2071, 2111, 2213 Photo courtesy of Kim McCune, PacifiCorp – June 2018 2018 Annual Report Annual Summary of License Implementation and Compliance: Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources April 12, 2019 Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects FERC Nos. 935, 2071, 2111, 2213 Annual Summary of License Implementation and Compliance: Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources 2018 Annual Report ©2005 PACIFICORP | PAGE 1 Lewis River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Nos. 935, 2071, 2111 & 2213) Annual Report 2018 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 7 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.1.1 Lewis River Settlement Agreement ............................................................................................. 8 1.1.2 Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................................................... 8 1.1.3 Agency Terms and Conditions ................................................................................................... 8 1.1.4 Endangered Species Act Consultations ...................................................................................... 9 1.1.5 Water Quality Certifications .....................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Designation of Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead; Proposed Rule
    Vol. 78 Monday, No. 9 January 14, 2013 Part II Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 226 Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:31 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 2726 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Fax: 503–230–5441, Attn: Steve in the evolutionary legacy of the Stone. biological species (56 FR 58612, National Oceanic and Atmospheric • Mail: Chief, Protected Resources November 20, 1991). We determined Administration Division, Northwest Region, National that a group of Pacific steelhead Marine Fisheries Service, 1201 NE. populations qualifies as a DPS if it is 50 CFR Part 226 Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR markedly separate and significant to its [Docket No. 110726419–2714–01] 97232. taxon (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996; 71 Instructions: Comments will be FR 834, January 5, 2006). In previous RIN 0648–BB30 posted for public viewing as soon as rulemaking we determined that lower possible during the comment period. All Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June Endangered and Threatened Species; comments received are a part of the 28, 2005) and Puget Sound steelhead (72 Designation of Critical Habitat for public record and will generally be FR 26722, May 11, 2007) are each DPSs Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon posted to http://www.regulations.gov that warrant protection as threatened and Puget Sound Steelhead without change.
    [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]