DOCSLIB.ORG

State of the Sandy State of the Sandy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State of the Sandy State of the Sandy STATE OF THE SANDY STATE OF THE SANDY 2 STATE OF THE SANDY - October 2017 THE SANDY UNDAMMED: A Dramatic View of a River and its Wild Salmon in Recovery Removal of the Marmot dam from the Sandy River How human communities connect around in 2007 opened a remarkable chapter in the life of stewardship, the river’s role as water source and this iconic Pacific Northwest river. Dramatic and as a well loved recreation haven. unprecedented in its scale and complexity, dam Finally, we’ll look at future opportunities to further removal was a pivotal leap, and only the first major secure the Sandy’s incredible ecological and step toward realizing the Sandy’s potential as a social legacy, and challenges we may yet need to wild salmon stronghold. overcome to sustain the watershed’s wild fish and Undamming the Sandy allowed threatened wild biodiversity for future generations. salmon and steelhead uninterrupted access to upstream spawning habitat for the first time in nearly a century. It also catalyzed a coordinated, The Sandy is emerging science-driven push to boost ecological processes as a remarkable success that help return the watershed’s wild fish to sustainable levels. Historic impacts besides story in the making, a dams had also reduced habitat productivity in tribute to the resiliency key areas. For wild fish to thrive the Sandy would need corridors of functioning floodplains and of rivers and the power of side channels, healthy streamside vegetation, and voluntary collaboration. a committed community ready to care for the watershed in the long run. Expert analyses point to indications that dam A decade beyond removal of Marmot, and removal and focused restoration are moving Little Sandy dam a year later, initial results of the Sandy in a renewed direction. As the ripples this conservation campaign are emerging. The clear from this groundbreaking effort to return collaborative restoration toward wild fish recovery a wild river to health, the Sandy is emerging as in the Sandy River basin has taken major strides. a remarkable success story in the making. It is a The following State of the Sandy reviews key tribute to the resiliency of rivers and the power changes since dam removal, summarizing the of voluntary collaboration. We thank the many Sandy’s progress in three main areas: thousands of individuals and organizations who have joined this effort already, and encourage you Priority restoration actions accomplished on the to help extend the Sandy’s ecological connectivity ground; and integrity for decades to come. Numbers of adult and juvenile salmon returning to the Sandy and its tributaries; and SANDY RIVER BASIN WATERSHED COUNCIL 3 STATE OF THE SANDY Dam Removal and Basin-wide Restoration a Decade In Removal of dams from the Sandy River basin reversed a historic trajectory for the basin that (and Marmot began when Portland General Electric (PGE) Sandy dam removal) completed the Bull Run Hydropower complex in 1913. The 47-foot high Marmot dam diverted flow by the Numbers from the Sandy River, 30 miles from its mouth on the Columbia River. A tunnel excavated through a Completion date for the mountain (historically called the Devil’s Backbone Bull Run Hydropower because of the difficulty immigrants faced hauling 1913 project, including Marmot wagons and gear over it on the Oregon Trail) and Little Sandy dams carried diverted water into the Little Sandy River, a tributary of the Bull Run. The Little Sandy dam completely dewatered the stream, sending it along Marmot dam removed 2007 Little Sandy dam removed miles of flume on a train-like wooden trestle to a 2008 reservoir, then into a powerhouse along the lower Bull Run. PGE built the dams to bring electricity to the growing city of Portland 20 miles east, also Stream miles in the main stem Sandy powering a trolley line that brought city dwellers 56 for boating and swimming at the reservoir, called used by salmon and steelhead Roslyn Lake. The dam generated about 22 MW 220 of electricity, enough to power about 16500 total in the basin modern homes. In the late 1980s a concrete layer 680 was added to the original earthen structure to cubic yards of strengthen the Marmot dam. sediment released when Marmot dam For thousands of years the Sandy and tributaries 955,000 was removed have been home to vibrant runs of wild salmon and steelhead. The Marmot and Little Sandy dams interrupted the annual fish migration, despite operation of fish passage to move migrating adults upstream. By the late 1980s, the 44 Sandy’s native spring and fall Chinook, coho, and Rare, Threatened, steelhead populations were all declining. Wild and Endangered fish throughout the Columbia basin were listed Species known in as threatened under the Endangered Species Act the Sandy Yellow-billed cuckoo 4 STATE OF THE SANDY - October 2017 Restoring Fish Habitat in the Sandy River Basin Restoring Fish Habitat in a Salmon Stronghold SanTdroyu Rtdivaeler Delta Dam Troutdale r Rive Run Gordon Creek Bull Bull Run Bull Run Reservoir #1 Reservoir #2 Bull Run Lake Little Sandy Dam Marmot Dam Sandy Sandy River MT HOOD 11,250 ft r Restoration Activities by Type ive g R Over 120 projects have been za instream Large wood placement, channel alteration Zig Government completed in the basin since 1997. Camp Of the fish riparianspecies livingPlanting, in the b invasiveasin, species removal, riparian fencing Chinook Salmon, Coho and Steelhead Sa are listed ucombinednder ther EndMultipleangere activies,d Spec iincludinges road and lm o n Act at the federal level. wetland improvement R iv r e upland Grazing, ivirrigation,e invasive plant control r ia R Lower Bull Run River (10) Note: One project can occumr bin olu fish passage DamC removal, culvert replacement multiple locations on the mapGordon an dCreek (5) may have taken place over several Little Sandy River (7) years, or be ongoing. LOWER SANDY Priority Subbasins Upper Sandy (4) BULL RUN ver Beaver Creek (11) Ri Lower Bull Run River (10) Restoration Activities biay Type lum Zigzag River (9) CoLittle Sandy Dam b Mt. Marmot Dam Gordon Creek (5) inTrsoutt rCreeeka m(8) Large bwood placement and channeLitlt lea Slatnedyr aHoodRitvieor (n7) UPPER SANDY riparian Planting, invasive species removal, riparian fencing MIDDLE SANDY LOWER SANDY Sandy River Over 120 projects have been completed in the comMainstebinemd Corridor (1)Multiple activities, including road and Uwppeert Slanndyd (4 )improvement BULL RUN basin since 1997 (above). Of the fish species living upland Grazing, irrigation, and invasive pZIGZlaAGnt control Beaver Creek (11) Alder & Wildcat Creeks (6) in the basin, Chinook Salmon, Coho and Steelhead Zigzag River (9) fish passage Dam removal, culvert replacement are listed under the Endangered Species Act at the Mt. Trout Creek (8) Salmon River (2) Hood federal level. $ SALMONUP RPEIVERR SANDY Note: One project can occur in multiple locations MIDDLE SANDY 0 10 Miles Sandy River on the map and may have taken place over several Mainstem Corridor (1) ZIGZStAGill Creek (3) years, or may be ongoing. Alder & Wildcat Creeks (6) Sandy River Basin Partners analyzed which areas represent anchor habitat (left), ranking those with Salmon River (2) SALMON RIVER the highest potential for salmon and steelhead. The main stem Sandy River, Salmon River and Still Creek (shown in bright green) gained top priority. Still Creek (3) SANDY RIVER BASIN WATERSHED COUNCIL 5 First phase of Marmot Today Marmot is a year deconstruction in July 2007. round recreational resource. (ESA) in 1998-99. Sandy populations had dropped with the river diverted by a temporary earthen by this time to 10-25% of their historic levels. coffer dam built behind the once permanent Marmot. On October 19, 2007, as calculated in Faced with a requirement to comply with the ESA dam removal plans, a seasonal storm rose with and its prohibition to harm listed species, PGE enough force to wash away the temporary dam. weighed its options to renew its federal license. An excavator cut a small notch in the coffer dam, Continued operation of the dam would require releasing first a trickle and then a roaring torrent. constructing and operating fish passage. They Approximately 19 hours later, the entire structure would need both a ladder for spawning adults was washed away. The Sandy flowed free for the to safely return upstream, and a means to safely first time in 94 years. move migrating juveniles downstream across the dam. Recognizing that dam removal would cost customers less in the long run, PGE committed in Restoration Results: 1999 to voluntarily removing Marmot and Little Sandy dams, and their associated infrastructure. Piling on Priority Actions Planning for the physical dam removal took several through Collaboration, years. A coalition of agencies and conservation Partnership, Persistence groups consulted with the utility on the terms and process under which PGE would withdraw The decision to remove dams from the Sandy its hydropower license. No such surrender of catalyzed a broad, collaborative restoration a license had occurred before, so the extent of campaign that leverages efforts across two responsibility for river conditions once the dam counties, dozens of organizations and thousands removed had to be defined. PGE eventually agreed of volunteers. Motivated by the prospect of a free to dismantle the dams, transfer related water flowing Sandy, a group of public and nonprofit rights to the state as instream rights, donate agencies formed the Sandy River Basin Partners much of the project’s land to public ownership, (SRBP) in 1999. Also around that time, the Portland prevent invasives from colonizing those lands, and Water Bureau developed a long term plan to monitoring river conditions for several years. comply with the ESA listings and habitat impacts from the water supply dams and operation in the Deconstruction at Marmot began in summer 2007, Bull Run.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland Water Bureau and United States Forest Service Bull Run Watershed Management Unit Annual Report April 2019
    Portland Water Bureau and United States Forest Service Bull Run Watershed Management Unit Annual Report April 2019 Bull Run Watershed Semi-Annual Meeting 1 2 CONTENTS A. OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 4 B. SECURITY and ACCESS MANAGEMENT ................................................................. 4 Bull Run Security Access Policies and Procedures ...................................................... 4 C. EMERGENCY PLANNING and RESPONSE .............................................................. 5 Life Flight Helicopter Landing Zones ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. D. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ................................................................................... 5 2018 Projects: Road 10 (“10H”; Road 10 Shoulder Repair) ......................................... 5 2019 Projects: Road 10 (“10R”: MP 28.77 - 31.85) ....................................................... 5 E. FIRE PLANNING, PREVENTION, DETECTION, and SUPPRESSION ................... 6 Other Fires - 2017 ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Hickman Butte Fire Lookout ........................................................................................ 7 F. WATER MONITORING (Quality and Quantity) ...................................................... 8 G. NATURAL RESOURCES – TERRESTRIAL ............................................................... 9 Invasive Species - Plants ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Freshwater Resources on Mount Hood National Forest Recommendations for Policy Changes
    PROTECTING FRESHWATER RESOURCES ON MOUNT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY CHANGES Produced by PACIFIC RIVERS COUNCIL Protecting Freshwater Resources on Mount Hood National Forest Pacific Rivers Council January 2013 Fisherman on the Salmon River Acknowledgements This report was produced by John Persell, in partnership with Bark and made possible by funding from The Bullitt Foundation and The Wilburforce Foundation. Pacific Rivers Council thanks the following for providing relevant data and literature, reviewing drafts of this paper, offering important discussions of issues, and otherwise supporting this project. Alex P. Brown, Bark Dale A. McCullough, Ph.D. Susan Jane Brown Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission Western Environmental Law Center G. Wayne Minshall, Ph.D. Lori Ann Burd, J.D. Professor Emeritus, Idaho State University Dennis Chaney, Friends of Mount Hood Lisa Moscinski, Gifford Pinchot Task Force Matthew Clark Thatch Moyle Patrick Davis Jonathan J. Rhodes, Planeto Azul Hydrology Rock Creek District Improvement Company Amelia Schlusser Richard Fitzgerald Pacific Rivers Council 2011 Legal Intern Pacific Rivers Council 2012 Legal Intern Olivia Schmidt, Bark Chris A. Frissell, Ph.D. Mary Scurlock, J.D. Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild Kimberly Swan Courtney Johnson, Crag Law Center Clackamas River Water Providers Clair Klock Steve Whitney, The Bullitt Foundation Klock Farm, Corbett, Oregon Thomas Wolf, Oregon Council Trout Unlimited Bronwen Wright, J.D. Pacific Rivers Council 317 SW Alder Street, Suite 900 Portland, OR 97204 503.228.3555 | 503.228.3556 fax [email protected] pacificrivers.org Protecting Freshwater Resources on Mt. Hood National Forest: 2 Recommendations for Policy Change Table of Contents Executive Summary iii Part One: Introduction—An Urban Forest 1 Part Two: Watersheds of Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Spring 6-8-2017 Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed Alexander Cameron Nagel Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geography Commons, Hydrology Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Nagel, Alexander Cameron, "Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed" (2017). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4012. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5896 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed by Alexander Cameron Nagel A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geography Thesis Committee: Heejun Chang, Chair Geoffrey Duh Paul Loikith Portland State University 2017 i Abstract This study conducts a dam-scale cost versus benefit analysis in order to explore the feasibility of each the 13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) commissioned dams in Oregon’s Willamette River network. Constructed between 1941 and 1969, these structures function in collaboration to comprise the Willamette River Basin Reservoir System (WRBRS). The motivation for this project derives from a growing awareness of the biophysical impacts that dam structures can have on riparian habitats. This project compares each of the 13 dams being assessed, to prioritize their level of utility within the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Tuesday and Thursday Series of Day Hikes and Rambles, Most Within Two Hours of Lake Oswego
    Lake Oswego Parks & Recreation Hikes and Rambles Spring/Summer 2015 Calendar of Hikes/Rambles/Walks Welcome to our Tuesday and Thursday series of day hikes and rambles, most within two hours of Lake Oswego. Information is also available at LO Park & Rec Activities Catalog . To recieve weekly News email send your request to [email protected]. Hikes are for hikers of intermediate ability. Hiking distance is usually between 6 - 10 miles, and usually with an elevation gain/loss between 800 - 2000 ft. Longer hikes, greater elevation gains or unusual trail conditions will be noted in the hike description. Hikes leave at 8:00 a.m., unless otherwise indicated. Rambles are typically shorter, less rugged, and more leisurely paced -- perfect for beginners. Outings are usually 5-7 miles with comfortable elevation gains and good trail conditions. Leaves promptly at 8:30a unless otherwise noted. Meeting Places All hikes and rambles leave from the City of Lake Oswego West End Building (WEB), 4101 Kruse Way, Lake Oswego. Park in the lower parking lot (behind the building) off of Kruse Way. Individual hike or ramble descriptions may include second pickup times and places. (See included places table.) for legend. All mileages indicated are roundtrip. Second Meeting Places Code Meeting Place AWHD Airport Way Home Depot, Exit 24-B off I-205, SW corner of parking lot CFM Clackamas Fred Meyer, Exit 12-A off I-205, north lot near Elmer's End of the Oregon Trail Interpretative Center, Exit 10 off I-205, right on Washington Street to EOT parking lot by covered wagons Jantzen Beach Target,Exit 308 off I-5, left on N Hayden Island, left on N Parker, SE corner JBT Target parking lot L&C Lewis and Clark State Park.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.2 Flood Level of Risk* to Flooding Is a Common Occurrence in Northwest Oregon
    PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT 11/07/2016 3.2 Flood Level of Risk* to Flooding is a common occurrence in Northwest Oregon. All Flood Hazards jurisdictions in the Planning Area have rivers with high flood risk called Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), except Wood High Village. Portions of the unincorporated area are particularly exposed to high flood risk from riverine flooding. •Unicorporated Multnomah County Developed areas in Gresham and Troutdale have moderate levels of risk to riverine flooding. Preliminary Flood Insurance Moderate Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the Sandy River developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2016 •Gresham •Troutdale show significant additional risk to residents in Troutdale. Channel migration along the Sandy River poses risk to Low-Moderate hundreds of homes in Troutdale and unincorporated areas. •Fairview Some undeveloped areas of unincorporated Multnomah •Wood Village County are subject to urban flooding, but the impacts are low. Developed areas in the cities have a more moderate risk to Low urban flooding. •None Levee systems protect low-lying areas along the Columbia River, including thousands of residents and billions of dollars *Level of risk is based on the local OEM in assessed property. Though the probability of levee failure is Hazard Analysis scores determined by low, the impacts would be high for the Planning Area. each jurisdiction in the Planning Area. See Appendix C for more information Dam failure, though rare, can causing flooding in downstream on the methodology and scoring. communities in the Planning Area. Depending on the size of the dam, flooding can be localized or extreme and far-reaching.
    [Show full text]
  • Bull Run River Water Temperature Evaluation, June 2004
    Bull Run River Water Temperature Evaluation Prepared by: City of Portland Bureau of Water Works Portland, Oregon June 2004 Contents Page Preface................................................................................................................................................... 1 Report Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 1 Report Organization............................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................ 2 Section 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3 The Bull Run River and Associated Water Development ................................................ 3 Current and Historical Anadromous Fish Use of the Lower Bull Run .......................... 3 Historical and Current City Water Supply Operations .................................................... 4 River Reaches of the Bull Run River.................................................................................... 4 Water Quality Criteria and Beneficial Uses of the Bull Run ............................................ 5 Section 2. What were the pre-project (natural) temperature conditions in the lower Bull Run River? ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Columbia River Gorge: Its Geologic History Interpreted from the Columbia River Highway by IRA A
    VOLUMB 2 NUMBBI3 NOVBMBBR, 1916 . THE .MINERAL · RESOURCES OF OREGON ' PuLhaLed Monthly By The Oregon Bureau of Mines and Geology Mitchell Point tunnel and viaduct, Columbia River Hi~hway The .. Asenstrasse'' of America The Columbia River Gorge: its Geologic History Interpreted from the Columbia River Highway By IRA A. WILLIAMS 130 Pages 77 Illustrations Entered aa oeoond cl,... matter at Corvallis, Ore., on Feb. 10, l9lt, accordintt to tbe Act or Auc. :U, 1912. .,.,._ ;t ' OREGON BUREAU OF MINES AND GEOLOGY COMMISSION On1cm or THm Co><M188ION AND ExmBIT OREGON BUILDING, PORTLAND, OREGON Orncm or TBm DtBIICTOR CORVALLIS, OREGON .,~ 1 AMDJ WITHY COMBE, Governor HENDY M. PABKB, Director C OMMISSION ABTBUB M. SWARTLEY, Mining Engineer H. N. LAWRill:, Port.land IRA A. WILLIAMS, Geologist W. C. FELLOWS, Sumpter 1. F . REDDY, Grants Pass 1. L. WooD. Albany R. M. BIITT8, Cornucopia P. L. CAI<PBELL, Eugene W 1. KEBR. Corvallis ........ Volume 2 Number 3 ~f. November Issue {...j .· -~ of the MINERAL RESOURCES OF OREGON Published by The Oregon Bureau of Mines and Geology ~•, ;: · CONTAINING The Columbia River Gorge: its Geologic History l Interpreted from the Columbia River Highway t. By IRA A. WILLIAMS 130 Pages 77 Illustrations 1916 ILLUSTRATIONS Mitchell Point t unnel and v iaduct Beacon Rock from Columbia River (photo by Gifford & Prentiss) front cover Highway .. 72 Geologic map of Columbia river gorge. 3 Beacon Rock, near view . ....... 73 East P ortland and Mt. Hood . 1 3 Mt. Hamilton and Table mountain .. 75 Inclined volcanic ejecta, Mt. Tabor. 19 Eagle creek tuff-conglomerate west of Lava cliff along Sandy river.
    [Show full text]
  • Volcano Hazards in the Mount Hood Region, Oregon
    U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey VOLCANO HAZARDS IN THE MOUNT HOOD REGION, OREGON By W.E. Scott1, T.C. Pierson1, S.P. Schilling1, J.E. Costa1, C.A. Gardner1, J.W. Vallance2, and J.J. Major1 1. U.S. Geological Survey, Cascades Volcano Observatory, 5400 MacArthur Boulevard, Vancouver, WA 98661 2. McGill University, Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, 817 Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada Open-File Report 97-89 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 1997 CONTENTS Summary 1 Introduction 1 Past hazardous events 1 Lava eruptions, pyroclastic flows, and related lahars 2 Debris avalanches and lahars 4 Tephra falls 6 Volcano-hazards-zonation map 7 Proximal hazard zones 8 Distal hazard zones 9 Sandy River drainage 9 White River drainage 10 Hood River drainage 10 Tephra-hazard zones 10 Regional lava-flow hazard zone 11 How large an event is possible at Mount Hood? 11 Hazard forecasts and warnings 11 Protecting our communities and our families from volcano hazards 12 References and suggested additional reading 14 End notes 14 ILLUSTRATIONS Volcano hazards in the Mount Hood region, Oregon (large map) In pocket Key geologic events in the Mount Hood region during the past 30,000 years 2 Hazardous geologic events at Mount Hood 3 Photograph of upper south flank of Mount Hood showing the lava dome of Crater Rock and the head of the fan of pyroclastic-flow and lahar deposits below it.
    [Show full text]
  • CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON and INCORPORATED AREAS Volume 3 of 3 Clackamas County
    CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON AND INCORPORATED AREAS Volume 3 of 3 Clackamas County Community Community Name Number BARLOW, CITY OF 410013 CANBY, CITY OF 410014 DAMASCUS, CITY OF 410006 *ESTACADA, CITY OF 410016 GLADSTONE, CITY OF 410017 HAPPY VALLEY, CITY OF 410026 *JOHNSON CITY, CITY OF 410267 LAKE OSWEGO, CITY OF 410018 MILWAUKIE, CITY OF 410019 *MOLALLA, CITY OF 410020 OREGON CITY, CITY OF 410021 RIVERGROVE, CITY OF 410022 SANDY, CITY OF 410023 WEST LINN, CITY OF 410024 WILSONVILLE, CITY OF 410025 CLACKAMAS COUNTY 415588 (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) *No Special Flood Hazard Areas Identified REVISED: JANUARY 18, 2019 Reprinted with corrections on December 6, 2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 41005CV003B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial Countywide Effective Date: June 17, 2008 Revised Countywide Date: January 18, 2019 This FIS report was reissued on December 6, 2019 to make corrections; this version replaces any previous versions.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction, Project Description and Sandy River Physical Geography
    Sandy River Riparian Habitat Protection Project Report 2000-2003 The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Field Office Jonathan Soll - Project Manager Doug Kreuzer – Ecological Monitoring Coordinator Brian Lipinski – Outreach, Education, and Volunteer Coordinator Kyle Strauss – Field and River Access Coordinator January 2004 Sandy River Riparian Habitat Protection Project Report 2000-2003 Addendum regarding stem injection of herbicides For the control of Japanese and giant knotweed The stem injection method treatments described in this report were conducted by The Nature Conservancy and Metro Parks and Greenspaces as part of an experiment through an Experimental Use Permit granted by the Oregon Department of Agriculture, and as such we cautioned that the use of stem injection without a special permit was illegal. As of January 30, 2004 however, the Oregon Department of Agriculture received the supplemental label for use of the Monsanto product Aquamaster (53.8% glyphosate; 46.2% water) to control Japanese and giant knotweed by stem injection method. The label reflected the changes requested by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The use of Aquamaster as per the supplemental label directions is approved for use in Oregon. For practitioners in the Pacific Northwest: the Monsanto representative in Vancouver, Washington, Ron Crockett, can be contacted at telephone (360) 892-9884. He, his company or distributors should have the supplemental labels available with all the use directions. We expect a similar approval by EPA for Rodeo (Dow Agrosciences version of the same product) in the near future. Contact the Oregon Department of Agriculture with any questions. Please note that this decision does not affect the legality of this method in any other state.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildwood Recreation Site Brochure
    PLEASE BLM Salem District • Leash and pick up after your pet. • Leave your picnic site cleaner than you Wildwood found it. R E C R E A T I O N S I T E • Respect others and behave courteously. If your actions create a problem for Come Experience the Magic Welcome to Wildwood! others, you will be asked to leave. of Rivers and the Miracle of Salmon • Amplified music is not allowed. Heart of the Upper Sandy River Watershed • Lock your car and keep valuables out of sight. ildwood is nestled in the forested Astoria • No skateboarding 30 foothills of the Cascade Mountains, 26 Pendleton • Stay on trails to avoid trampling Portland 84 Tillamook The Dalles vegetation and disturbing wildlife. along the spectacular Wild and 101 N 197 395 84 W 5 97 Scenic Salmon River. Wildwood is a day-use A Salem • DON'T bring glass containers near E Wildwood the river. facility located 40 miles east of Portland, off U.S. C Newport Recreation 26 Baker O City Madras Highway 26, just past the 39 mile marker. Albany Site 26 • DON'T fish, swim, or wade in waters that 20 Eugene Bend are restricted — including at or near the Florence Vale underwater viewing chamber. 20 C Managed by the USDI Bureau of Land I F O R E G O N Coos Bay Burns I Roseburg Management, this 550-acre forest park C 97 GENERAL INFORMATION AND FEES A 5 features Cascade Streamwatch and Wetland P 101 395 95 The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Wildwood Boardwalk interpretive trails and offers access Grants Pass Medford Recreation Site is open from mid-March through Klamath Lakeview Thanksgiving weekend (8:00 am to sunset).
    [Show full text]