DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix B Vulnerability Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix B Vulnerability Assessment Appendix B Vulnerability Assessment 135 136 Vulnerability Assessment Thurston Regional Planning Council December 2016 FINAL 0 137 This page is left blank intentionally. 1 138 Contributors Report Authors Michael Burnham, Associate Planner, TRPC Ben Silver, GIS Technician, TRPC Science Advisory Committee Lara Whitely Binder, Senior Strategist, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group Carrie Parr (Pucko), Professor of Biology and Environmental Studies, The Evergreen State College Chris Ellings, Salmon Recovery Program Manager, Nisqually Indian Tribe Candace Penn, Climate Change Specialist, Squaxin Island Tribe Morgan Greene, Program Coordinator, Nisqually River Council Other Technical Reviewers Eric Christensen, Water Resources Planning and Engineering Manager, City of Olympia Andrew Kinney, Emergency Management Coordinator, Thurston County Art Starry, Environmental Health Director, Thurston County Chris Hawkins, Community Engagement, Evidence and Partnerships Manager, Thurston County Project Team Michael Burnham, Associate Planner & Project Manager, TRPC Allison Osterberg, Senior Planner, Thurston County Veena Tabbutt, Interim Executive Director, TRPC Paul Brewster, Senior Planner, TRPC Scott Carte, GIS Coordinator Michael Ambrogi, Senior GIS Analyst, TRPC Ben Silver, GIS Technician Katrina Van Every, Associate Planner, TRPC Acknowledgments The Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) prepared this report, which assesses how human and natural systems within Thurston County’s Puget Sound-draining watersheds are vulnerable to climate change, as part of the Thurston Climate Adaptation Plan. The ongoing planning effort is funded by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Estuary Program grant (#: 15-63401-001), which is being administered by the Washington Department of Commerce. For more information, please visit www.trpc.org/climate. 2 139 This page is left blank intentionally. 3 140 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Approach ................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Scenarios & Models ................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Spatial Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Organization .............................................................................................................................. 9 1.5 Summary Findings ................................................................................................................... 10 2. Troposphere ................................................................................................................................ 15 2.1 Air Temperature ...................................................................................................................... 15 Annual Changes ................................................................................................................ 15 Seasonal Changes.............................................................................................................. 16 Daily Changes .................................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 22 2.3 Precipitation ............................................................................................................................ 23 Annual & Seasonal Changes .............................................................................................. 23 Storm Frequency & Intensity ............................................................................................ 26 Snowfall & Snowpack Volume .......................................................................................... 29 3. Freshwater Ecosystems ............................................................................................................... 32 3.1 Streams .................................................................................................................................... 32 Water Volume Vulnerability ............................................................................................. 32 Hydropower Vulnerability................................................................................................. 36 Water Temperature & Salmonid Vulnerability ................................................................. 38 Water Quality Vulnerability .............................................................................................. 43 3.2 Lakes ........................................................................................................................................ 45 Water Temperature & Quality Vulnerability .................................................................... 45 3.3 Wetlands .................................................................................................................................. 47 3.4 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................... 49 Saltwater Intrusion & Inundation Vulnerability ................................................................ 49 Pathogen & Pollution Contamination Vulnerability ......................................................... 51 4 141 Water Quantity Vulnerability ............................................................................................ 53 4. Marine Ecosystems ...................................................................................................................... 54 4.1 Sea-Level Rise .......................................................................................................................... 54 Coastal Infrastructure Vulnerability .................................................................................. 54 Coastal Species Vulnerability ............................................................................................ 63 4.2 Ocean Acidification & Pollution .............................................................................................. 65 5. Terrestrial Ecosystems .................................................................................................................. 67 5.1 Farms & Ranches ..................................................................................................................... 67 Drought & Flood Vulnerability .......................................................................................... 67 Crop & Livestock Vulnerability .......................................................................................... 67 5.2 Forests & Prairies .................................................................................................................... 70 Prairie Species Vulnerability ............................................................................................. 70 Forest Species Vulnerability .............................................................................................. 71 6. Human Health & Welfare ............................................................................................................. 73 6.1 Wildfires .................................................................................................................................. 73 6.2 Floods & Landslides ................................................................................................................. 78 Flood Vulnerability ............................................................................................................ 78 Landslide Vulnerability ...................................................................................................... 80 6.3 Diseases & Other Health Threats ............................................................................................ 84 Tribal Vulnerability ............................................................................................................ 85 Assessing Adaptive Capacity ............................................................................................. 86 6.4 Population Displacement ........................................................................................................ 88 7. Next Steps.................................................................................................................................... 90 7.1 Overview of Plan Components ............................................................................................... 90 8. Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 91 8.1 References ............................................................................................................................... 91 8.2 Explanation of Figures ............................................................................................................. 99 8.3 Reference Map ...................................................................................................................... 101 5 142 1: Executive Summary 1.1: Approach The Thurston Climate Adaptation Plan’s vulnerability
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geology of Blaine-Birch Bay Area Whatcom County, WA Wings Over
    Geology of Blaine-Birch Bay Area Blaine Middle Whatcom County, WA School / PAC l, ul G ant, G rmor Wings Over Water 2020 C o n Nest s ero Birch Bay Field Trip Eagles! H March 21, 2020 Eagle "Trees" Beach Erosion Dakota Creek Eagle Nest , ics l at w G rr rfo la cial E te Ab a u ant W Eagle Nest n d California Heron Rookery Creek Wave Cut Terraces Kingfisher G Nests Roger's Slough, Log Jam Birch Bay Eagle Nest G Beach Erosion Sea Links Ponds Periglacial G Field Trip Stops G Features Birch Bay Route Birch Bay Berm Ice Thickness, 2,200 M G Surficial Geology Alluvium Beach deposits Owl Nest Glacial outwash, Fraser-age in Barn k Glaciomarine drift, Fraser-age e e Marine glacial outwash, Fraser-age r Heron Center ll C re Peat deposits G Ter Artificial fill Terrell Marsh Water T G err Trailhead ell M a r k sh Terrell Cr ee 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 ± Miles 2200 M Blaine Middle Glacial outwash, School / PAC Geology of Blaine-Birch Bay Area marine, Everson ll, G Gu Glaciomarine Interstade Whatcom County, WA morant, C or t s drift, Everson ron Nes Wings Over Water 2020 Semiahmoo He Interstade Resort G Blaine Semiahmoo Field Trip March 21, 2020 Eagle "Trees" Semiahmoo Park G Glaciomarine drift, Everson Beach Erosion Interstade Dakota Creek Eagle Nest Glac ial Abun E da rra s, Blaine nt ti c l W ow Eagle Nest a terf California Creek Heron Glacial outwash, Rookery Glaciomarine drift, G Field Trip Stops marine, Everson Everson Interstade Semiahmoo Route Interstade Ice Thickness, 2,200 M Kingfisher Surficial GNeeoslotsgy Wave Cut Alluvium Glacial Terraces Beach deposits outwash, Roger's Glacial outwash, Fraser-age Slough, SuGmlaacsio mSataridnee drift, Fraser-age Log Jam Marine glacial outwash, Fraser-age Peat deposits Beach Eagle Nest Artificial fill deposits Water Beach Erosion 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles ± Chronology of Puget Sound Glacial Events Sources: Vashon Glaciation Animation; Ralph Haugerud; Milepost Thirty-One, Washington State Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamic Habitat Models for Estuary-Dependent Chinook Salmon: Informing Management in the Face of Climate Impacts
    Dynamic habitat models for estuary-dependent Chinook salmon: informing management in the face of climate impacts Melanie Jeanne Davis A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2019 Reading Committee: Julian D. Olden, Co-Chair David A. Beauchamp, Co-Chair Charles A. Simenstad Program Authorized to Offer Degree: School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences © Copyright 2019 Melanie Jeanne Davis University of Washington Abstract Dynamic habitat models for estuary-dependent Chinook salmon: informing management in the face of climate impacts Melanie Jeanne Davis Co-chairs of the Supervisory Committee: Dr. Julian D. Olden Dr. David A. Beauchamp A complex mosaic of estuarine habitats is postulated to bolster the growth and survival of juvenile Chinook salmon by diversifying the availability and configuration of prey and refugia. Consequently, efforts are underway along the North American Pacific Coast to return modified coastal ecosystems to historical or near-historical conditions, but restoring habitats are often more sensitive to anthropogenic or climate-mediated disturbance than relict (unaltered) habitats. Estuaries are expected to experience longer inundation durations as sea-levels rise, leading to reductions in intertidal emergent marshes, mudflats, and eelgrass beds. Furthermore, rising ocean temperatures may have metabolic consequences for fall-run populations of Chinook salmon, which tend to out-migrate during the spring and summer. Extensive monitoring programs have allowed managers to assess the initial benefits of management efforts (including restoration) for juvenile salmon at local and regional scales, but at present they have limited options for predicting and responding to the concurrent effects of climate change in restoring and relict coastal ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Native American Sacred Sites and the Department of Defense
    Native American Sacred Sites and the Department of Defense Item Type Report Authors Deloria Jr., Vine; Stoffle, Richard W. Publisher Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona Download date 01/10/2021 17:48:08 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/272997 NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED SITES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Edited by Vine Deloria, Jr. The University of Colorado and Richard W. Stoffle The University of Arizona® Submitted to United States Department of Defense Washington, D. C. June 1998 DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U. S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of the Interior, or any other Federal or state agency, or any Tribal government. Cover Photo: Fajada Butte, Chaco Culture National Historic Park, New Mexico NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED SITES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Edited by Vine Deloria, Jr. The University of Colorado and Richard W. Stoffle The University of Arizona® Report Sponsored by The Legacy Resource Management Program United States Department of Defense Washington, D. C. with the assistance of Archeology and Ethnography Program United States National Park Service Washington, D. C. June 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables vii List of Figures ix List of Appendices x Acknowledgments xii Foreward xiv CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 Scope of This Report 1 Overview of Native American Issues 3 History and Background of the Legacy Resources Management Program 4 Legal Basis for Interactions Regarding
    [Show full text]
  • Native American Presence in the Federal Way Area by Dick Caster
    Native American Presence in the Federal Way Area By Dick Caster Prepared for the Historical Society of Federal Way Muckleshoot girl wearing traditional skirt and cape of cedar bark, late 1800s (Courtesy Smithsonian Institution) Revised July 25, 2010 This is a revised and expanded version of the January 5, 2005 monograph. Copyright © 2005, 2010 by the Historical Society of Federal Way. All Rights Reserved. Native American Presence in the Federal Way Area Native American Presence in the Federal Way Area Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 7 Welcome ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Material Covered ........................................................................................................................ 7 Use of “Native American” Instead of “Indian” ......................................................................... 7 Note on Style ............................................................................................................................... 8 Northwest Native Americans.......................................................................................................... 8 Pacific Northwest and Northwest Coast Native Americans ....................................................... 8 Native Americans in the Puget Sound Area ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GM-56, Geologic Map of the East Olympia 7.5-Minute Quadgrangle
    WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES GEOLOGIC MAP GM-56 Division of Geology and Earth Resources Ron Teissere - State Geologist 122°52¢30² R2W R1W 50¢00² 47¢30² 122°45¢00² Budd Inlet Nisqually R. 47°00¢00² 47°00¢00² Henderson Inlet ket Qgtn1 INTRODUCTION ice marginal streams originating in the Nisqually and Lake St. Clair area Vashon recessional outwash gravel, train 2—Loose sandy Qgok Qgokb Qgok Qgosk Qgo Qp and farther east from glacial Lake Puyallup to flow westward across the n2 gravel; tan to gray; moderately to well rounded; moderately to Qp The East Olympia quadrangle is traversed by the geophysical lineament northern half of the map area, cutting channels through the Vashon well sorted; consists of plutonic and metamorphic clasts Inlet Qgos Qp Qgosk Qgosk known as the Olympia structure (Logan and Walsh, 2004; Magsino and T18N T18N ground moraine and into underlying advance outwash. As the energy of transported by Vashon ice and deposited by meltwater. Qgos Qf Qgosk others, 2003; Sherrod, 2001) (Fig. 1). An aeromagnetic and gravity T17N Qgok these streams waned, they eventually deposited sand and gravel, followed Because the unit is so flat and loose, outcrops are rare and T17N lineament along the projection of the Olympia structure occurs to the Qgos by sand and silt, around the remaining stagnant ice blocks. As the ice limited to surficial regolith. This unit forms a terrace that northeast of the Eocene-bedrock-cored hills near Tenino (Gower and Qa Qgo Qgos melted away, the Budd Inlet, Henderson Inlet, and Nisqually kettle chains resulted from the northward migration of and downcutting by kb others, 1985), but is masked by glacial drift, which covers most of the were formed.
    [Show full text]
  • Pierce County Profile
    PIERCE COUNTY PROFILE March 2001 LMEA Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch Greg Weeks, Director PIERCE COUNTY PROFILE Acknowledgements: MARCH 2001 Economic Development Board for Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch Tacoma-Pierce County Employment Security Department P.O. Box 1555 Tacoma, WA 98401 This report has been prepared in accordance with (206) 383-4726 RCW 50.38.050. WorkSource Pierce@Tacoma Paul Trause, Acting Commissioner 1313 Tacoma Avenue South Washington State Employment Security Department Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 593-7300 and Fax: (253) 593-7377 Greg Weeks, Director Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch Chris Johnson, Regional Labor Economist P.O. Box 9046 Washington State Employment Security Department Mail Stop 46000 1313 Tacoma Avenue South Olympia, WA 98507-9046 Tacoma, WA 98402 (360) 438-4800 (253) 593-7336 Prepared by Loretta Payne, Economic Analyst and Rev Froyalde, Research Analyst Layout by Bonnie Dalebout, Graphic Designer and Karen Thorson, Graphic Designer For additional labor market information, contact our u homepage at www.wa.gov/esd/lmea u On-line database (WILMA) at www.wilma.org Price $4.50 u Labor Market Information Center (LMIC) at plus 8.0% sales tax for Washington residents 1-800-215-1617 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................... 1 Manufacturing INTRODUCTION .................................... 2 Transportation and Public Utilitles (TPU) GEOGRAPHY .......................................... 3 Trade ECONOMIC HISTORY ............................. 4 Finance, Insurance,
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map 72
    WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES GEOLOGIC MAP GM-72 Maytown 7.5-minute Quadrangle February 2009 123°00¢00² R 3 W R 2 W 57¢30² 55¢00² 122°52¢30² 47°00¢00² 47°00¢00² GEOLOGY PLEISTOCENE GLACIAL DEPOSITS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Phillips, W. M.; Walsh, T. J.; Hagen, R. A., 1989, Eocene transition from oceanic to arc volcanism, Qgt af Qp Qgos Qa Qgos southwest Washington. In Muffler, L. J. P.; Weaver, C. S.; Blackwell, D. D., editors, Proceedings Glacial ice and meltwater deposited drift and carved extensive areas of the southern Puget Vashon Recessional Outwash, Nisqually/Lake St. Clair Source This project was made possible by the U.S. Geological Survey National Geologic Mapping Qp Qgok of workshop XLIV—Geological, geophysical, and tectonic setting of the Cascade Range: U.S. Qgt Qgos Lowland into a complex geomorphology that provides insight into latest Pleistocene glacial Program under award no. 07HQAG0142. Geochemical analyses were performed at the Qa Qgok Five trains of recessional outwash from the Nisqually/Lake St. Clair area have been noted by Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-178, p. 199-256. processes. Throughout the map area the many streamlined elongate hills (drumlins) reveal Washington State University GeoAnalytical Laboratory. We thank Kitty Reed and Jari Roloff Walsh and Logan (2005). They are, from youngest to oldest, units Qgos, Qgon4, Qgon3, Pringle, P. T.; Goldstein, B. S., 2002, Deposits, erosional features, and flow characteristics of the late- Qgos Qgok the direction of ice movement. Mima mounds (Washburn, 1988) cover parts of the for their editorial reviews of this report and Anne Heinitz, Eric Schuster, Chuck Caruthers, Qa Qgon2, and Qgon1.
    [Show full text]
  • Usgs Course Sediment Dynamics in the White River Watershed
    Coarse Sediment Dynamics in the White River Watershed October 2019 Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division King Street Center, KSC-NR-0600 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 www.kingcounty.gov i Coarse Sediment Dynamics in the White River Watershed Prepared for: King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks Submitted by: Scott Anderson and Kristin Jaeger U.S. Geological Survey Washington Water Science Center Funded in part by: King County Flood Control District ii iii Acknowledgements This study was partially funded by the King County Flood Control District and was completed with the technical support of King County employees Fred Lott, Judi Radloff, and Chris Brummer; Zac Corum (USACE Seattle); and Dan Johnson (USACE Mud Mountain Dam). Brian Collins improved this study immensely by providing copies of the 1907 Chittenden survey sheets. Thanks to Melissa Foster at Quantum Spatial for helping to acquire extended 2016 lidar coverage and for supplying ancillary data for previous acquisitions. Thanks to Taylor Kenyon and Scott Beason at Mount Rainier National Park for helping provide access and logistics for survey work in the National Park. We thank Brad Goldman of GoldAero for aiding in the collection of aerial imagery. iv Abstract Changes in upstream sediment delivery or downstream base level can cause propagating geomorphic responses in alluvial river systems. Understanding if or how these changing boundary conditions propagate through a watershed is central to understanding changes in channel morphology, flood conveyance and river habitat suitability. Here, we use a large set of high-resolution topographic surveys to assess coarse sediment delivery and routing in the 1,279 km2 glaciated White River, Washington State, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Thurston and Pierce Counties, Washington
    Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Thurston and Pierce Counties, Washington Type of Action: Administrative Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Responsible Official: David B. Allen, Regional Director For Further Information: Jean Takekawa, Refuge Manager Nisqually NWR Complex 100 Brown Farm Road Olympia, WA 98516 (360) 753-9467 Abstract: Four alternatives, including a Preferred Alternative and a No Action Alternative, are described, compared, and assessed for Nisqually NWR. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act regulations. Selection of this alternative would mean that a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) would be based on continuing management of the Refuge as it has been over the past several years. The four alternatives are summarized below: Alternative A—No Action: Status Quo – This alternative assumes no change from past management programs and is considered the base from which to compare the other alternatives. There would be no changes to the Refuge boundary and no major changes in habitat management or public use programs. Alternative B—Refuge Expansion of 2,407 Acres and Minimum Estuarine Restoration – This alternative would provide for moderate expansion of the Refuge boundary (2,407-acre addition). It places new management emphasis on the restoration of estuarine habitat and improved freshwater wetland management. The current environmental education program would be improved and expanded, to the largest degree of all action alternatives. There would be fewer changes to the trail system than in other action alternatives, and the Refuge would remain closed to waterfowl hunting, with the closure posted and enforced.
    [Show full text]
  • Nisqually Watershed Response to the 2018 Streamflow Restoration Act (RCW 90.94)
    Nisqually Watershed Response to the 2018 Streamflow Restoration Act (RCW 90.94) Addendum Appendices Prepared for the Nisqually Indian Tribe and Nisqually Watershed Planning Unit January 16, 2019 With Assistance from: Ecology Grant No. WRSRPPG-2018-NisqIT-00014 List of Appendices Appendix A – Nisqually Planning Unit 2018 Working Agreement Appendix B – WAC 173-511, Nisqually Instream Flow Rule Appendix C – Thurston County Forecasting Methods Memo Appendix D – Thurston PUD Group A and B System Data Appendix E – Streamflow Mitigation using Floodplain Restoration (Ohop Template) Appendix F – Nisqually Salmon Recovery Initiatives F-1 – Nisqually Priority Net Ecological Benefit Habitat Initiatives F-2 – Nisqually Salmon Habitat Initiatives and Water Quantity Prioritization Crosswalk F-3 – Nisqually Habitat Project Ranking Guidance Appendix G – Nisqually Community Forest G-1 – Managed Forestry Nisqually Community Forest Template G-2 – Nisqually Community Forest VELMA modeling to evaluate effects of forest management scenarios on streamflow and salmon habitat (Hall et al., 2018) Appendix H – Eatonville Capital Improvement Projects and Aquifer Storage & Recovery Mitigation Memo Appendix I – Eatonville Water Conservation Memo Appendix J – Thurston PUD Deepening Wells Memo Appendix K – Washington Water Trust Memo K-1 – Summary K-2 – Washington Water Trust Full Report Appendix L – Yelm Water Right Appendix M – Potential Managed Aquifer Recharge Mitigation Facilities in WRIA 11 Appendix N – Pierce County Groundwater Habitat Projects Appendix A Nisqually Planning Unit 2018 Working Agreement NISQUALLY WRIA 11 PLANNING UNIT WORKING AGREEMENT TO ADDRESS ESSB 6091 GROUND RULES AND STRUCTURE FOR 2018 WATERSHED PLANNING BACKGROUND: Acting under authority of the 1998 Watershed Management Act (RCW 90.82), with the Nisqually Indian Tribe as the Lead Agency, the Nisqually Planning Unit adopted in October 2003 the “Nisqually Watershed Management Plan.” Acting at a joint meeting held April 13, 2004, Lewis, Pierce and Thurston counties unanimously approved that plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Pierce County Rivers Flood Hazard Management Plan Volume I 2-19
    Volume I Pierce County Rivers Flood Hazard Management Plan Adopted February 19, 2013 Ordinance 2012-53s Pierce County County Pierce Hazard Rivers Flood Management Plan PIERCE COUNTY RIVERS FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN February 2013 PIERCE COUNTY RIVERS FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN PIERCE COUNTY RIVERS FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTORS Pierce County Elected Officials Pat McCarthy Pierce County Executive Pierce County Council (2012) Dan Roach, District 1 Joyce McDonald, District 2 (Council Chair) Roger Bush, District 3 Timothy Farrell, District 4 Rick Talbert, District 5 Dick Muri, District 6 Stan Flemming, District 7 Pierce County Council (2013) Dan Roach, District 1 Joyce McDonald, District 2 (Council Chair) Jim McCune, District 3 Connie Ladenburg, District 4 Rick Talbert, District 5 Douglas Richardson, District 6 Stan Flemming, District 7 Brian J. Ziegler, Director Public Works and Utilities Flood Plan Advisory Committee The Flood Plan Advisory Committee consisted of 26 members representing cities, counties, tribes, state and federal agencies, business, environmental and agricultural interests, floodplain residents and citizens outside of the planning area. Bill Anderson, Citizens for a Healthy Bay Gail Clowers, Drainage District #10 Nell Batker, Tahoma Audubon Society Buzz Grant, Citizen, South Prairie Creek Jay Bennett, City of Pacific Justin Hall, Nisqually River Council Russ Blount, City of Fife Kathy Hatcher, Citizen, Nisqually River Robert Brenner, Port of Tacoma Marsha Huebner, Pierce County SWM Bryan Bowden, Mount Rainier
    [Show full text]
  • Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Thurston and Pierce Counties, Washington
    Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Thurston and Pierce Counties, Washington Type of Action: Administrative Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Responsible Official: Anne Badgley, Regional Director For Further Information: Jean Takekawa, Refuge Manager Nisqually NWR Complex 100 Brown Farm Road Olympia, WA 98516 (360) 753-9467 Abstract: Four alternatives, including a Preferred Alternative and a No Action Alternative, are described, compared, and assessed for Nisqually NWR. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act regulations. Selection of this alternative would mean that a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) would not be finalized and implemented for the Refuge. This would result in continued management of the Refuge as it has been over the past several years, and the existing 1978 Nisqually NWR Conceptual Plan would not be updated. The four alternatives are summarized below: Alternative A—No Action: Status Quo – This alternative assumes no change from past management programs and is considered the base from which to compare the other alternatives. There would be no changes to the Refuge boundary and no major changes in habitat management or public use programs. Alternative B—Refuge Expansion of 2,407 Acres and Minimum Estuarine Restoration – This alternative would provide for moderate expansion of the Refuge boundary (2,407-acre addition). It places new management emphasis on the restoration of estuarine habitat and improved freshwater wetland management. The current environmental education program would be improved and expanded, to the largest degree of all action alternatives.
    [Show full text]