DOCSLIB.ORG

Benton County, Washington Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 2019 Revision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Benton County, Washington Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 2019 Revision Appendix N Benton County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2019) Benton County, Washington Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 2019 Revision Benton County Emergency Management 651 Truman Avenue Richland, WA 99352 (509) 628-2600 Prepared By Northwest Management, Inc. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Benton County, WA Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan i Foreword Benton County Emergency Services is dedicated to the protection of life, property, economic and environmental resources throughout Benton County. Seeking to inform and educate citizens, provide training and resource coordination and ultimately reduce the vulnerability of Benton County citizens through comprehensive disaster planning and mitigation. “Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. Mitigation activities may be implemented prior to, during, or after an incident…however, it has been demonstrated that hazard mitigation is most effective when based on an inclusive, comprehensive, long-term plan that is developed before a disaster occurs.”1 The Benton County, Washington Hazard Mitigation Plan was updated in 2017-19 by the Benton County NHMP planning committee in cooperation with Northwest Management, Inc. of Moscow, Idaho. This plan satisfies the requirements for a local natural hazard mitigation plan under 44 CFR Part 201.6, in addition this plan fully integrated the processes of FEMA’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan with the Community Wildfire Protection Plan as outlined in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Full integration was accomplished through the creation of a single committee that through a collaborative process provided oversight and expertise to the entire planning process. 1 Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance.” July 1, 2008 2019 Revision Benton County, WA Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan ii Table of Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................... i Approval Letter from FEMA .................................................................................................. iv Adoption Resolutions ........................................................................................................... iv Chapter 1: Plan Overview ...................................................................................................... 1 Overview of this Plan and its Development .............................................................................................. 1 Planning Philosophy and Goals ................................................................................................................. 2 Chapter 2: Planning Process ................................................................................................. 13 Documenting the Planning Process ........................................................................................................ 13 Chapter 3: Hazard Profiles ................................................................................................... 19 Floods ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................... 26 Drought ................................................................................................................................................... 88 Severe Weather ...................................................................................................................................... 90 Earthquake .............................................................................................................................................. 92 Landslide ............................................................................................................................................... 100 Volcano ................................................................................................................................................. 103 Chapter: 4 Community Profiles and Risk Assessments ........................................................ 106 Benton County Profile ........................................................................................................................... 107 Benton County Hazard Annex ............................................................................................................... 115 City of Kennewick Profile ...................................................................................................................... 148 Kennewick Hazard Annex ...................................................................................................................... 149 City of Richland Profile .......................................................................................................................... 165 Richland Hazard Annex ......................................................................................................................... 167 City of Prosser Profile ............................................................................................................................ 183 Prosser Hazard Annex ........................................................................................................................... 185 City of West Richland Profile ................................................................................................................ 200 West Richland Hazard Annex ................................................................................................................ 201 Benton City Profile ................................................................................................................................ 217 2019 Revision Benton County, WA Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan iii Benton City Hazard Annex .................................................................................................................... 218 Chapter 5: Mitigation Strategies ........................................................................................ 233 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 233 Mitigation Action Items (MAI) .............................................................................................................. 236 Appendix A: Forms ............................................................................................................ 259 Mitigation Action Implementation Worksheet ..................................................................................... 259 Mitigation Action Progress Report Form .............................................................................................. 260 Plan Update Evaluation Worksheet ...................................................................................................... 261 Appendix B: Capabilities Assessment ................................................................................. 263 Benton County Capabilities Assessment ............................................................................................... 263 Kennewick Capabilities Assessment ..................................................................................................... 269 Richland Capabilities Assessment ......................................................................................................... 273 Prosser Capabilities Assessment ........................................................................................................... 279 West Richland Capabilities Assessment ................................................................................................ 285 Benton City Capabilities Assessment .................................................................................................... 291 Appendix C: Documentation of Participation ..................................................................... 295 Documentation of Committee Participation ........................................................................................ 295 Documentation of Public Involvement ................................................................................................. 306 Appendix D: NFIP Status Letter for Benton County ............................................................. 311 Appendix E: 2018 Benton County CWPP MAI’s ............................................................ 312 Appendix F: Lists of Figures and Tables .............................................................................. 317 List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ 317 List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 319 How to Cite this Document: ............................................................................................... 323 2019 Revision Benton County, WA Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan iv Approval Letter from FEMA This heading is a place holder for the final plan approval letter from FEMA. Adoption Resolutions This heading is a place holder for the adoption resolutions that will be signed by each jurisdiction
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 8364 Licensed Charities As of 3/10/2020 MICS 24404 MICS 52720 T
    8364 Licensed Charities as of 3/10/2020 MICS 24404 MICS 52720 T. Rowe Price Program for Charitable Giving, Inc. The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust USA, Inc. 100 E. Pratt St 25283 Cabot Road, Ste. 101 Baltimore MD 21202 Laguna Hills CA 92653 Phone: (410)345-3457 Phone: (949)305-3785 Expiration Date: 10/31/2020 Expiration Date: 10/31/2020 MICS 52752 MICS 60851 1 For 2 Education Foundation 1 Michigan for the Global Majority 4337 E. Grand River, Ste. 198 1920 Scotten St. Howell MI 48843 Detroit MI 48209 Phone: (425)299-4484 Phone: (313)338-9397 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 MICS 46501 MICS 60769 1 Voice Can Help 10 Thousand Windows, Inc. 3290 Palm Aire Drive 348 N Canyons Pkwy Rochester Hills MI 48309 Livermore CA 94551 Phone: (248)703-3088 Phone: (571)263-2035 Expiration Date: 07/31/2021 Expiration Date: 03/31/2020 MICS 56240 MICS 10978 10/40 Connections, Inc. 100 Black Men of Greater Detroit, Inc 2120 Northgate Park Lane Suite 400 Attn: Donald Ferguson Chattanooga TN 37415 1432 Oakmont Ct. Phone: (423)468-4871 Lake Orion MI 48362 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 Phone: (313)874-4811 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 MICS 25388 MICS 43928 100 Club of Saginaw County 100 Women Strong, Inc. 5195 Hampton Place 2807 S. State Street Saginaw MI 48604 Saint Joseph MI 49085 Phone: (989)790-3900 Phone: (888)982-1400 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 MICS 58897 MICS 60079 1888 Message Study Committee, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • German Jews in the United States: a Guide to Archival Collections
    GERMAN HISTORICAL INSTITUTE,WASHINGTON,DC REFERENCE GUIDE 24 GERMAN JEWS IN THE UNITED STATES: AGUIDE TO ARCHIVAL COLLECTIONS Contents INTRODUCTION &ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1 ABOUT THE EDITOR 6 ARCHIVAL COLLECTIONS (arranged alphabetically by state and then city) ALABAMA Montgomery 1. Alabama Department of Archives and History ................................ 7 ARIZONA Phoenix 2. Arizona Jewish Historical Society ........................................................ 8 ARKANSAS Little Rock 3. Arkansas History Commission and State Archives .......................... 9 CALIFORNIA Berkeley 4. University of California, Berkeley: Bancroft Library, Archives .................................................................................................. 10 5. Judah L. Mages Museum: Western Jewish History Center ........... 14 Beverly Hills 6. Acad. of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: Margaret Herrick Library, Special Coll. ............................................................................ 16 Davis 7. University of California at Davis: Shields Library, Special Collections and Archives ..................................................................... 16 Long Beach 8. California State Library, Long Beach: Special Collections ............. 17 Los Angeles 9. John F. Kennedy Memorial Library: Special Collections ...............18 10. UCLA Film and Television Archive .................................................. 18 11. USC: Doheny Memorial Library, Lion Feuchtwanger Archive ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Davita OM Brian Mayer.Indd
    REPRESENTATIVE PICTURE Actual Site Photo DAVITA EXCLUSIVLY LISTED BY: Brian Mayer RICHLAND, WASHINGTON National Retail Group 206.826.5716 1315 Aaron Drive, Richland, WA 99352 [email protected] DaVita | 1 PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTS INVESTMENT GRADE TENANT: 10+ YEAR HISTORICAL OCCUPANCY: Nation’s leading provider of kidney dialysis Build to Suit for DaVita in 2008, the Tenant services and a Fortune 500 company, has occupied the property for over 10 DaVita generated $10.88 Billion in net years. revenue in 2017. S&P Investment Grade Rating of BB. EARLY LEASE EXTENSION: MINIMAL LANDLORD RESPONSIBILITIES: In December 2018, DaVita exercised its Tenant is responsible for taxes, insurance first 5-year option, as well as exercising its and CAM’s. Landlord is responsible for roof, second 5-year option early, for a combined structure and limited capital expenditures. 10-year renewal period. SIGNIFICANT TENANT CAPITAL EXPENDITURES: MANAGEMENT FEE REIMBURSEMENT: Tenant contributed approximately $1.5 Lease allows Landlord to collect a million towards its build-out in 2008, and is management fee as additional rent. A slated to contribute an additional $250,000 management fee equal to 6% of base rent in 2019. is currently being collected. HIGHWAY VISIBILITY & ACCESS: PROXIMITY TO MAJOR MEDICAL CAMPUS: Features easy access and excellent visibility In close proximity to the Tri-Cities major from Interstate 182 (69,000 VPD), Highway medical campus, including Kadlec Regional 240 (46,000 VPD) and George Washington Medical Center, Lourdes Health and Seattle Way (41,000 VPD). Children’s’ Hospital. ANNUAL RENTAL INCREASES: DENSELY POPULATED AFFLUENT AREA: Lease benefits from 2% annual increases Features an average household income of in the initial Lease Term and 2.5% annual $93,558 within 5 miles, and a population increases in the Option Period.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Streamflow Estimates for Watersheds in the Lower Yakima River
    Natural Streamflow Estimates for Watersheds in the Lower Yakima River 1 David L. Smith 2 Gardner Johnson 3 Ted Williams 1 Senior Scientist-Ecohydraulics, S.P. Cramer and Associates, 121 W. Sweet Ave., Moscow, ID 83843, [email protected], 208-310-9518 (mobile), 208-892-9669 (office) 2 Hydrologist, S.P. Cramer and Associates, 600 NW Fariss Road, Gresham, OR 97030 3 GIS Technician, S.P. Cramer and Associates, 600 NW Fariss Road, Gresham, OR 97030 S.P. Cramer and Associates Executive Summary Irrigation in the Yakima Valley has altered the regional hydrology through changes in streamflow and the spatial extent of groundwater. Natural topographic features such as draws, coulees and ravines are used as drains to discharge irrigation water (surface and groundwater) back to the Yakima River. Salmonids are documented in some of the drains raising the question of irrigation impacts on habitat as there is speculation that the drains were historic habitat. We assessed the volume and temporal variability of streamflow that would occur in six drains without the influence of irrigation. We used gage data from other streams that are not influenced by irrigation to estimate streamflow volume and timing, and we compared the results to two reference streams in the Yakima River Valley that have a small amount of perennial streamflow. We estimate that natural streamflow in the six study drains ranged from 33 to 390 acre·ft/year depending on the contributing area. Runoff occurred infrequently often spanning years between flow events, and was unpredictable. The geology of the study drains was highly permeable indicating that infiltration of what runoff occurs would be rapid.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Choices 3
    Transportation Choices 3 MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE | MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT AND GOODS Introduction Facilities Snapshot This chapter organizes the transportation system into two categories: movement of people, and movement of freight and goods. Movement of people encompasses active transportation, transit, rail, air, and automobiles. Movement of freight and goods encompasses rail, marine cargo, air, vehicles, and pipelines. 3 Three Airports: one commercial, two Community Consistent with federal legislation (23 CFR 450.306) and Washington State Legislation (RCW 47.80.030), the regional transportation system includes: 23 Twenty-three Fixed Transit Routes ▶All state-owned transportation facilities and services (highways, park-and-ride lots, etc); 54 Fifty-Four Miles of Multi-Use Trails ▶All local principal arterials and selected minor arterials the RTPO considers necessary to the plan; 2.1 Multi- ▶Any other transportation facilities and services, existing and Two Vehicles per Household* proposed, including airports, transit facilities and services, roadways, Modal rail facilities, marine transportation facilities, pedestrian/bicycle Transport facilities, etc., that the RTPO considers necessary to complete the 5 regional plan; and Five Rail Lines System ▶Any transportation facility or service that fulfills a regional need or impacts places in the plan, as determined by the RTPO. 4 Four Ports *Source: US Census Bureau, 2014 ACS 5-year estimates. Chapter 3 | Transportation Choices 39 Figure 3-1: JourneyMode to ChoiceWork -ModeJourney Choice to Work in the RTPO, 2014 Movement of People Walk/ Bike, Public Transit, 2.2% Other, 4.3% People commute for a variety of reasons, and likewise, a variety of 1.2% ways. This section includes active transportation, transit, passenger Carpooled, 12.6% rail, passenger air, and passenger vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I
    Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I November 4 - 7, 2002 Richland, WA FINAL REPORT A Collaborative Workshop: United States Fish & Wildlife Service The Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN) Hanford Reach National Monument 1 Planning Workshop I, November 2002 A contribution of the IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group in collaboration with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service. CBSG. 2002. Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I. FINAL REPORT. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN. 2 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I, November 2002 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I November 4-7, 2002 Richland, WA TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. Executive Summary 1 A. Introduction and Workshop Process B. Draft Vision C. Draft Goals 2. Understanding the Past 11 A. Personal, Local and National Timelines B. Timeline Summary Reports 3. Focus on the Present 31 A. Prouds and Sorries 4. Exploring the Future 39 A. An Ideal Future for Hanford Reach National Monument B. Goals Appendix I: Plenary Notes 67 Appendix II: Participant Introduction questions 79 Appendix III: List of Participants 87 Appendix IV: Workshop Invitation and Invitation List 93 Appendix V: About CBSG 103 Hanford Reach National Monument 3 Planning Workshop I, November 2002 4 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I, November 2002 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I November 4-7, 2002 Richland, WA Section 1 Executive Summary Hanford Reach National Monument 5 Planning Workshop I, November 2002 6 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I, November 2002 Executive Summary A. Introduction and Workshop Process Introduction to Comprehensive Conservation Planning This workshop is the first of three designed to contribute to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) of Hanford Reach National Monument.
    [Show full text]
  • Island View] Will Continue to Provide an Area for Low- Income Housing, and a Place for Less Expensive and Convenient Locations for Smaller Businesses
    A S U M M A R Y A P R I L 2 0 1 2 ISLAN D VIE W “If no concerted action, other than the enforcement of the City’s zoning and land use regulations and planned public infrastructure improvements occur, [Island View] will continue to provide an area for low- income housing, and a place for less expensive and convenient locations for smaller businesses. Market forces will eventually fill in the land that is currently available. This process will probably be slow, given the nature of the overall real estate development patterns in the region. However, there are enough large to medium sized parcels in the [Island View] area that it would not take very long to have a major transformation occur.” Thomas/Lane & Associates Update of Market Analysis Study for the Richland Wye Area - 2004 PLANNING & REDE VELOPMENT | DEVELOPMENT SERVICE S 2 ISLAND VIEW SNAPSHOT TOTAL POPULATION, 2010: 582 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, 2008 - 2012 TOTAL FINISHED LAND USE, 2012 LAND U SE SQUARE FOOTAGE VALUATION Single Family Units 82 Office 104,304 $9,888,541 Multi-Family Units* 360 Multi-Family 191,224 $15,969,203 Businesses 106 Mixed Use 15,378 $2,320,000 Employees 547 Commercial 5,394 $263,994 Hotel/Motel Rooms 93 BF Transit 48,595 $4,655,318 Demoliti on 12,765 $174,834 Boat Launches 3 Relocation 735 $50,000 *includes Island View Apts. Total 378,395 $33,321,890 3 S T A T U S o f 1998 WYE MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES SHORT TERM STRATEGIES(1 - 3 Y E A R S ) STRATEGY STATUS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada's Earthquakes
    Document generated on 09/26/2021 12:45 p.m. Geoscience Canada Canada’s Earthquakes: ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly’ J. F. Cassidy, G. C. Rogers, M. Lamontagne, S. Halchuk and J. Adams Volume 37, Number 1, January 2010 Article abstract Much of Canada is ‘earthquake country’. Tiny earthquakes (that can only be URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/geocan37_1art01 recorded by seismographs) happen every day. On average, earthquakes large enough to be felt occur every week in Canada, damaging earthquakes are years See table of contents to decades apart, and some of the world’s largest earthquakes are typically separated by intervals of centuries. In this article, we provide details on the most significant earthquakes that have been recorded in, or near, Canada, Publisher(s) including where and when they occurred, how they were felt, and the effects of those earthquakes. We also provide a brief review of how earthquakes are The Geological Association of Canada monitored across Canada and some recent earthquake hazard research. It is the results of this monitoring and research, which provide knowledge on ISSN earthquake hazard, that are incorporated into the National Building Code of Canada. This, in turn, will contribute to reduced property losses from future 0315-0941 (print) earthquakes across Canada. 1911-4850 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Cassidy, J. F., Rogers, G. C., Lamontagne, M., Halchuk, S. & Adams, J. (2010). Canada’s Earthquakes:: ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly’. Geoscience Canada, 37(1), 1–16. All rights reserved © The Geological Association of Canada, 2010 This document is protected by copyright law.
    [Show full text]
  • Excerpt from the Yakima Nation/Cleanup of Hanford
    DOE Indian Policy and Treaty Obligations Excerpt from The Yakama Nation and the Cleanup of Hanford: Contested Meanings of Environmental Remediation written by Daniel A. Bush (2014) http://nativecases.evergreen.edu/collection/cases/the-yakama-nation-and-the-cleanup- of-hanford-contested-meanings-of-environmental-remediation Map: Yakama Reservation and lands ceded by the Yakama in the 1855 treaty (Klickitat Library Images, 2014) According to the DOE’s Tribal Program, “the involvement [of] Native American Tribes at Hanford is guided by DOE's American Indian Policy [which] states that it is the trust responsibility of the United States to protect tribal sovereignty and self-determination, tribal lands, assets, resources, and treaty and other federal recognized and reserved rights” (Department of Energy (DOE) Tribal Program, 2014). Therefore, where Native Americans are concerned it would seem that the DOE has a legal obligation to restore the Hanford site to its pre-nuclear state. It could also be argued that Native tribes have their own trust responsibility for preservation of natural resources on both tribal lands and those areas of traditional use. Moreover, the web of responsibilities associated with the Hanford cleanup are complicated by potential liabilities, as Native peoples have a right to “damages for injuries which occur to natural resources as a result of hazardous waste release” (Bauer, 1994). Thus, Native Americans who traditionally used the affected area have also been involved in the cleanup of Hanford. CERCLA itself named Native tribes as having a vested interest in Superfund sites such as Hanford. The DOE agrees that the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, and Wanapum native peoples be regularly consulted throughout the cleanup process and that all have rights to resources in the 1 Hanford region.
    [Show full text]
  • Fragility Functions of Manufactured Houses Under Earthquake Loads
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Civil and Environmental Engineering Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research Civil and Environmental Engineering 7-2021 Fragility Functions of Manufactured Houses under Earthquake Loads Shuyah Tani Aurore Ouoba University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/civilengdiss Part of the Civil Engineering Commons, Other Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons, and the Structural Engineering Commons Ouoba, Shuyah Tani Aurore, "Fragility Functions of Manufactured Houses under Earthquake Loads" (2021). Civil and Environmental Engineering Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research. 170. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/civilengdiss/170 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil and Environmental Engineering at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Civil and Environmental Engineering Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS OF MANUFACTURED HOUSES UNDER EARTHQUAKE LOADS by Shuyah T. A. Ouoba A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Major: Civil Engineering Under the Supervision of Professor Christine E. Wittich Lincoln, Nebraska July, 2021 FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS OF MANUFACTURED HOUSES UNDER EARTHQUAKE LOADS Shuyah T. A. Ouoba, M.S University of Nebraska, 2021 Advisor: Christine E. Wittich Manufactured homes are factory-built homes made of wooden structural members, then transported and installed on a given site. Manufactured housing is used in many countries, such as in Australia, and in New Zealand but remain mostly popular in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinance No. 38-19, Adopting 2018-2019 Comp Plan Amendments
    EXHIBIT A to Ordinance No. 38-19 2018/2019 DOCKET File Number: CPA2018‐102 & Z2018‐105 Applicant: City of Richland Fire Department The Richland Fire Department is proposing to amend the Land Use Map from undesignated to Public Facility with a concurrent rezone from undesignated to Parks & Public Facilities for a single parcel of 2.05 acres located at the intersection of Stevens and SR 240 (Parcel Number 134081000029000). File Number: CPA 2018‐103 Applicant: Rew (HJBT Properties, LLC) The applicants are proposing to amend the Land Use Map from Developed Open Space (DOS) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) for a portion of property consisting of approximately 1.99 acres located immediately south of the Horn Rapids Golf Course Clubhouse (Parcel Number 128082000001005). File Number: CPA2019‐101 & Z2019‐101 Applicant: Bethel Church The applicants are proposing to amend the Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) with a concurrent rezone from Low Density Residential R‐1‐12 to High Density Residential – R3 for two parcels totaling approximately 10.25 acres located on the north side of Shockley Boulevard and west of the existing Bethel Church (Parcel Numbers 122983000006002 & 122983000006003). File Number: CPA2019‐102 & Z2019‐102 Applicant: North Stone Development (Stewart Stone) The applicant is proposing to amend the Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) with a concurrent rezone from Low Density Residential R‐1‐10 and Medium Density Residential R‐2 to Medium Density Residential R‐2S upon a portion of property totaling approximately 54.40 acres (Parcel Number 120083000009010).
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Fisheries Enhancement Program Annual Report for July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014
    Regional Fisheries Enhancement Program Annual Report for July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014 Dedicated to Community-Based Salmon Enhancement in Washington State Regional Fisheries Enhancement Program Annual Report for July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014 Table of Contents Executive Summary . 1 A Message from the Board President . 2 WDFW’s Mission . 3 RFEG Program Areas . 4 RFEG Program Accomplishments and Expenditures . 5 Geographical Boundaries . 6 Region 1 – Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association . 8 Region 2 – Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group . 13 Region 3 – Sound Salmon Solutions . 18 Region 4 – Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group . 22 Region 5 – South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group . 26 Region 6 – Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group . 29 Region 7 – North Olympic Salmon Coalition . 36 Region 8 – Pacific Coast Salmon Coalition . 40 Region 9 – Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force . 44 Region 10 – Willapa Bay Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group . 47 Region 11 – Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group . 50 Region 12 – Mid-Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group . 55 Region 13 – Tri-State Steelheaders Salmon Enhancement Group . 60 Region 14 – Cascade Columbia Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group . 64 Front cover photos provided by: Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group and Mid-Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group Back cover photo provided by: Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group, Cascade Columbia Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group, and Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group Regional Fisheries Enhancement Program | July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 Annual Report Executive Summary Dedicated to Community-Based Salmon Enhancement in Washington State The Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups (RFEGs) efficiently extend the impact of base funding, often by 10- are a statewide network of non-profit community- 1, by engaging diverse partners and citizens in conservation based salmon enhancement organizations.
    [Show full text]