DOCSLIB.ORG

Pacific Region Partners for Fish and Wildlife and Coastal Program Strategic Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pacific Region Partners for Fish and Wildlife and Coastal Program Strategic Plan Pacific Region Partners for Fish and Wildlife and Coastal Program Strategic Plan July 2010 UPDATE Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Overview of Region 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Five Program Goals from the Service Vision Document .............................................................. 7 Goal 1: Conserve Habitat .................................................................................................................. 7 Goal 2: Broaden and Strengthen Partnerships ....................................................................................... 15 Goal 3: Improve Information Sharing and Communication ................................................................... 17 Goal 4: Enhance Our Workforce .......................................................................................................... 18 Goal 5: Increase Accountability ............................................................................................................... 20 Figure 1: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Ecoregion .............................................................. 6 Figure 2: U.S. EPA Level III Ecoregions in the Pacific Region ..................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Regional Map of Pacific Northwest Partners Program Focus Areas ................................................ 9 Figure 4: Regional Map of Pacific Island Partners Program Focus Areas..................................................... 10 Figure 5: Regional Map of Pacific Northwest Coastal Program Focus Areas ............................................... 11 Figure 6: Regional Map of Pacific Island Coastal Program Focus Areas ...................................................... 12 Appendix A: Pacific Island Partners Program Focus Areas Appendix B: Pacific Island Coastal Program Focus Areas Appendix C: Oregon Partners Program Focus Areas Appendix D: Oregon Coastal Program Focus Areas Appendix E: Washington Partners Program Focus Areas Appendix F: Puget Sound Coastal Program Focus Areas Appendix G: Idaho Partners Program Focus Areas Appendix H: Stakeholders Contacts Appendix I: Table of References Executive Summary Region 1 encompasses extraordinary ecological diversity with habitats ranging from tropical forest and coral reefs in Micronesia, to old-growth rainforests west of the Cascade mountain range in Oregon and Washington, to glacial lakes and streams in the Northern Cascades of Washington and Northern Rocky Mountains in Idaho, to arid shrub-steppe habitat in southern Idaho, eastern Oregon and eastern Washington. These habitats support over 400 endangered and threatened species, many unique and endemic plant and animal communities, and a variety of economic and land-use considerations. Our partners are varied―agricultural and natural resource dependent communities, rural landowners, Native American tribal governments and indigenous island communities, watershed councils, coral reef advisory groups, universities, land trusts, State and Federal agencies, and many others. Our Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners Program) and Coastal Program Team recognize that this diversity in habitats, landowner needs, and partnerships presents many opportunities for us. This abundance of opportunity in Region 1 requires program focus to ensure our limited staffing and project dollars are allocated to benefit the highest priority resources and achieve the highest quality results for our Federal trust species. The Region 1 Partners and Coastal Program Team has developed a reputation for having the ability to effectively deliver technical assistance and habitat restoration projects in a timely, efficient, and cooperative manner. In order to remain within our capacity and to meet our partners' expectations, Partners and Coastal Programs biologists carefully evaluate potential projects to assess which ones best meet the Focus Area objectives. We seek to leverage limited program funds by providing needed technical assistance to complementary restoration programs in a watershed or ecoregion. Ultimately, through collaborative partnerships with other agencies and programs, our Partners and Coastal Programs’ limited funds are leveraged to restore habitat and conserve our valued natural resources. In this Plan, we describe how we will improve the overall effectiveness of our Partners and Coastal Team to: • conserve habitat, We will improve our efficiency and increase results by • broaden and strengthen partnerships, focusing our partnership building and habitat • improve communication, improvement actions within 35 Partners Program and 9 Coastal Program Focus Areas. • enhance our workforce, and • increase accountability. Conserve Habitat Region 1's diversity in ecoregion and habitat types, their associated threats, and extensive partnership opportunities call for creative and energetic efforts to conserve habitat. To meet this challenge, our Partners and Coastal Team will improve our efficiency and increase results by focusing our partnership building and habitat improvement actions within the 35 Partners Program Focus Areas and 9 Coastal Program Focus Areas. The Focus Areas represent landscapes where broad fish and wildlife conservation goals could best be met, and are consistent with our program’s voluntary approach. Some question how voluntary conservation efforts can be strategic because they are opportunistic and shaped by landowner interest and funding availability. However, opportunistic conservation is not necessarily random. By targeting our actions within the Focus Areas described in this Plan, and prioritizing those projects that will achieve our Focus Area goals, we will strategically deliver conservation actions. The Partners and Coastal Team efforts in Region 1 will focus on the restoration of wetland, coral reef, grassland, savanna, tropical and temperate forest, upland bog, shrub-steppe, coastal meadow, stream, and riparian habitats within these Focus Areas. These Focus Areas overlap with high concentrations of listed and candidate species, with key migratory bird corridors, National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) lands, and with priority State-led conservation efforts for species at risk. 2 By the end of Fiscal Year 2011, we anticipate our Partners Team will have improved habitat for approximately 7,600 acres of wetland habitat, 24,400 acres of upland habitat, 420 miles of riparian and instream habitat, and removed over 175 fish passage barriers. We anticipate our Coastal Team will have improved habitat on approximately 1,800 acres of wetland and coral reef habitat, 950 acres of upland habitat, 60 miles of riparian, instream and shoreline habitats, and removed over 25 fish passage barriers. In addition, we will work with our partners to improve our effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management efforts. Broaden and Strengthen Partnerships We will continue to serve as conservation problem-solvers by maintaining, developing, and improving long-term partnerships with private landowners, States, Tribes, indigenous island communities in the Pacific, other island Governments, other Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other Service Programs. Through these partnerships, we will develop and implement collaborative species and habitat conservation strategies. Improve Information Sharing and Communication Through specific steps described in this Plan, we will improve and expand our communication and information sharing capabilities with all stakeholders and partners to maximize our conservation results. Enhance Our Workforce We will maintain and support an adequately-sized, strategically positioned workforce with state-of-the-art training in habitat restoration, conservation techniques, and partnership activities. Increase Accountability We will measure, assess, and report on the effectiveness, efficiency, and fiscal integrity of our habitat conservation programs and activities. Introduction This document is the Region 1 Step-Down Plan for the national Partners and Coastal Programs strategic planning process. The national Partners and Coastal Strategic Plan consists of three parts: Part 1 consists of two separate but related vision documents: one for the Partners Program and one for the Coastal Program. These vision This document is the documents were completed in 2006 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Step-Down Plan for 2006a and 2006b), and provide a national overview of the Partners and the national Partners and Coastal Programs and the five Program goals that will be comprehensively Coastal Programs national addressed in Parts 2 and 3; strategic plan. Part 2 consists of regional strategic plans that "step-down" the national vision to the regional level; and Part 3 is the national summary document. This document is the Partners and Coastal Programs Strategic Plan for the Pacific Region, (FY 2007 through FY 2011), and will be referred to as the Plan for the remainder of this document. This Plan addresses each of the five Program goals established in the Vision Documents: • Goal 1: Conserve Habitat • Goal 2: Broaden and Strengthen Partnerships • Goal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Caspian Tern Nesting Island Construction Draft Supplemental
    Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (with Draft Amended FONSI) and Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis Caspian Tern Nesting Island Construction Project Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, California U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District June 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Proposed Project 1.1 Proposed Project Description 1.2 Proposed Location 1.3 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action 1.4 Project Authority 2.0 Scope of Analysis 3.0 Proposed Action 3.1 Habitat Construction: Sheepy Lake in Lower Klamath NWR 3.1.1 Demolition and Disposal of Sheepy Floating Island 3.1.2 Sheepy Rock Island Design 3.1.3 Timing of Construction 3.1.4 Construction Methods 3.1.5 Access 3.1.6 Staging Area 3.1.7 Temporary Access Road 3.1.8 Maintenance Methods 3.1.9 Summary of Fill Requirements and Footprint 3.1.10 Post-Construction Monitoring 4.0 Alternatives 4.1 No Action Alternative 4.2 Repair the existing floating island 5.0 Impact Assessment 6.0 Summary of Indirect and Cumulative Effects 6.1 Indirect Effects 6.1.1 Caspian Terns 6.1.2 Fishes 6.1.3 Endangered and Threatened Species 6.1.4 Other Birds 6.1.5 Socioeconomic Effects 6.2 Cumulative Impacts 7.0 Environmental Compliance 8.0 Agencies Consulted and Public Notifications 9.0 Mitigation Measures 10.0 Draft Amended FONSI LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Map of Tule Lake NWR and Lower Klamath NWR within the vicinity of Klamath Basin NWRs, Oregon and California 3.1 Sheepy Lake Floating Island Failure (1 of 3) 3.2 Sheepy Lake Floating Island Failure (2 of 3) 3.3
    [Show full text]
  • On-Site Sewage System Management Plan January 7, 2008
    Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department Environmental Health Division On-Site Sewage System Management Plan January 7, 2008 Thurston County On-site Sewage System Management Plan January 7, 2008 Table of Contents: Section Page Acknowledgements 3 Executive Summary 4 On-site Sewage System Management Plan 8 Part I – Database Enhancement 10 Part 2 – Identification of Sensitive Areas 16 Part 3 – Operation, Monitoring and Maintenance in Sensitive Areas 28 Part 4 – Marine Recovery and Sensitive Area Strategy 34 Part 5 – Education 39 Part 6 – Plan Summary 42 Appendices A – Amanda Reports 53 B – Henderson Watershed Protection Area Description 58 C – Process for Evaluation of Potential MRA’s and LMA’s 62 D – Marine Recovery Area and Local Management Area Designation Tool 63 E – Measurable Outcomes 70 F – Thurston County Septic Park 71 Page 2 of 71 Thurston County On-site Sewage System Management Plan January 7, 2008 Acknowledgements Thurston County Public Health and Social Services would like to acknowledge all those who have been instrumental in our process to develop our Local Management Plan (LMA). First of all we appreciate the contributions of the Article IV Advisory Committee in assisting the Environmental Health Division. Your dedication to providing direction and tone for the LMA has been invaluable. We would also like to recognize the Environmental Health, Development Services and Geodata staff for supplying input, recommendations and attending committee meetings to offer insight into our program areas. Our appreciation is also extended to the Washington State Department of Health. We are grateful for their staff support and funding. We especially appreciate the use of the guidance document, which has provided section descriptions and format for our plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Tourism in Wallowa County and the Zumwalt Prairie: In-Person Survey Results Summer 2012
    Copyright: Rick McEwen Tourism in Wallowa County and the Zumwalt Prairie: In-Person Survey Results Summer 2012 November 2013 Brittany Heller Intern Environmental Sciences Oregon State University Bruce Sorte Extension Economist Department of Applied Economics Oregon State University John Williams County Leader Agricultural and Natural Resources Wallowa County Extension Oregon State University Kasey Erm Intern Applied Economics Oregon State University Acknowledgments The authors appreciate the Wallowa County visitors and residents who graciously responded to the survey and welcomed us to their Maxville Heritage Gathering, Chief Joseph Days and Hells Canyon Mule Days. Funding for this study was provided by the Nature Conservancy/Wallowa Resources and the OSU Extension Service. 1 Introduction Wallowa County, Oregon, located in Northeast Oregon, is known for its natural amenities and, as the USDA Economic Research Service describes it, “landscape and climate have shaped the geography of rural growth and decline over the past 40 years. The rural outdoors has become a major asset for rural communities.”1 One of the notable natural amenities in the County is the Zumwalt Prairie (Prairie). “Its rolling hills run from bright green in the spring and early summer to shades of yellow and brown as the season progresses. With little sign of human habitation other than a few cattle ranches and plenty of abandoned farmsteads, the place is alive with wildlife including 3,000 elk, black bears, wolves, cougars, bighorn sheep and over 48 varieties of butterflies. The prairie is home to one of North America’s highest concentrations of breeding raptors (golden eagles, prairie falcons, northern harriers, kestrels and numerous varieties of hawks) as well as grassland songbirds.”2 Question The County has long been a tourist destination.
    [Show full text]
  • Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River
    Bonneville Power Administration, USACE – Portland District, USACE – Walla Walla District, and Grant County Public Utility District Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River 2013 Draft Annual Report 1 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River 2013 Draft Annual Report This 2013 Draft Annual Report has been prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Grant County Public Utility District for the purpose of assessing project accomplishments. This report is not for citation without permission of the authors. Daniel D. Roby, Principal Investigator U.S. Geological Survey ‐ Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331‐3803 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541‐737‐1955 Ken Collis, Co‐Principal Investigator Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Avenue Bend, Oregon 97702 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541‐382‐3836 Donald Lyons, Jessica Adkins, Yasuko Suzuki, Peter Loschl, Timothy Lawes, Kirsten Bixler, Adam Peck‐Richardson, Allison Patterson, Stefanie Collar, Alexa Piggott, Helen Davis, Jen Mannas, Anna Laws, John Mulligan, Kelly Young, Pam Kostka, Nate Banet, Ethan Schniedermeyer, Amy Wilson, and Allison Mohoric Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331‐3803 2 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest Allen Evans, Bradley Cramer, Mike Hawbecker, Nathan Hostetter, and Aaron Turecek Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Ave. Bend, Oregon 97702 Jen Zamon NOAA Fisheries – Pt.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Threatened Fishes in Warner Basin, Oregon
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 50 Number 3 Article 5 10-31-1990 Conservation status of threatened fishes in arnerW Basin, Oregon Jack E. Williams Division of Wildlife and Fisheries, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. Mark A. Stern The Nature Conservancy, Portland, Oregon Alan V. Munhall Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview, Oregon Gary A. Anderson Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lakeview, Oregon Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Williams, Jack E.; Stern, Mark A.; Munhall, Alan V.; and Anderson, Gary A. (1990) "Conservation status of threatened fishes in arnerW Basin, Oregon," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 50 : No. 3 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol50/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Creat &Isio N:l.luraUst 50(3), 1900, pp. 243-248 CONSERVATION STATUS OF THREATENED FISHES IN WARNER BASIN, OREGON 1 l 3 Jack E. Williams , MarkA. Stern \ Alan V. Munhall , and Cary A. Anderson"" A8S'TRACT.-Two fedemlJy listed fisbes, the Foskett speckled daceand Warnersucker, are endemic to Warner Basin in south central Oregon. The Foskett speckled dace is native only to a single spring in Coleman Valley. Anearby'spring was stocked with dace in 1979 and 1980, and now provides a second population. The present numbers ofdace probably are at their Wgbest levels since settlement ofthe region.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for Rangeland Health Assessment O'keeffe FRF
    ee e_ O'KEEFFE FRF INDIVIDUAL ALLOTMENT #0203 Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (BLM, 1997) Introduction The Range Reform '94 Record of Decision (BLM, 1995a) recently amended current grazing administration and management practices. The ROD required that region-specific standards and guidelines be developed and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. In the State of Oregon, several Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) were established to develop these regional standards and guidelines. The RAC established for the part of the state covering the O'Keeffe FRF Individual Allotment is the Southeastern Oregon RAe. These standards and guidelines for Oregon and Washington were finalized on August 12, 1997 and include: Standard 1 - Upland Watershed Function Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. • dard 2 - Riparian/Wetland Watershed Function • Riparian-wetland areas are in properly functioning physical condition appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. Standard 3 - Ecological Processes Healthy, productive, and diverse plant and animal populations and communities appropriate to soil, climate, and landform are supported by ecological processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the hydrologic cycle. Standard 4 - Water Quality Surface water and groundwater quality, influenced by agency actions, complies with State water quality standards. Standard 5 - Native, T&E, and Locally Important Species Habitats support healthy, productive, and diverse populations and communities of native plants and animals (including special status species and species of local importance) appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. NDARD 1 - UPLAND WATERSHED CONDITION: Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate, and landform.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Sycan Watershed Analysis
    Lower Sycan Watershed Analysis Fremont-Winema National Forest 2005 Lower Sycan River T33S,R12E,S23 Lower Sycan Watershed Analysis Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 1 General Watershed Area.....................................................................................................................................2 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................................................5 Climate..................................................................................................................................................................6 STEP 1. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE WATERSHED ................................................................... 7 I. Watershed and Aquatics.................................................................................................................................7 Soils And Geomorphology...............................................................................................................................................10 Aquatic Habitat ................................................................................................................................................................10 II. Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Developing a Conceptual Scientific Framework for Conservation in the Arid West
    DEVELOPING A CONCEPTUAL SCIENTIFIC FRAMEWORK FOR CONSERVATION IN THE ARID WEST Aridlands Grazing Network, Workshop 1 Medano-Zapata Ranch, Colorado April 11–13, 2001 TNC’s Mission Statement The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. Conservation Vision The Nature Conservancy’s vision is to conserve portfolios of functional conservation areas within and across ecoregions. Through this portfolio approach, we will work with partners to conserve a full array of ecological systems and viable native species. Conservation Goal for 2010 By 2010, The Nature Conservancy and its partners will take direct action to conserve 600 functional landscape--500 in the United States and 100 in 35 countries abroad. The Conservancy also will deploy high-leverage strategies to ensure the conservation of at least 2,500 other functional conservation areas--2,000 in the United States and 500 in other countries. Copies of this summary are available on the Landscape Conservation Network Web Site: www.tnc-ecomanagement.org Or contact: Bob Unnasch Monitoring and Adaptive Management Program 1109 Main Street, #333 Boise, ID 83702 208-343-8826; [email protected] Important concepts were outlined in three EXECUTIVE guest presentations: SUMMARY · Bruce Runnels, Vice President of TNC’s Rocky Mountain Division, provided an andscape Conservation Networks overview of grazing within the Conser- (LCNs) are a promising new vehicle vancy and touched on some of the Lfor catalyzing the development and biodiversity challenges unique to the implementation of innovative, landscape- American West.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Study Areas
    I ___- .-ll..l .“..l..““l.--..- I. _.^.___” _^.__.._._ - ._____.-.-.. ------ FEDERAL LAND M.ANAGEMENT Status and Uses of Wilderness Study Areas I 150156 RESTRICTED--Not to be released outside the General Accounting Wice unless specifically approved by the Office of Congressional Relations. ssBO4’8 RELEASED ---- ---. - (;Ao/li:( ‘I:I)-!L~-l~~lL - United States General Accounting OfTice GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-262989 September 23,1993 The Honorable Bruce F. Vento Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Committee on Natural Resources House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: Concerned about alleged degradation of areas being considered for possible inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (wilderness study areas), you requested that we provide you with information on the types and effects of activities in these study areas. As agreed with your office, we gathered information on areas managed by two agencies: the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLN) and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. Specifically, this report provides information on (1) legislative guidance and the agency policies governing wilderness study area management, (2) the various activities and uses occurring in the agencies’ study areas, (3) the ways these activities and uses affect the areas, and (4) agency actions to monitor and restrict these uses and to repair damage resulting from them. Appendixes I and II provide data on the number, acreage, and locations of wilderness study areas managed by BLM and the Forest Service, as well as data on the types of uses occurring in the areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife-Habitat Relationships of the Grande Ronde River
    Wildlife-Habitat Relationships of the Grande Ronde River by Aryn E. Hayden ABSTRACT In selecting habitat animal species require food, water and adequate cover. When these criteria are taken into account it appears that habitats utilized by terrestrial wildlife along the Grande Ronde River change longitudinally from mixed conifer forests to ponderosa pine forests in the headwaters and middle reaches to grassland and shrub-steppe in the lower reaches. Species diversity of mammals, birds and reptiles within these habitats will also decrease towards the lower reaches to some degree as habitat changes along the Grande Ronde River. A potential decrease in species diversity as habitat changes may indicate that habitat specialist species are more likely to be found in the headwaters of and middle reaches while habitat generalists are likely to be found in the middle and lower reaches of the Grande Ronde River. This concept of decreasing species diversity in a downstream gradient indicates that the River Continuum Concept, traditionally an aquatic hypothesis, may have some applicability to distributions of terrestrial wildlife in the context of riverine ecosystems. Species diversity of terrestrial wildlife is also heavily influenced by the presence of riparian vegetation along the river. Riparian vegetation is likely to be found within the headwaters and middle reaches of the Grande Ronde River and in patches pertaining to locations of physical complexity along the river such as confluences with tributaries. Riparian vegetation provides complex habitat for mammals and birds that live along the river and those that utilize riparian habitat for foraging, water requirements, migration or other activities necessary for survival.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13 -- Puget Sound, Washington
    514 Puget Sound, Washington Volume 7 WK50/2011 123° 122°30' 18428 SKAGIT BAY STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA S A R A T O 18423 G A D A M DUNGENESS BAY I P 18464 R A A L S T S Y A G Port Townsend I E N L E T 18443 SEQUIM BAY 18473 DISCOVERY BAY 48° 48° 18471 D Everett N U O S 18444 N O I S S E S S O P 18458 18446 Y 18477 A 18447 B B L O A B K A Seattle W E D W A S H I N ELLIOTT BAY G 18445 T O L Bremerton Port Orchard N A N 18450 A 18452 C 47° 47° 30' 18449 30' D O O E A H S 18476 T P 18474 A S S A G E T E L N 18453 I E S C COMMENCEMENT BAY A A C R R I N L E Shelton T Tacoma 18457 Puyallup BUDD INLET Olympia 47° 18456 47° General Index of Chart Coverage in Chapter 13 (see catalog for complete coverage) 123° 122°30' WK50/2011 Chapter 13 Puget Sound, Washington 515 Puget Sound, Washington (1) This chapter describes Puget Sound and its nu- (6) Other services offered by the Marine Exchange in- merous inlets, bays, and passages, and the waters of clude a daily newsletter about future marine traffic in Hood Canal, Lake Union, and Lake Washington. Also the Puget Sound area, communication services, and a discussed are the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and variety of coordinative and statistical information.
    [Show full text]
  • South Puget Sound Forum Environmental Quality – Economic Vitality Indicators Report Updated July 2006
    South Puget Sound Forum Environmental Quality – Economic Vitality Indicators Report Updated July 2006 Making connections and building partnerships to protect the marine waters, streams, and watersheds of Nisqually, Henderson, Budd, Eld and Totten Inlets The economic vitality of South Puget Sound is intricately linked to the environmental health of the Sound’s marine waters, streams, and watersheds. It’s hard to imagine the South Sound without annual events on or near the water - Harbor Days Tugboat Races, Wooden Boat Fair, Nisqually Watershed Festival, Swantown BoatSwap and Chowder Challenge, Parade of Lighted Ships – and other activities we prize such as beachcombing, boating, fishing, or simply enjoying a cool breeze at a favorite restaurant or park. South Sound is a haven for relaxation and recreation. Businesses such as shellfish growers and tribal fisheries, tourism, water recreational boating, marinas, port-related businesses, development and real estate all directly depend on the health of the South Sound. With strong contributions from the South Sound, statewide commercial harvest of shellfish draws in over 100 million dollars each year. Fishing, boating, travel and tourism are all vibrant elements in the region’s base economy, with over 80 percent of the state’s tourism and travel dollars generated in the Puget Sound Region. Many other businesses benefit indirectly. Excellent quality of life is an attractor for great employees, and the South Puget Sound has much to offer! The South Puget Sound Forum, held in Olympia on April 29, 2006, provided an opportunity to rediscover the connections between economic vitality and the health of South Puget Sound, and to take action to protect the valuable resources of the five inlets at the headwaters of the Puget Sound Basin – Totten, Eld, Budd, Henderson, and the Nisqually Reach.
    [Show full text]