DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Shoreline Characterization Report 1 1 Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Shoreline Characterization Report 1 1 Introduction CITY OF SEATTLE MARCH 2009 Shoreline Characterization Report DRAFT contents 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Understanding the Shoreline Characterization 2 1.2 Overview of Seattle Area Water Bodies 2 1.2.1 Watercourses and Streams 3 1.2.2 Lakes 3 1.2.3 Estuaries 3 1.2.4 Marine Waters 4 1.2.5 Seattle Shorelines Under Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction 4 2 A BRIEF PRIMER ON AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS AND ECOSYSTEM-WIDE PROCESSES 6 2.1 Lake Ecosystems 10 2.1.1 Lake Ecosystem Description 10 2.1.2 Lake Watershed Processes 12 2.1.3 Lake Biological Processes 17 2.1.4 Lake Shoreline Habitats and Associated Wetlands 19 2.2 Estuarine and Marine Ecosystems 21 2.2.1 Estuarine Ecosystem Description 21 2.2.2 Marine Ecosystem Description 22 2.2.3 Estuarine and Marine Watershed Processes 23 2.2.4 Estuarine and Marine Biological Processes 29 2.2.5 Estuarine and Marine Shoreline Habitats and Associated Wetlands 33 3 ASSESSING SHORELINE CONDITIONS 36 3.1 Regional Water Body Habitat Assessment 36 3.2 Watershed Processes Used in the Assessment 36 3.3 Data Collection and Compilation 38 3.3.1 Lake Washington, Lake Union, and the Ship Canal 39 3.3.2 Duwamish River Estuary 40 3.3.3 Puget Sound 41 3.3.4 All Areas 42 contents 3.4 Assessment Methods 43 3.4.1 Overview 43 3.4.2 Analysis Structure and Scoring 43 3.4.3 Defi ning Reaches and Data Aggregation 44 3.4.4 Assumptions and Limitations of the Analysis 46 4 CONDITIONS IN SEATTLE’S REGIONAL WATER BODIES 48 4.1 Lake Washington 48 4.1.1 Area Description 48 4.1.2 Hydrology 49 4.1.3 Water and Sediment Quality Conditions 52 4.1.4 Shoreline Habitat 54 4.1.5 Biological Communities 65 4.2 Lake Union and the Ship Canal/Ballard Locks 69 4.2.1 Area Description 69 4.2.2 Hydrology 71 4.2.3 Water and Sediment Quality 72 4.2.4 Shoreline Habitat 74 4.2.5 Biological Communities 79 4.3 Duwamish River Estuary 81 4.3.1 Area Description 81 4.3.2 Hydrology 82 4.3.3 Water and Sediment Quality 83 4.3.4 Shoreline Habitat 84 4.3.5 Biological Communities 87 4.4 Marine Nearshore of Puget Sound, including Elliott Bay and Shilshole Bay 89 4.4.1 Area Description 89 4.4.2 Hydrology 90 4.4.3 Water and Sediment Quality 91 4.4.4 Shoreline Habitat 92 4.4.5 Biological Communities 104 4.5 Green Lake 108 4.5.1 Area Description 108 4.5.2 Hydrology 108 4.5.3 Water and Sediment Quality 109 4.5.4 Shoreline Habitat 114 4.5.5 Biological Communities 115 contents 5 SEATTLE WATER BODY SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 119 5.1 Summary 119 5.2 Hydrology 119 5.2.1 Lake Washington/Lake Union Hydrologic Modifi cations 119 5.2.2 Duwamish River Estuary Hydrologic Modifi cations 119 5.2.3 Other Tributaries 120 5.2.4 Stormwater and Wastewater 120 5.2.5 Green Lake 120 5.3 Water and Sediment Quality 120 5.4 Shoreline Habitat Summary 121 5.5 Biological Processes and Community Summary 125 5.6 Climate Change and Large-Scale Events 125 5.6.1 Sea Level Rise 125 5.6.2 Other Projected Changes 126 6 REFERENCES 127 contents LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Human-caused Stressors on Lake, Marine, and Estuarine Watershed Processes 7 Table 4-1: Stressors Affecting Shoreline Conditions in Lake Washington 56 Table 4-2: Stressors Affecting Shoreline Conditions in Lake Union and the Ship Canal 75 Table 4-3: Stressors Affecting Shoreline Conditions in the Duwamish River Estuary 85 Table 4-4: Stressors Affecting Shoreline Conditions in the Marine Nearshore of Puget Sound 93 Table 4-5: Green Lake Sediment Metals Concentrations Compared to Freshwater Sediment Guidelines 112 Table 4-6: Green Lake Sampling Stations with Exceedances of Freshwater Sediment Guidelines 113 Table 4-7: Stressors Affecting Shoreline Conditions in Green Lake 114 Table 5-1: Summary of Process Impairment and Overall Impairment in Freshwater Reaches 123 Table 5-2: Summary of Process Impairment and Overall Impairment in Marine Reaches 124 Table 5-3: City of Seattle’s Sea Level Rise Assumptions 126 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Conceptual Model of Watershed Processes, Stressors, and Habitat 6 Figure 2-2: Lake Structure Zones 11 Figure 3-1: Example of the Relationship Between Processes, Elements, and Components 44 Figure 3-2: Original Gridded Data and Simplifi ed Point Data Along the Shoreline 45 Figure 3-3: Example Graph of Aggregated Scores and Distance with Interpreted Reach Breaks 46 Figure 4-1: Lake Washington Drainage Basin Before and After 1917 51 Figure 4-2: Postcard Showing Mt. Rainier over Lake Washington, circa 1903 55 Figure 4-3: Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal System 70 Figure 4-4: Lake Union and Salmon Bay circa 1890 71 Figure 4-5: Green Lake Sediment Sampling Stations 111 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: GIS Source Notes 148 Appendix B: Scoring for GIS Based Analysis 153 Appendix C: Map Folio (separate document) contents LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Anchor Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. BEHP bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate CAD Computer Aided Design cfs cubic feet per second CSO combined sewer overfl ow DPD Department of Planning and Development Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System GSA General Service Administration Herrera Herrera Environmental Consultants LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LWD large woody debris mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/L milligrams per liter MLLW mean lower low water NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OHWM ordinary high water mark PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PSAT Puget Sound Action Team PSNERP Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project PSNP Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership RCW Revised Code of Washington SLR Sea Level Rise SMA Shoreline Management Act SMC Seattle Municipal Code SMP Shoreline Master Program SPU Seattle Public Utilities SQT Sediment Quality Triad SR State Route TBT tributyltin TMDL total maximum daily load μg/L micrograms per liter USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS U.S. Geological Survey WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area acknowledgements This report is the product of the effort and hard work of many people within the City of Seattle and assisting consultants. The contributions of the following authors and reviewers are acknowledged and appreciated: SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Margaret Glowacki Brennon Staley Dave LaClergue SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES Julie Hall Michele Koehler Scott Reese Beth Schmoyer ANCHOR ENVIRONMENTAL, L.L.C. Paul Schlenger John Small Ali Wick KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS Sally Abella Ken Rauscher Kollin Higgins overview THIS REPORT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS: Section 1 - Introduction Explains the purposes of developing the Shoreline Characterization Report and the importance of understanding both historical conditions and present conditions in Seattle’s water bodies, and the underlying causes of changes that have occurred. Section 2 - A Brief Primer on Aquatic Ecosystems and Ecosystem- wide Processes Describes how hydrology, water quality, and physical conditions work together to shape shoreline habitat and the plant and animal communities that use it. Section 3 - Assessing Shoreline Conditions Describes the methods used to evaluate conditions in Seattle water bodies for the purposes of this report. Section 4 - Conditions in Seattle’s Regional Water Bodies Describes the water quality and physical habitat conditions in Lake Washington, the Lake Washington Ship Canal (Ship Canal)/Lake Union, the Duwamish River, Seattle’s portions of Puget Sound, and Green Lake. The section also describes low-quality and high-quality habitat areas identifi ed in the shoreline characterization assessment. Section 5 - Seattle Water Body Summary and Conclusions Summarizes and compares current conditions throughout the city. Section 5 also provides conclusions about the overall state of Seattle water bodies. A map folio (Appendix C) accompanying this report presents shoreline maps, and Appendices A and B provide additional technical detail about the methods and results of the analyses of aquatic conditions. DRAFT SHORELINE CHARACTERIZATION REPORT 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Understanding the Shoreline Characterization This Shoreline Characterization Report, prepared by Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), documents the conditions of Seattle’s shorelines. This Shoreline Characterization Report will be used by DPD to update their Shoreline Master Program (SMP). This report describes the current hydrologic, chemical, physical, and biological conditions of the larger lakes, estuaries, and marine shorelines located within the city limits of Seattle. These conditions defi ne aquatic health and the ability of the city’s shoreline habitats to perform critical functions and services, such as fi ltering water and capturing sediment, moderating fl oods, and forming aquatic habitat. Based on a number of research, monitoring, and assessment reports, this information has been collectively compiled and organized for the fi rst time to be readily accessible to City of Seattle staff and interested citizens. Interconnectedness between terrestrial and aquatic environments is among the most important concepts for managing watercourses, lakes, estuaries, and marine environments. Physical, chemical, and biological changes in a watershed can lead to changes in nearby and distant areas, sometimes with unintended or unexpected consequences. The variability of impacts often creates diffi cult challenges in managing land, drainage, development, and other watershed uses without leading to adverse effects on the ecosystem as a whole.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ballard/Fremont Neighborhood Greenways
    Ballard-Interbay Regional Transportation System Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board SDOT Policy & Planning Department of Transportation May 6, 2020 Presentation overview •Project background and purpose •Project scope, outcomes, schedule •Engagement/equity •Overview of comments •Questions for SBAB Department of Transportation 3 www.seattle.gov/transportation/birt Department of Transportation 2019 Washington State legislative language ESHB 1160 – Section 311(18)(b) “Funding in this subsection is provided solely The plan must examine replacement of the Ballard for the city of Seattle to develop a plan and Bridge and the Magnolia Bridge, which was damaged in report for the Ballard-Interbay Regional the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. The city must provide a Transportation System project to improve report on the plan that includes recommendations to the mobility for people and freight. The plan Seattle city council, King county council, and the must be developed in coordination and transportation committees of the legislature by partnership with entities including but not November 1, 2020. The report must include limited to the city of Seattle, King county, the recommendations on how to maintain the current and Port of Seattle, Sound Transit, the future capacities of the Magnolia and Ballard bridges, an Washington state military department for the overview and analysis of all plans between 2010 and Seattle armory, and the Washington State 2020 that examine how to replace the Magnolia bridge, Department of Transportation. and recommendations on a timeline
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle-Childrens-Map-2013.Pdf
    57th Ave NE 58th Ave NE NOAA AcRd NOAA AcRd NE 77th St NE Sunrise Vista NE 76th St NE 77th St Waldo J. Dahl NE Urban Vista 57th Pl NE Playfield NE Park Pl NE 75th St 63rd Ave NE 31st Ave NE Ave 31st 41st Ave NE 41st Ave 37th Ave NE Ave 37th 33rd Ave NE Ave 33rd 34th Ave NE Ave 34th 39th Ave NE 39th Ave 30th Ave NE 30th Ave 36th Ave NE Ave 36th 43rd Ave NE Ave 43rd 44th Ave NE Ave 44th 40th Ave NE Ave 40th 32nd Ave NE Ave 32nd èê NE Ave 42nd èê èê èê Center for Pediatric Northwest Safeway 20th Ave 20thNE Ave k k Dentistry Montessori NE 74th St NE 74th St Eckstein NE 74th St Middle School NE 73rd Pl 47th Ave NE èê NE 74th St NE 73rd St NE 73rd St NE 73rd St 49th Ave NE Ave 49th 48th Ave NE Ave 48th NE 73rd St 76 57th Ave NE NE 72nd St Messiah Concordia NE 72nd St View Ridge Lutheran k Lutheran Elementary View Ridge NE 56th Ave Church and School k 71 24th Ave NE24th Ave 23rd Ave NE Ave 23rd 20th Pl NE 18th Ave 18thNE Ave 19th NE Ave 21st Ave NE Ave 21st NE 71st St Ravenna Ave NE Ravenna Ave School Playfield 53rd Ave NE Ave 53rd k NE 71st St 54th NE Ave 31st Ave NE Ave 31st NE 70th St NE 32nd Ave 76 èê NE 70th St 83 Warren G. Magnuson Park 372 NE Way Sand Point 62nd Ave NE Sand Point 71 AcRd Park Magnuson United Methodist 50th Ave NE 50th Ave 52nd NE Ave 51st Ave NE 51st Ave NE 69th St 70th & Sand Point 42nd Ave NE 42nd Ave 37th Ave NE Ave 37th NE 38th Ave 39th Ave NE Ave 39th 36th Ave NE 36th Ave Church 44th Pl NE 31st Ave NE Ave 31st 27th Ave NE 27th Ave NE 28th Ave NE 29th Ave 26th Ave NE 26th Ave 30th Ave NE 30th Ave 32nd Ave NE 32nd Ave
    [Show full text]
  • The Union Bay Natural Area in 1916
    Restoration Historic Use Current & Future Uses Walks 2013 Montlake Fill in the late 1950’s Yesler Swamp The Mon tla ke Fill was a lllocal lan dfill that was built on a mudflat created when Lake Washington was lowered The Union Bay Natural Area in 1916. It was used for refuse A Walking Tour of Habitat Restoration disposal starting in 1933 and capped Saturday May 25th at 10AM in 1970. In 1991, students and Meet at the Wahkiakum Lane Kiosk faculty from the University of Washington began to restore the site, and it was named the Union The Union Bay Natural Area contains Bay Natural Area. Managed by the grasslands, woodlands, riparian areas, University of Washington Botanic shoreline, permanent and ephemeral Gardens, it is a natural laboratory for ponds, marshes and swamps. It is one Societyyg for Ecological Restoration restoration and natural historic study. of the premier birding areas in Seattle. Northwest Chapter Union Bay Natural Area Restoration Walk Area In 1970, the old landfill site was seeded with European Center for Urban pasture grasses and management stopped. By 1998, Horticulture Meeting spot about half of the 76 acre site was engulfed by Himalayan blackberry; invasive control has been the main focus of all subsequent restoration. Beaver Dam in Yesler Swamp The Restoration walk will be guided by Professor Kern Ewing Restoration Walk Areas of Interest: 1) Studies per formed by the University’s Student Laboratory. 2) Approaches used to control blackberry: Invasive Removal. 3) Species Diversity and birding in the Union Bay Natural Area. 4) Habitat Diversity and Natural colonization.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Better Fish Trap
    BUILDING A BETTER FISH TRAP CORY CUTHBERTSON, WDFW History of L.Washington sockeye and water projects Broodstock collection at the old trap and weir at Cavanaugh Ponds Fall 2008 installation and operation of the new floating resistance board weir in Renton, WA What we learned in the first year and how we can improve next year Ballard Locks Interim Sockeye Hatchery • Established 1991 • 17 million fry capacity • Operated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Long Term Project Goals Increase returns of Cedar R sockeye and provide fishing opportunity for public and tribes Avoid or reduce effects on naturally spawning populations Challenges Broodstock collection ESA listed Chinook Temporary structure in a volatile river Weir at Cavanaugh Pond 11/6/2006 Why a New Weir in Renton? About a 1/3 of the sockeye spawn below Cavanaugh Pond, limiting broodstock collection. The new weir is a resistance board weir, which will be able to withstand higher flows. Doesn’t require equipment for installation/removal. Weir Panel Nomenclature Results: A better fish trap? ~Same # of eggs from ½ the # of adults into the L. Washington basin Installed in 2 days, removed in 4 hours without any heavy equipment Next year we should… Better trap door to target Chinook passage New Hatchery Thanks! Paul Faulds and Gary Sprague, SPU Brodie Antipa, WDFW Seattle Public Utilities Cramer Fish Sciences Questions ? What’s the Hurry? The Lake Washington fish flop of 2008 Age Composition Of Females 100 80 60 Hatch 40 NOR 20 0 % Of Sampled Fish % Of Sampled 3-yr 4-yr 5-yr Age At Maturati on Age Composition In Hatchery & Wild Females Is Comparable Sockeye introductions and propagation in Lake Washington From Cultus Lake 1917 1935 1944 23,655 to North Cr.
    [Show full text]
  • 8 Chittenden Locks 47
    Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Hiram M. Chittenden Locks The following write-up relies heavily on the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks/Salmon Bay Subarea Chapter by Fred Goetz in the Draft Reconnaissance Assessment – Habitat Factors that Contribute to the Decline of Salmonids by the Greater Lake Washington Technical Committee (2001). Overview The Hiram M. Chittenden Locks (Locks) were Operation of the navigational locks involves constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers raising or lowering the water level within either (the Corps) in 1916 and commissioned in 1917. the large or small lock chamber so that vessels may The Locks were built as a navigation project to pass between the two waterbodies. The filling and allow boats to travel from the marine waters of emptying of the large lock chamber is achieved by Puget Sound to the protected freshwaters of Lake use of a system of two large conduits that can Union and Lake Washington. The Locks are either fill the entire lock or half of the lock. This comprised of two navigational lock chambers: a is achieved by using a miter gate that divides the large lock that accommodates both large and small large lock chamber into two sections. Water is vessels and a small lock used by smaller vessels. In taken into the conduits via two culvert intakes addition to the lock chambers, the Locks include a located immediately upstream of the structure. dam, 6 spillway bays, and a fish ladder. Water is conveyed through each conduit and is The Locks form a dam at the outlet of the Lake discharged into the lock chamber through outlet Washington and Lake Union/Ship Canal system culverts on each side of the chamber.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release Locks TAST Final 8-26-20
    New device may keep seals away from the Ballard Locks, giving migrating salmon a better chance at survival For Immediate Release: 8/26/20 - Seattle, WA SUMMARY A group of partners working to improve salmon stocks have deployed a newly developed device on the west side of the Ballard Locks that uses underwater sound to keep harbor seals away from this salmon migration bottleneck. If effective, the device may help salmon populations in jeopardy by reducing predation without harming marine mammals. STORY The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Oceans Initiative, with support from Long Live the Kings, University of St Andrews, Genuswave, Puget Sound Partnership, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and other partner organizations have deployed a Targeted Acoustic Startle Technology (TAST) on the west side of the Ballard (Hiram M. Chittenden) Locks. The TAST is intended to keep harbor seals away from the fish ladder allowing salmon to reach the Lake Washington Ship Canal from Puget Sound. Seals and sea lions are known to linger at this migration bottleneck and consume large numbers of salmon returning to the spawning grounds. If successful, the device may help recover dwindling salmon runs, without harming marine mammals. "We are always looking for new innovations to help the environment,” said USACE spokesperson Dallas Edwards. “We are excited to see the results of this study." Every salmon and steelhead originating from the Sammamish or Cedar river must pass through the Ballard Locks twice during its life, once as a young smolt and again as an adult. With limited routes to get through the locks, salmon are funneled through a small area.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds in the Arboretum Revisited
    BIRDS IN THE ARBORETUM REVISITED T EXT AND P HOTOS B Y L ARRY H UBBELL Bewick’s Wren in a crabapple tree at Washington Park Arboretum. n fall 1942, a young biologist named and to the north of Union Bay, was used as a Earl J. Larrison wrote an article for repository for Seattle City waste. Moreover, I the “Bulletin” entitled “Birds of the across the U.S. the chemical DDT, which Arboretum.” In it, he listed 133 species of birds, dramatically weakened the eggshells of predatory 79 of which he categorized as land birds and 54 birds, was legally used until 1972. as water birds. (You can peruse a copy of this Plus, over the years, there has been increasing “Bulletin”—Volume 5, number 9—in the Miller competition from new species of birds (exotics Library, at the Center for Urban Horticulture.) and U.S. natives alike) that were not found in In 2011, almost 80 years later, I began photo- our region in 1942—for example, the European graphing birds in and around the Arboretum, and Starling, Barred Owl, Anna’s Hummingbird, and I continue to do so on a regular basis. Since the lately, the Eurasian Collared-Dove. Under these 1940s, the human population in Seattle has nearly circumstances, a decline in the number of native doubled, and the world’s population has tripled. birds and bird species is not a surprise. Loss of habitat due to population growth in our What is surprising is that most of the species city has no doubt affected the number of birds Earl Larrison documented can still be seen in and species migrating through the Arboretum.
    [Show full text]
  • SR 520 I-5 to Medina
    Attachment 9 Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Report SR 520, I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration February 2011 Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Report SR 520, I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project February 2011 Prepared By: Patrick Togher, PWS (HDR Engineering, Inc.) Beth Peterson, PE (HDR Engineering, Inc.) Maki Dalzell, (Wetland Scientist, HDR Engineering, Inc.) Other Contributors and Role: Shane Cherry (Mitigation Discipline Lead, Confluence Environmental Company) Jeff Meyer, PWS (Sr. Wetland Biologist, Parametrix, Inc.) Ken Sargent (Wetland Biologist, Headwaters Environmental Consulting, Inc.) 1 Executive Summary 2 The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is proposing to construct the I-5 3 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project (SR 520, I-5 to Medina Project) to reduce 4 transit and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) travel times and to replace the aging spans of the 5 Portage Bay and Evergreen Point bridges, which are highly vulnerable to windstorms and 6 earthquakes. The project will also widen the State Route (SR) 520 corridor to six lanes from I-5 7 in Seattle to Evergreen Point Road in Medina, and will restripe and reconfigure the lanes in the 8 corridor from Evergreen Point Road to 92nd Avenue NE in Yarrow Point. The project will 9 complete the regional HOV lane system across SR 520, as called for in regional and local 10 transportation plans. 11 The SR 520, I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project (SR 520, I-5 to Medina 12 Project) extends approximately 5.2 miles, from the interchange at I-5 in Seattle eastward to 13 Evergreen Point Road in Medina, on the east side of Lake Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution Salish Sea Tidal Hydrodynamic Model September 2020
    PNNL-30448 Validation of the High- Resolution Salish Sea Tidal Hydrodynamic Model September 2020 Z Yang T Wang R Branch Z Xiao Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Choose an item. DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Printed in the United States of America Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062; ph: (865) 576-8401 fax: (865) 576-5728 email: [email protected] Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Rd., Alexandria, VA 22312 ph: (800) 553-NTIS (6847) email: [email protected] <https://www.ntis.gov/about> Online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov Choose an item.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous People and the Transformation of Seattle's
    05-C3737 1/19/06 11:43 AM Page 89 City of the Changers: Indigenous People and the Transformation of Seattle’s Watersheds COLL THRUSH The author is a member of the history department at the University of British Columbia. Between the 1880s and the 1930s indigenous people continued to eke out traditional livings along the waterways and shorelines of Seattle’s urbanizing and industrializing landscape. During those same years, however, the city’s civic leaders and urban plan- ners oversaw massive transformations of that landscape, including the creation of a ship canal linking Puget Sound with Lake Washington and the straightening of the Duwamish River. These transformations typified the modernizing ethos that sought to improve nature to ameliorate or even end social conflict. The struggle of the Duwamish and other local indigenous people to survive urban change, as well as the efforts by residents of nearby Indian reservations to maintain connections to places within the city, illustrate the complex, ironic legacies of Seattle’s environmental his- tory. They also show the ways in which urban and Native history are linked through both material and discursive practices. Seattle was a bad place to build a city. Steep sand slopes crumbled atop slippery clay; a river wound through its wide, marshy estuary and bled out onto expansive tidal flats; kettle lakes and cranberried peat bogs recalled the retreat of the great ice sheets; unpredictable creeks plunged into deep ravines—all among seven (or, depending on whom you ask, nine or fifteen) hills sandwiched between the vast, deep waters of Puget Sound and of Lake Wash- ington.
    [Show full text]
  • Spawning Escapement Update for the Lake Washington Watershed Seattle Public Utilities
    Spawning Escapement Update for the Lake Washington Watershed Seattle Public Utilities King County City of Bellevue Muckleshoot Indian Tribe WDFW 2017 Cedar Chinook Spawning Escapement: 2,048 Fish 2500 Cedar Chinook Spawning Escapement 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Estimating Chinook Spawning Escapement: Boat Surveys and Complete Redd Census Carcass Survey Data 2017 Cedar Chinook Hatchery 24% Natural 76% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Natural-Origin Spawners Hatchery-Origin Spawners Age-5 Age-2 Cedar Chinook Age 1% 5% 2017 Age-3 Age-4 39% 55% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Age-2 Age-3 Age-4 Age-5 Big Bear Creek Issaquah Hatchery Cedar River 2,500 Sammamish Chinook Spawning Escapement 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Foot Surveys Sammamish Chinook 2017 Natural 14% Hatchery 86% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Natural-Origin Spawners Hatchery-Origin Spawners 18,000 Lake Washington Chinook 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Sammamish Chinook Cedar Chinook Hatchery Return Cedar River Coho 800 Coho Count above Landsburg 700 600 Passage 500 above 400 Landsburg 300 200 100 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 140,000 Cedar Coho Production 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 45,000 40,000 35,000 Locks Count 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1,000 800 Freshwater Sport Catch 600 400 200 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes-Of-The-Salish-Sea-Pp18.Pdf
    NOAA Professional Paper NMFS 18 Fishes of the Salish Sea: a compilation and distributional analysis Theodore W. Pietsch James W. Orr September 2015 U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Professional Penny Pritzker Secretary of Commerce Papers NMFS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Kathryn D. Sullivan Scientifi c Editor Administrator Richard Langton National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Service Maine Field Station Eileen Sobeck 17 Godfrey Drive, Suite 1 Assistant Administrator Orono, Maine 04473 for Fisheries Associate Editor Kathryn Dennis National Marine Fisheries Service Offi ce of Science and Technology Fisheries Research and Monitoring Division 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 178 Honolulu, Hawaii 96818 Managing Editor Shelley Arenas National Marine Fisheries Service Scientifi c Publications Offi ce 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, Washington 98115 Editorial Committee Ann C. Matarese National Marine Fisheries Service James W. Orr National Marine Fisheries Service - The NOAA Professional Paper NMFS (ISSN 1931-4590) series is published by the Scientifi c Publications Offi ce, National Marine Fisheries Service, The NOAA Professional Paper NMFS series carries peer-reviewed, lengthy original NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, research reports, taxonomic keys, species synopses, fl ora and fauna studies, and data- Seattle, WA 98115. intensive reports on investigations in fi shery science, engineering, and economics. The Secretary of Commerce has Copies of the NOAA Professional Paper NMFS series are available free in limited determined that the publication of numbers to government agencies, both federal and state. They are also available in this series is necessary in the transac- exchange for other scientifi c and technical publications in the marine sciences.
    [Show full text]