DOCSLIB.ORG

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for HYDROPOWER PILOT PROJECT LICENSE Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project—FERC Project No. 12690-005

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for HYDROPOWER PILOT PROJECT LICENSE Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project—FERC Project No. 12690-005 20130115-3035 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/15/2013 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER PILOT PROJECT LICENSE Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project—FERC Project No. 12690-005 (DOE/EA-1949) Washington Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401 January 15, 2013 20130115-3035 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/15/2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 17 1.1 APPLICATION........................................................................................... 17 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER................................ 17 1.2.1 Purpose of Action .......................................................................... 17 1.2.2 Need for Power.............................................................................. 19 1.3 COOPERATING AGENCY ROLES ......................................................... 20 1.4 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ....................... 20 1.4.1 Federal Power Act ......................................................................... 22 1.4.2 Clean Water Act ............................................................................ 23 1.4.3 Endangered Species Act................................................................ 23 1.4.4 Marine Mammal Protection Act.................................................... 24 1.4.5 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act . 25 1.4.6 Coastal Zone Management Act ..................................................... 25 1.4.7 National Historic Preservation Act................................................ 26 1.5 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ....................................................... 26 1.5.1 Comments on the Draft License Application ................................ 27 1.5.2 Interventions .................................................................................. 28 1.5.3 Comments on the License Application ......................................... 29 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES................................................... 29 2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE.................................................................. 29 2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL...................................................................... 30 2.2.1 Project Facilities ............................................................................ 30 2.2.2 Project Safety................................................................................. 31 2.2.3 Project Installation and Removal .................................................. 31 2.2.4 Project Operation........................................................................... 33 2.2.5 Project Maintenance ...................................................................... 34 2.2.6 Proposed Environmental Measures ............................................... 36 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 37 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................................................................... 39 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA .......................... 39 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ................................ 40 3.2.1 Geographic Scope.......................................................................... 40 3.2.2 Temporal Scope............................................................................. 41 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....................... 41 i 20130115-3035 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/15/2013 3.3.1 Geologic and Soil Resources......................................................... 42 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment................................................... 42 3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. 44 3.3.2 Marine Resources .......................................................................... 48 3.3.2.1 Affected Environment................................................... 48 3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. 65 3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects ....................................................... 95 3.3.3 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species .................................. 96 3.3.3.1 Affected Environment................................................... 96 3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 116 3.3.3.3 Cumulative Effects ..................................................... 122 3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................... 122 3.3.4.1 Affected Environment................................................. 122 3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 123 3.3.5 Recreation.................................................................................... 125 3.3.5.1 Affected Environment................................................. 125 3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 128 3.3.6 Land and Ocean Use.................................................................... 131 3.3.6.1 Affected Environment................................................. 131 3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 132 3.3.7 Navigation ................................................................................... 140 3.3.7.1 Affected Environment................................................. 140 3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 141 3.3.8 Aesthetic Resources..................................................................... 146 3.3.8.1 Affected Environment................................................. 146 3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 147 3.3.9 Cultural Resources....................................................................... 150 3.3.9.1 Affected Environment................................................. 150 3.3.9.2 Environmental Effects ................................................ 153 3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE................................................................ 154 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 155 4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT ................ 155 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.................................................... 156 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES......................................... 158 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................... 164 5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.................................................... 164 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................... 168 5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ................................................ 175 5.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 176 5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS............................ 179 ii 20130115-3035 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/15/2013 6.0 FERC FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ........................................... 180 7.0 LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................... 181 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 201 APPENDIX A.................................................................................................................. 202 iii 20130115-3035 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/15/2013 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project (Source: application). ..... 18 Figure 2. Illustration of the OpenHydro turbine (Source: application). .................... 31 Figure 3. OpenHydro Installation Barge (Source: application)................................. 33 Figure 4. ROV image of cobble pavement bottom in project area (Source: applicant). .................................................................................................................. 43 Figure 5. Hjulstrom’s Diagram showing the transport, deposition, and erosion of particles based on particle size and water velocity (Source: www.geographylwc.org.uk). ..................................................................................... 47 Figure 6. Percentile One-third octave levels (TOLs) for ambient noise (25 Hz – 1 kHz) (Source: application). ...................................................................................... 51 Figure 7. Median One-third octave levels (TOLs) for ambient noise (1 kHz – 25 khz) as a function of current velocity (Source: application). ........................................... 51 Figure 8. Probability distribution of turbine source levels (left). Broadband (25 Hz – 25 kHz) one-third octave source levels (right) for select operating percentiles (Source: application). ..............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • South Tacoma Way, Circa 1913, Photo Courtesy of the Tacoma Public Library, Amzie D
    The west side of the 5200 block of South Tacoma Way, circa 1913, photo courtesy of the Tacoma Public Library, Amzie D. Browning Collection 158 2 011 Historic South Tacoma Way South Tacoma Way Business District In early 2011, Historic Tacoma reached out to the 60+ member South Tacoma Business District Association as part of its new neighborhood initiative. The area is home to one of the city’s most intact historic commercial business districts. A new commuter rail station is due to open in 2012, business owners are interested in S 52nd St taking advantage of City loan and grant programs for façade improvements, and Historic Tacoma sees S Washington St great opportunities in partnering with the district. S Puget Sound Ave The goals of the South Tacoma project are to identify and assess historic structures and then to partner with business owners and the City of Tacoma to conserve and revitalize the historic core of the South Tacoma Business District. The 2011 work plan includes: • conducting a detailed inventory of approximately 50 commercial structures in the historic center of the district • identification of significant and endangered South Way Tacoma properties in the district • development of action plans for endangered properties • production of a “historic preservation resource guide for community leaders” which can be S 54th St used by community groups across the City • ½ day design workshop for commercial property owners • production & distribution of a South Tacoma Business District tour guide and map • nominations to the Tacoma Register of Historic Places as requested by property owners • summer walking tour of the district Acknowledgements Project funding provided by Historic Tacoma, the South Tacoma Business District Association, the South Tacoma Neighborhood Council, the University of Washington-Tacoma, and Jim and Karen Rich.
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST and BIOGEOGRAPHY of FISHES from GUADALUPE ISLAND, WESTERN MEXICO Héctor Reyes-Bonilla, Arturo Ayala-Bocos, Luis E
    ReyeS-BONIllA eT Al: CheCklIST AND BIOgeOgRAphy Of fISheS fROm gUADAlUpe ISlAND CalCOfI Rep., Vol. 51, 2010 CHECKLIST AND BIOGEOGRAPHY OF FISHES FROM GUADALUPE ISLAND, WESTERN MEXICO Héctor REyES-BONILLA, Arturo AyALA-BOCOS, LUIS E. Calderon-AGUILERA SAúL GONzáLEz-Romero, ISRAEL SáNCHEz-ALCántara Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada AND MARIANA Walther MENDOzA Carretera Tijuana - Ensenada # 3918, zona Playitas, C.P. 22860 Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur Ensenada, B.C., México Departamento de Biología Marina Tel: +52 646 1750500, ext. 25257; Fax: +52 646 Apartado postal 19-B, CP 23080 [email protected] La Paz, B.C.S., México. Tel: (612) 123-8800, ext. 4160; Fax: (612) 123-8819 NADIA C. Olivares-BAñUELOS [email protected] Reserva de la Biosfera Isla Guadalupe Comisión Nacional de áreas Naturales Protegidas yULIANA R. BEDOLLA-GUzMáN AND Avenida del Puerto 375, local 30 Arturo RAMíREz-VALDEz Fraccionamiento Playas de Ensenada, C.P. 22880 Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Ensenada, B.C., México Facultad de Ciencias Marinas, Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanológicas Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Carr. Tijuana-Ensenada km. 107, Apartado postal 453, C.P. 22890 Ensenada, B.C., México ABSTRACT recognized the biological and ecological significance of Guadalupe Island, off Baja California, México, is Guadalupe Island, and declared it a Biosphere Reserve an important fishing area which also harbors high (SEMARNAT 2005). marine biodiversity. Based on field data, literature Guadalupe Island is isolated, far away from the main- reviews, and scientific collection records, we pres- land and has limited logistic facilities to conduct scien- ent a comprehensive checklist of the local fish fauna, tific studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: Destinations – Utilitarian And
    Jefferson County Non-Motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan 2010 Chapter 4: Destinations – Utilitarian and Recreational 2010 Plan Update: Chapter 4 Destinations provides a broad picture of Jefferson County: where people live, work, go to school, shop, and recreate and the locations of tourist facilities and significant public facilities. This information is intended to inform decisions about connecting these destinations with non-motorized transportation facilities. It is not intended as an up-to-date guide. While Chapter 4 has not been updated, it still performs its intended function. This chapter has been retained in the original 2002 Plan format. County, City, Port, School District, State, Federal, and private enterprises have developed an extensive number of commercial, employment, business, educational, recreational, and other public facilities within the County. This extensive array of facilities is of interest to non-motorized transportation and recreational trail users. This chapter describes the most significant destinations. 4.1 Schools The Brinnon, Chimacum, Port Townsend, Queets-Clearwater, Quilcene, Quillayute Valley, and Sequim School Districts provide educational services to Jefferson County residents. Brinnon School District The school district collects students by bus within the district’s service area – which includes all of Brinnon and the areas along US-101 from the Mason County line to Mt Walker and transports them to the central school site. Upper grade students are bused to Quilcene High School. The district operates 6 school bus routes beginning at 6:35-9:00 am and ending at 3:46-4:23 pm for the collection and distribution of different school grades and after school programs.
    [Show full text]
  • South Puget Sound Community College Year Three Mid-Cycle Evaluation
    South Puget Sound Community College Year Three Mid-Cycle Evaluation Dr. Timothy Stokes President September, 2014 Table of Contents Report on Year One Recommendation ......................................................................................................... 1 Mission .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Part I .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Mission Fulfillment .................................................................................................................................... 1 Operational Planning ................................................................................................................................ 2 Core Themes, Objectives and Indicators .................................................................................................. 3 Part II ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Rationale for Indicators of Achievement .................................................................................................. 5 Increase Student Retention (Objective 1.A) ......................................................................................... 5 Support Student Completion (Objective 1.B) ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment 2011 2
    Jefferson County Department of Emergency Management 81 Elkins Road, Port Hadlock, Washington 98339 - Phone: (360) 385-9368 Email: [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 I. INTRODUCTION 6 II. GEOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 6 III. DEMOGRAPHIC ASPECTS 7 IV. SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL DISASTER EVENTS 9 V. NATURAL HAZARDS 12 • AVALANCHE 13 • DROUGHT 14 • EARTHQUAKES 17 • FLOOD 24 • LANDSLIDE 32 • SEVERE LOCAL STORM 34 • TSUNAMI / SEICHE 38 • VOLCANO 42 • WILDLAND / FOREST / INTERFACE FIRES 45 VI. TECHNOLOGICAL (HUMAN MADE) HAZARDS 48 • CIVIL DISTURBANCE 49 • DAM FAILURE 51 • ENERGY EMERGENCY 53 • FOOD AND WATER CONTAMINATION 56 • HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 58 • MARINE OIL SPILL – MAJOR POLLUTION EVENT 60 • SHELTER / REFUGE SITE 62 • TERRORISM 64 • URBAN FIRE 67 RESOURCES / REFERENCES 69 Jefferson County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment 2011 2 PURPOSE This Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment (HIVA) document describes known natural and technological (human-made) hazards that could potentially impact the lives, economy, environment, and property of residents of Jefferson County. It provides a foundation for further planning to ensure that County leadership, agencies, and citizens are aware and prepared to meet the effects of disasters and emergencies. Incident management cannot be event driven. Through increased awareness and preventive measures, the ultimate goal is to help ensure a unified approach that will lesson vulnerability to hazards over time. The HIVA is not a detailed study, but a general overview of known hazards that can affect Jefferson County. Jefferson County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment 2011 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An integrated emergency management approach involves hazard identification, risk assessment, and vulnerability analysis. This document, the Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment (HIVA) describes the hazard identification and assessment of both natural hazards and technological, or human caused hazards, which exist for the people of Jefferson County.
    [Show full text]
  • October – November
    HOOD SAILMAKERS . TR1J IN At Hood we believe it's our job to provide you with the best sails to accomplish your performance goals. Our computer generated moulded sails give you lasting performance through our proven designs and durability. Results are easy to come by when you use Hood Sails. TAKE A TIP FROM THOSE WHO KNOW. "Th e co 111bi11 ario11 of lasting pe1for111a 11 ce and reliability gives us co11ti11ui11g rnccess." Mal'tin James - Team Jaguar/ lnfini ty III "Our Hood sails have given us the edge 0 11 ou r comperi tors. " Hans Somme 1· - Somm e1· Breeze "Reliability and pe1fo r111a11 ce is the kev to success. " Ra y Stone - Razo1·'s Edge "Th ey are fast a11d they last." Geoff Ross - Yendys " You ca11 't bear race wi1111i11g speed." Richal'd P e1·ini - Corinthian Doors. C•l•JD The Trusted Name in Sailmaking SAILMAKERS From the Commodore's Desk n Saturday, August 2, Aus­ high price events like the America's his experiences from the time he left the tralia's second biggest ocean Cup and the two or three maxi boats Merchant Navy in pursuit of just one racing event, after the Telstra that are first out of Sydney Heads on thing, winning the single-handed BOC Sydney to Hobart, started and finished Boxing Day. Round the World Race. with little more than a whimper in the There may be a case for elitism with Those of us who know Adams were press. the America's Cup. However, there is not surprised he achieved this goal This race was, of course, the Cruis­ little understanding that whilst these through his own resourcefulness and ing Yacht Club of Australia's XXXX big boats might be the domain of indi- tenacity and the relentless support and Sydney to Southport Race and, like viduals able to afford them, the crews commitment of his wife Caroline.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington, Bowdoin, and Franklin
    WASH ING T 0 N, BOWDQIN, AND FRANKLIN, AS PORTRAYED IS 0CCASI0NAL AD L) RESSES. WashnQ ton JVitz.o nal Jtioimm ent Proposed heLght in clotted lines, 48.5 fi Completed, shown by dnrk lznes, 174 fi Stone Terrace, 25f* hzgh dLarneter 2OOfS WAS HIN G T 0 N, BOWDOIN, AND FRANKLIN, AS PORTRAYED IN OCCASIONAL ADDRESSES: BY vxi ROBERT C. WINTHROP. I WITH A FEW BRIE-F PIECES ON KINDRED TOPICS, ASD WITH NOTES AKD ILLUSTRATIONS. LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. 1876. 7 /' Entered according to Act of Congress, in the pear 1876, by LITTLE, BROW6, AND CONIPANY, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Vashington. Cambridge : Press oj 70hWilson and Soti. PREFATORY NOTE. I ‘&VE so often, of late, been called on for copies of some of these productions, -no longer to be found in a separate or convenient form,-that I have ventured to think that they might prove an acceptable contribution to our Centennial Literature. They deal with two, certainly, of the greatest figures of the period we are engaged in commemorating; and BOWDOIN,I am persuaded, will be’ considered no un­ worthy associate of WASHINGTONand FRANKLINin such a publication. The Monument to Washington, to which the first pro­ duction relates, is still unfinished. It may be interesting to recall the fact that the Oration, on the laying of its corner-stone, was to have been delivered by JOHNQUINCY ADAMS. He died a few months before the occasion, and it was as Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, of which he had long been the most illus­ trious member, that I was called on to supply his place.
    [Show full text]
  • Rockfish (Sebastes) That Are Evolutionarily Isolated Are Also
    Biological Conservation 142 (2009) 1787–1796 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Rockfish (Sebastes) that are evolutionarily isolated are also large, morphologically distinctive and vulnerable to overfishing Karen Magnuson-Ford a,b, Travis Ingram c, David W. Redding a,b, Arne Ø. Mooers a,b,* a Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6 b IRMACS, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6 c Department of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, #2370-6270 University Blvd., Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4 article info abstract Article history: In an age of triage, we must prioritize species for conservation effort. Species more isolated on the tree of Received 23 September 2008 life are candidates for increased attention. The rockfish genus Sebastes is speciose (>100 spp.), morpho- Received in revised form 10 March 2009 logically and ecologically diverse and many species are heavily fished. We used a complete Sebastes phy- Accepted 18 March 2009 logeny to calculate a measure of evolutionary isolation for each species and compared this to their Available online 22 April 2009 morphology and imperilment. We found that evolutionarily isolated species in the northeast Pacific are both larger-bodied and, independent of body size, morphologically more distinctive. We examined Keywords: extinction risk within rockfish using a compound measure of each species’ intrinsic vulnerability to Phylogenetic diversity overfishing and categorizing species as commercially fished or not. Evolutionarily isolated species in Extinction risk Conservation priorities the northeast Pacific are more likely to be fished, and, due to their larger sizes and to life history traits Body size such as long lifespan and slow maturation rate, they are also intrinsically more vulnerable to overfishing.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Lamprey 2020 Regional Implementation Plan Washington
    Pacific Lamprey 2020 Regional Implementation Plan for the Washington Coast/Puget Sound Regional Management Units Submitted to the Conservation Team August 12, 2020 Primary Authors Primary Editors M.Plumb U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service This page left intentionally blank I. Status and Distribution of Pacific lamprey in the RMUs A. General Description of the RMUs The Puget Sound/Strait of Juan de Fuca Region is bordered by the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the west, the Cascade Range to the east, Puget Sound systems to the south, and the U.S.–Canada border to the north (Figure 1). The Puget Sound/Strait of Juan de Fuca Region includes all Washington river basins flowing into the Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and Strait of Juan de Fuca. The major river basins in the Puget Sound initiate from the Cascade Range and flow west, discharging into Puget Sound, with the exception of the Fraser River system, which flows northwest into British Columbia. All of the major river basins in Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca originate in the Olympic Mountains. This region is comprised of 20 4th field HUCs ranging in size from 435-6,604 km2 (Table 1). The Washington Coast Region is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the West, Cape Flattery to the North, Olympic Mountain Range and Willapa Hills to the East, and the Columbia River to the South (Figure 2). This region includes all Washington river basins flowing directly into the Pacific Ocean. The Washington Coast Region includes the Hoh-Quillayute, Queets-Quinault, Upper and Lower Chehalis, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay sub-regions, or 4th field HUCs, ranging in size from 1,471-3,393 km2 (Table 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a Hydrodynamic Model of Puget Sound and Northwest Straits
    PNNL-17161 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Development of a Hydrodynamic Model of Puget Sound and Northwest Straits Z Yang TP Khangaonkar December 2007 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, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161 ph: (800) 553-6847 fax: (703) 605-6900 email: [email protected] online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm This document was printed on recycled paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: Existing Facilities 2010 Plan Update: the Multi-Purpose Trail Inventory in the 2002 Plan Shows the Length of the Larry Scott Trail As 4.0 Miles
    Jefferson County Non-Motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan 2010 Chapter 3: Existing Facilities 2010 Plan Update: The multi-purpose trail inventory in the 2002 Plan shows the length of the Larry Scott Trail as 4.0 miles. This included both trail segments constructed to the County’s adopted standards and the existing “usage” trail on the railroad grade. Since the adoption of the 2002 Plan, Jefferson County has constructed additional trail segments. The constructed trail length is now 4.4 miles. Volunteers have developed additional segments that extend the trail to S. Discovery Road at the Discovery Bay Golf Course. These segments, while useable, are not constructed to the County’s standards and are not included in the current inventory. The remaining trail right-of-way has been acquired to the Milo Curry Road / S. Discovery Road intersection near Four Corners. Construction of the remaining trail segments is planned for substantial completion in 2011. The trail length will then be 7.6 miles. The remainder of this chapter was not revised for the 2010 Plan update. It has been retained in the original 2002 Plan format. Jefferson County, Port Townsend, Port Ludlow, Port of Port Townsend, Washington State, National Forest and Park Services, and other public and private agencies have assembled a significant inventory of non-motorized transportation and recreational trail systems within Jefferson County. These systems provide a variety of on and off-road opportunities for walking, hiking, bicycling, horse, and hand launch boat activities throughout the county. The 1998 County Comprehensive Plan provides a very limited description of the non-motorized transportation and recreational trail facilities in Jefferson County.
    [Show full text]
  • October – November
    Once only afforded by an elite fra­ ternity, this service is a compli­ mentary part of every service at BMW Sydney. With a little prior warning, Shane can be standing by, door ajar, ready to deliver you to your chosen. destination in Sydney. For I us, it's fundamental to the BMW Sydney experience. For no other I reason than the fact that we've always believed the upwardly mobile shouldn't have to sacrifice mobility, I / just to have their car serviced. From the way we service your needs to the way we service your car, it's what makes BMW Sydney a world of BMW. BMW Sydney Cnr New South Head Road & Mclachlan Ave, Rushcutters Bay. Phone: 9334 4555. www.bmwsydney.com.au BMW Sydney Sales Finance Service Parts THli CRUISING YACHT CLUB OP AUSTRALIA Offshore racing New Beach Road, Darling Point NSW 2027 Phone: (02) 9363 9731 Fax: (02) 9363 9745 WINDLESS WHITSUNDAYS 4 e-mail: [email protected] Offshore reports on Hamilton Island Race FLAG OFFICERS & DIRECTORS Week 2000, and looks at the new COMMODORE: HANS SOMMER Shockwave VICE-COMMODORE: MARTIN JAMES REAR COMMODORES: ROGER HICKMAN, JOHN MESSENGER KIWIS BEAT 'BEACH TREASURER: ALAN GREEN DIRECTORS: MICHAEL CRANITCH, GEOFF CROPLEY, BALL'S" BOUNCE 14 GEOFF LAVIS, GARY LINACRE, ROD SKELLET, DON TELFORD The New Zealand team of new-style Farr racers edged out the Australians in CHAIRMAN, CWB COMMrnEES Hawaii's Kenwood Cup series. Peter SAILING COMMITTEE: REAR COMMODORE ROGER HICKMAN Campbell prepared the report, Chris MARINA & SITE COMMmEE: Thompson spoke to the sailors. REAR COMMODORE JOHN MESSENGER MEMBER SERVICES & SOCIAL COMMITTEE: GOLD COAST RACE DIRECTOR GEOFF CROPLEY TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: • BIG BOATS DOMINATE 20 DIRECTOR DON TELFORD The little boats got left beh ind in thi s AUDIT & PLANNING COMMITTEE: year's slow race to Southport .
    [Show full text]