DOCSLIB.ORG

Coast Guard, DHS § 117.1051

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coast Guard, DHS § 117.1051 Coast Guard, DHS § 117.1051 from 3 p.m. May 22 to 6:16 p.m. Sep- longed blasts followed by one short tember 30, except for commercial tug blast. and tow vessels and vessels of the U.S. (d) The draw of the Riverside Avenue Navy or vessels attending the missions Bridge, mile 0.9, at Hoquiam, shall of the U.S. Navy and other public ves- open on signal if at least one hour no- sels of the United States. At all other tice is given by telephone to the Wash- times the bridge will operate in accord- ington State Department of Transpor- ance with paragraph (a) of this section. tation. The opening signal is two pro- (c) Telephone requests for bridge longed blasts followed by two short openings may be directed as collect blasts. calls to the Toll Office at the bridge [CGD 82–025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as site. The call may also be made by di- amended by CGD13 84–11, 49 FR 46548, Nov. 27, rect telephone communication through 1984; CGD13 85–15, 51 FR 2395, Jan. 16, 1986; the Seattle Marine Operator, Station CCGD13–93–019, 58 FR 44613, Aug. 24, 1993; KOH, or through other marine wire or USCG–2008–1095, 74 FR 12552, Mar. 25, 2009] radio telephone service. (d) During unusual or emergency pe- § 117.1049 Lake Washington. riods, the authorized representative of The draw of the Evergreen Point the owner of or agency controlling the Floating Bridge between Seattle and bridge shall open the draw on a demand Bellevue shall operate as follows: basis for specified periods of time, nor- (a) The draw shall open on signal if mally not exceeding 48 hours, when re- at least two hours notice is given. quested by the Department of the (b) Telephone requests for bridge Navy. While on a demand basis, a opening may be directed as collect drawtender shall be in attendance on calls to the Highway Radio or made by the bridge with radio communication direct telephone communication equipment in operation. through the Seattle Marine Operator, [CGD 82–025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as Station KOH, or through other marine amended by CGD13 84–13, 49 FR 35628, Sept. wire or radiotelephone service. 11, 1984; CGD13–95–011, 62 FR 43097, Aug. 12, (c) The draw need not be opened from 1997; USCG–2012–0074, 77 FR 28769, May 16, 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Fri- 2012] day, except for all Federal holidays other than Columbus Day. § 117.1047 Hoquiam River. [CGD 82–025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as (a) When fog prevails by day or night, amended by CGD13 84–13, 49 FR 35628, Sept. the drawtender of each bridge listed in 11, 1984; CGD13–94–039, 60 FR 54434, Oct. 24, this section, after giving the acknowl- 1995] edging signal to open, shall toll a bell continuously during the approach and § 117.1051 Lake Washington Ship passage of vessels. Canal. (b) The draw of the Puget Sound and (a) When fog prevails by day or by Pacific railroad bridge, mile 0.3 at night, the drawtender of each bridge Hoquiam, shall be maintained in the listed in this section, after giving the fully open position except for the pas- acknowledging signal to open, shall sage of trains or for maintenance. toll a bell continuously during the ap- When the draw of the bridge is closed proach and passage of vessels. and the visibility at the drawtender’s (b) All non-self-propelled vessels, station is less than one mile up or craft, or rafts navigating this water- down the channel, the drawtender shall way for which the opening of any draw sound two long blasts every minute. is necessary shall be towed by a suit- When the draw is reopened, the able self-propelled vessel while passing drawtender shall sound one long blast the draw. followed by one short blast. (c) The draw of the Burlington North- (c) The draw of the Simpson Avenue ern Santa Fe railroad bridge, mile 0.1, Bridge, mile 0.5, at Hoquiam, shall shall open on signal. open on signal if at least one hour no- (d) The draws of the Ballard Bridge, tice is given by telephone to the Wash- mile 1.1, Fremont Bridge, mile 2.6, and ington State Department of Transpor- University Bridge, mile 4.3, shall open tation. The opening signal is two pro- on signal, except that: 649 VerDate Mar<15>2010 12:59 Jul 29, 2013 Jkt 229133 PO 00000 Frm 00659 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\33\33V1.TXT ofr150 PsN: PC150.
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]
  • SDOT 2018 Traffic Report
    Seattle Department of Transportation 2018 TRAFFIC REPORT *2017 data CONTENTS 5 Executive Summary 7 Traffic Volumes and Speeds 8 Motor Vehicle Volumes 11 Traffic Flow Map 13 Bicycle Volumes 18 Pedestrian Volumes 21 Motor Vehicle Speeds 23 Traffic Collisions 24 Citywide Collision Rate 25 Fatal and Serious Injury Collisions 27 Pedestrian Collision Rate 30 Bicycle Collision Rate 33 Supporting Data 33 Volume Data 44 Speed Data 48 Historical Collision Data 50 2016 All Collisions 54 2016 Pedestrian Collisions 63 2016 Bicycle Collisions 75 Glossary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents an end of year review of This report is prepared in compliance with Seattle the core data sets the Seattle Department of Municipal Code 11.16.220, which requires the Transportation (SDOT) collects and maintains City Traffic Engineer to present an annual traffic including volumes, speeds, and collisions. The report that includes information about traffic use of this data, guided by department plans and trends and traffic collisions on City of Seattle policies, serves as the foundation for making streets. Beyond this legal requirement, the informed decisions on nearly all work at SDOT report strives to serve as an accessible reference from safety improvements to repaving to grant of Seattle traffic data and trends for all. applications. It is fundamental to measuring project performance. The breadth and depth of In gathering and compiling the information the data collected allows objective discussion of in this report, the Seattle Department of project merits and results, be it a new crosswalk Transportation does not waive the limitations on or an entire safety corridor. As the demands and this information’s discoverability or admissibility complexity of Seattle’s transportation network under 23 U.S.C § 409.
    [Show full text]
  • Burke Building 400 North 34Th Street | Seattle, WA
    THE Burke Building 400 North 34th Street | Seattle, WA NEIGHBORING TENANTS FOR LEASE LOCATION high-tech 6,185 sf Fremont companies include Adobe, Impinj, Suite 200 Seattle’s funky, creative neighborhood Google, and Tableau Software “Center of the Universe” LOCATED IN FREMONT, AN OASIS FOR TECH COMPANIES For leasing information, contact JEFF LOFTUS • Newly remodeled lobbies and restrooms • Professional Management with 206.248.7326 with showers on-site building engineers [email protected] • High Speed Internet (Comcast Cable, • Views of the Ship Canal Century Link, Accel Wireless) KEN HIRATA • Parking ratio of 2/1,000 206.296.9625 • Near Fremont Canal Park, Burke • Available now [email protected] Gilman Trail, unique local shops and distinctive eateries • $32.00 PSF, FS kiddermathews.com This information supplied herein is from sources we deem reliable. It is provided without any representation, warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied as to its accuracy. Prospective Buyer or Tenant should conduct an independent investigation and verification of all matters deemed to be material, including, but not limited to, statements of income and expenses. Consult your attorney, accountant, or other professional advisor. BurkeTHE Building PROXIMITY SEATTLE CBD 3 miles 10 minutes to AURORA BRIDGE downtown Seattle LAKE UNION FREMONT BRIDGE LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL N 34TH ST N 35TH ST THE BURKE BUILDING N 36TH ST JEFF LOFTUS KEN HIRATA kiddermathews.com 206.248.7326 | [email protected] 206.296.9625 | [email protected] 400 North 34th Street | Seattle, WA SHIP CANAL PARKING 2/1,000 spaces per 1,000 sf rentable area N 34TH ST SUITE 200 N 35TH ST BurkeTHE Building SECOND FLOOR SUITE 200 AVAILABLE NOW 6,185 sf JEFF LOFTUS | 206.248.7326 | [email protected] KEN HIRATA | 206.296.9625 | [email protected] This information supplied herein is from sources we deem reliable.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Existing Data on Lake Union/Ship Canal
    Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Study: Analysis of Existing Data on Lake Union/Ship Canal October 2017 Alternative Formats Available Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Study: Analysis of Existing Data on Lake Union/Ship Canal Prepared for: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Wastewater Treatment Division Submitted by: Timothy Clark, Wendy Eash-Loucks, and Dean Wilson King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Study: Analysis of Existing Data on Lake Union/Ship Canal Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank for following people for their contributions to this report: Staff at the King County Environmental Laboratory for field and analytical support. Dawn Duddleson (King County) for her help in completing the literature review. The King County Water Quality and Quantity Group for their insights, especially Sally Abella for her thorough and thoughtful review. Lauran Warner, Frederick Goetz, and Kent Easthouse of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Judy Pickar (project manager), Dean Wilson (science lead), and King County project team members (Bob Bernhard, Mark Buscher, Timothy Clark, Betsy Cooper, Wendy Eash‐Loucks, Elizabeth Gaskill, Martin Grassley, Erica Jacobs, Susan Kaufman‐Una, Lester, Deborah, Kate Macneale, Chris Magan, Bruce Nairn, Sarah Ogier, Erika Peterson, John Phillips, Cathie Scott, Jim Simmonds, Jeff Stern, Dave White, Mary Wohleb, and Olivia Wright). The project’s Science and Technical Review Team members—Virgil Adderley, Mike Brett, Jay Davis, Ken Schiff, and John Stark—for guidance and review of this report. Citation King County. 2017. Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring Study: Analysis of Existing Data on Lake Union/Ship Canal.
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinance 13166
    Aprill, 1998 clerk 5/19198 Introduced By: Rob McKenna Proposed No.: ", 1 ORDINANCE NO. _ 2 AN ORDINANCE for the September 1998 public 3 transportation service improvements for King County. 4 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 5 The September 1998 public transportation service improvements for 6 King County, substantially as described in Exhibits A, B, and C, attached hereto, are hereby 7 approved. 8 SECTION 2. These transportation service improvements will be implemented 9 effective September 19, 1998, except that the total amount of service change is significantly 10 more than was anticipated the adopted 1998 budget, and some service improvements may 11 be instead implemented in 1999 as vehicles, operator and budget allow, 12 13 16 17 18 - 1 ­ 6 1 The Metro Transit U1\rlS1C)ll shall work with the local jurisdictions, 2 residents and bus riders to determine the appropriate streets on which to operate the Routes 3 72 and 79 north Seattle and the appropriate +..",.....,+ community service network for 4 Mercer Island including possible revisions to Route 201. The division shall submit 5 recommendations on these services to the council by September 30, 1998. 6 INTRODUCED READ for the first time this ~~__ day of 7 8 PASSED by a vote of /3 to 0 this...l.-.::::.._ day of Vl11ay 9 19!!(f' 10 KING COUNTY COUNCIL 11 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ~)2J~ 12 13 Charr 14 ATTEST: 15 ~counCil 16 18 19 Attachments: Exhibit A - September 1998 Service Changes King County 21 Exhibit B - September 1998 Service Changes West King County 22 Exhibit C - 1998 Service Changes South King County & 23 West Seattle - 2 ­ EXHIBEDH.DOC September 1998 Service Change Ordinance EXHIBIT A 31 Exhibit A: EXHIBETC.DOC 5/12198 September 1998 Service Change Ordinance EXHIBIT A EAST SUBAREA SERVICE CHANGES ROUTE: 222 1 1 OBJECTIVE: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project
    Submitted by: Kiewit Pacific Co. Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Specification No. PW10-0128F Submitted to: Purchasing Office, Tacoma Public Utilities 3628 South 35th Street, Tacoma, WA 98409 June 8, 2010 Tab No. 1 - General Company Information & Team Structure Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Project TAB NO.1 - GENERAL COMPANY INFORMATION AND TEAM STRUCTURE Kiewit Pacific Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kiewit Infrastructure Group, Inc., will be the contracting party for this project, as indicated on Forms 3 and 4 in Tab No. 4 - Appendix C. As a wholly-owned subsidiary, none of the officers of Kiewit Pacific Co. (Kiewit) own stock. Incorporated on May 18, 1982, we can trace our history back to 1884, when Peter and Andrew Kiewit formed Kiewit Brothers, an Omaha masonry contracting partnership. Today, we are part of one of North America's largest and most respected construction and mining organizations. We take our place in the corporate structure of our parent company, Kiewit Infrastructure Group Inc., alongside Kiewit Construction Company and Kiewit Southern Co. Our affiliates and subsidiaries, as well as those of our parent company, operate from a network of offices throughout North America. We draw upon the Kiewit Corporation’s collective experience and personnel to assemble the strongest team possible for a given project. Therefore, work experience of such affiliates and subsidiaries is relevant in demonstrating our capabilities. For the Murray Morgan Bridge, we are supplementing our local talent with extensive moveable bridge expertise from our east coast operations, Kiewit Constructors, Inc. We are also utilizing our local subsidiary, General Construction Company (General), for mechanical and electrical expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Or No Build Scenario
    Appendix A Alternatives Technical Report TRANSPORTATION 2040 Appendix A ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL REPORT Contents 1. Process of designing the alternatives ...................................................................................1 a. Organizational structure b. Organizational process 2. The alternatives....................................................................................................................3 a. Introduction to the alternatives ......................................................................................3 b. The baseline alternative .................................................................................................3 c. Core strategies for all action alternatives.....................................................................15 d. Alternative 1.................................................................................................................18 e. Alternative 2.................................................................................................................27 f. Alternative 3.................................................................................................................32 g. Alternative 4.................................................................................................................39 h. Alternative 5.................................................................................................................46 i. Preferred Alternative (Constrained) ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SR 520 I-5 to Medina
    4.6 Cultural Resources 4.6 Cultural Resources The National Register of Historic The term “cultural resources” encompasses, but is not necessarily limited Places to, archaeological sites, Native American and traditional cultural properties, The National Register of Historic Places historic buildings and structures, historic districts, and planned landscapes. (NRHP) is the official list of cultural The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was passed to recognize the resources worthy of preservation, authorized importance of these resources to our national, regional, and local culture. under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Properties listed in the National The historic built environment includes buildings; structures that are not Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in buildings, such as bridges; objects; districts; landscapes; or even sites or American history, architecture, archaeology, locations of historic importance where no remains exist. The significance of engineering, and culture. National Register such properties may be historical in that they are associated with “broad properties are distinguished by having been patterns in our history” or the lives of “persons significant in our past” (36 documented and determined eligible according to uniform standards (Criteria A-D, CFR part 60.4, Criteria for Evaluation). Buildings and structures may also known as the Criteria for Evaluation), listed represent or exemplify a particular type or style of building, have aesthetic below. Please see the Final Cultural significance, or preserve the work of a master architect or engineer. Resources Assessment and Discipline Report in Attachment 7 for additional Archaeological resources are places where past peoples have left physical information.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 4C Historic Property Inventory Forms for Properties at the Pontoon Production Sites
    Attachment 4C Historic Property Inventory Forms for Properties at the Pontoon Production Sites Property ID Nos. 700 through 714 and 801 Historic Property Inventory Report Location Field Site No. 1204-1 DAHP No. Historic Name: Hylebos Bridge Common Name: Hylebos Bridge Property Address: Tacoma, WA Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec County Quadrangle T21R03E 26 Pierce Coordinate Reference Easting: 1168270 Northing: 712695 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Thursday, October 07, 2010 Page 1 of 11 Historic Property Inventory Report Identification Survey Name: Hylebos Bridge Rehab. Date Recorded: 12/09/2005 Field Recorder: Heather Lee Miller Owner's Name: City of Tacoma Owner Address: City: Tacoma State: WA Zip: Classification:Structure Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Within a District? No Contributing? National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Determined Not Eligible - SHPO Determination Date: 4/9/2008 Determination Comments: DAHP Log # 020306-27-FHWA Description Historic Use: Transportation - Road-Related (vehicular) Current Use: Transportation - Road-Related (vehicular) Plan: Rectangle Stories: Structural System: Steel Changes to Plan: Slight Changes to Interior: Changes to Original Cladding: Intact Changes to Windows: Intact Changes to Other: Moderate Other (specify): one approach re Style: Cladding: Roof Type: Roof Material: Other - Utilitarian Metal Other
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX H NRHP-Listed Architectural Historic Properties and Districts in the Plan Area
    APPENDIX H NRHP-listed Architectural Historic Properties and Districts in the Plan Area November 2014 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement This appendix lists the architectural historic properties and districts in the Plan area that are National Historic Landmarks or are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The list is based on data from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP 2014). The Figure ID numbers in Table H-1 correspond to those ID numbers on Figure H-1 through Figure H-3 while the Figure ID numbers in Table H-2 correspond to those ID numbers on Figure H-4 and Figure H-5. DAHP also maintains records of previously recorded archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties. However, site-specific information about these properties is exempt from public disclosure under state law (RCW 42.56.300) to prevent looting and vandalism. Table H-1. NRHP-listed architectural historic properties in the Plan area Figure ID DAHP ID Property name Historic designation 1 KI00231 12th Avenue South Bridge NRHP 2 KI00599 1411 Fourth Avenue Building NRHP 3 KI00259 14th Avenue South Bridge NRHP 4 KI01140 1600 East John Street Apartments NRHP 5 KI00773 A. L. Palmer Building NRHP 6 PI00599 Adjutant General's Residence NRHP 7 KI01127 Admiral's House, 13th Naval District NRHP 8 KI00632 Agen Warehouse NRHP 9 KI00243 Alaska Trade Building NRHP 10 PI00696 Albers Brothers Mill NRHP 11 PI00638 Alderton School NRHP 12 PI00705 Annobee Apartments NRHP 13 KI00226 Arboretum Sewer Trestle
    [Show full text]
  • Westlake Transportation Hub Strategy
    Perteet - LMN Architects - GVA Kidder Matthews City of Seattle - Department of Transportation WESTLAKE TRANSPORTATION HUB STRATEGY WESTLAKE TRANSPORTATION A blueprint for transit integration, multi-modal access, and HUB STRATEGY placemaking within the expanding retail core of Seattle Transportation Hub Improvement Themes: Place-Based Improvement Strategies: Transit Integration VIRGINIA ST Westlake Hub Strategy Key Recommendations: FEDERAL COURTHOUSE PLAZA 7TH AVE 6TH A COSMOPOLITAN Legend VE “Times Square” WESTLAKE A Westlake Station Accommodate streetcar expansion and Street-Level Entrance to station mezzanine (existing) VE Retail-Based Entrance increasing development through a series to station mezzanine (existing) Street-Level Elevator of signature pedestrian and public space to station mezzanine (existing) Third Ave Mezzanine Extension (proposed) PLAZA 600 improvements Open-Air Tunnel Entrance RT ST (proposed) WA Transit STE Monorail (with station pulled back from 5th Ave) WESTIN Streetcar (with proposed extension and new stop) TOWER BUILDING WESTLAKEWESW STLALAKEE SQUARES E Bus Stop (to be retained and improved) Bus Stop (to be removed) Bus-Only Lane (peak-period only with right turns allowed) 5TH A Bus-Only Lanes (all-day with local access allowed) 6TH AY VE W VIRGINIA ST A VE Pedestrian and Bicycle OLIVE Fifth Avenue Connector 7TH Sidewalk Extensions BANK OF AMERICA AVE Increase visibility and direct physical Traffic Calming (with special roadway surface) Add parking and/or extend sidewalk MCGRAWMCGCGRAWAW SQUARESQ connections
    [Show full text]
  • WRIA 8 Salmon Habitat Project List: Lake Union/Ship Canal
    WRIA 8 Salmon Habitat Project List: Thursday, July 13, 2017 Lake Union/Ship Canal APPLICABLE STRATEGIES LEGEND: Protect and restore Protect and Protect and Protect and restore marine water and restore restore cold water forest cover and sediment quality, floodplain sources and reduce headwater areas connectivity thermal barriers to especially near migration commercial and industrial areas Protect and Improve juvenile Provide adequate Improve water restore functional and adult survival stream flow quality riparian at the Ballard Locks vegetation Integrate salmon Restore sediment Protect and Reduce predation recovery priorities into processes necessary restore channel on juvenile local and regional for key life stages complexity migrants and lake- planning, regulations, rearing fry and permitting (SMP, CAO, NPDES, etc.) Restore shallow Remove (or Restore natural Continue existing and water rearing reduce impacts of) marine shoreline conduct new research, and refuge overwater monitoring, and adaptive habitat structures management on key issues Reconnect and Remove fish Reconnect Increase awareness enhance creek passage barriers backshore areas and and support for mouths pocket estuaries salmon recovery Page 1 of 8 Opportunities, Constraints, and Description Applicable Strategies Ballard Bridge Shoreline Restoration other Considerations Potential habitat restoration/public access area under the Ballard Bridge along the north side of Project the canal. The potential exists to connect the SC-1 project with private green space just to the west of Number site, and the Seattle Central Community College Four-Year Marine Technology Center's landscaped shoreline Project Location Work Plan? to the east. Incorporate treatment of rainwater No run-off from the Ballard Bridge and riparian Seattle vegetation. Estimated Project Costs Acquisition Restoration Total Opportunities, Constraints, and Description Applicable Strategies Ballard Bridge Water Quality Improvements other Considerations Improve water quality by treating runoff with vegetated bioswales.
    [Show full text]