DOCSLIB.ORG

Pierce County Rivers Flood Hazard Management Plan Volume I 2-19

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Volume I Pierce County Rivers Flood Hazard Management Plan Adopted February 19, 2013 Ordinance 2012-53s Pierce County County Pierce Hazard Rivers Flood Management Plan PIERCE COUNTY RIVERS FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN February 2013 PIERCE COUNTY RIVERS FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN PIERCE COUNTY RIVERS FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTORS Pierce County Elected Officials Pat McCarthy Pierce County Executive Pierce County Council (2012) Dan Roach, District 1 Joyce McDonald, District 2 (Council Chair) Roger Bush, District 3 Timothy Farrell, District 4 Rick Talbert, District 5 Dick Muri, District 6 Stan Flemming, District 7 Pierce County Council (2013) Dan Roach, District 1 Joyce McDonald, District 2 (Council Chair) Jim McCune, District 3 Connie Ladenburg, District 4 Rick Talbert, District 5 Douglas Richardson, District 6 Stan Flemming, District 7 Brian J. Ziegler, Director Public Works and Utilities Flood Plan Advisory Committee The Flood Plan Advisory Committee consisted of 26 members representing cities, counties, tribes, state and federal agencies, business, environmental and agricultural interests, floodplain residents and citizens outside of the planning area. Bill Anderson, Citizens for a Healthy Bay Gail Clowers, Drainage District #10 Nell Batker, Tahoma Audubon Society Buzz Grant, Citizen, South Prairie Creek Jay Bennett, City of Pacific Justin Hall, Nisqually River Council Russ Blount, City of Fife Kathy Hatcher, Citizen, Nisqually River Robert Brenner, Port of Tacoma Marsha Huebner, Pierce County SWM Bryan Bowden, Mount Rainier National Park Steve Kalinowski, WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife Richard Carkner, Farmer, Lower Puyallup River Mart Kask, Town of South Prairie Pierce County Public Works & Utilities ii www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management PIERCE COUNTY RIVERS FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN Dan Sokol & Chuck Steele, WA Dept of Ecology Mark Palmer, City of Puyallup Charlie Solverson, City of Tacoma Bill Pugh, City of Sumner Tiffany Speir, Master Builders Association of Catherine Rudolph, TPC Association of Realtors Pierce County Tim Rymer, National Marine Fisheries Service Jeff Sproul, Citizen, Carbon River Richard Schroedel, PC Emergency Management Bill Sullivan, Puyallup Tribe of Indians Dave Seabrook, Pierce Conservation District and Mary Lou Tkach, Citizen, Puyallup River Puyallup River Watershed Council Ken Wolfe, City of Orting Pierce County Project Team A Pierce County Project Team made up of representatives from SWM, Transportation Planning, Emergency Management, Planning and Land Services, Economic Development, Government Relations, and Parks and Recreation Services guided development of the Plan. Lorin Reinelt, Project Manager Marsha Huebner, PWU SWM PWU Surface Water Management Tom Nelson, PWU SWM Anne-marie Marshall-Dody, PWU SWM Tiffany Odell, Planning and Land Services and Melissa Paulson, PWU SWM PWU SWM Rob Allen, Economic Development Helmut Schmidt, PWU SWM Ann Boeholt, PWU SWM Chris Schutz, Tribal Affairs and PWU SWM Brynn Brady, Government Relations Richard Schroedel, Emergency Management Randy Brake, PWU SWM Carrie Sikorski, Farmbudsman Dennis Dixon, PWU SWM Rance Smith, PWU SWM Todd Essman, PWU SWM Jane Vandenberg, PWU Transportation Skip Ferrucci, Parks and Recreation Planning David Grinstead, PWU SWM Pierce County Steering Committee An internal Steering Committee (composed of the SWM Management Team) reviewed all elements of the Flood Plan prior to broader external review. Harold Smelt, Surface Water Management Manager Tony Fantello, SWM Maintenance and Operations Manager Marsha Huebner, Environmental Permitting and Planning Manager Hans Hunger, Capital Improvement Program Manager Dan Wrye, Water Quality Manager Consultant Team Cardon Entrix, Inc. (Facilitation, Geomorphology, Economic Analysis) Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Environmental Impact Statement) Jones and Jones (Policy, Plan Support) URS (Capital Projects, Risk Assessment, Geotechnical) Pierce County Public Works & Utilities 3 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management PIERCE COUNTY RIVERS FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN Special Acknowledgments The Pierce County Rivers Flood Hazard Management Plan benefitted extensively from the planning approach, science, and content of the King County Flood Hazard Management Plan (King County 2007) and the analysis of flood mitigation alternatives in the Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (Yakima County Flood Control Zone District 2007). Pierce County Public Works & Utilities ii www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management PIERCE COUNTY RIVERS FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN PIERCE COUNTY FLOOD HAZARD MANGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PIERCE COUNTY RIVERS FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTORS ..................................... i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. ES-1 ES.1 Introduction and Purpose .................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Goals and objectives ........................................................................................................... ES-3 ES.3 Planning Area Description ................................................................................................... ES-4 ES.4 Plan Development .............................................................................................................. ES-6 ES.5 Problems and Proposed Solutions ...................................................................................... ES-10 ES.6 Plan Implementation and Funding ..................................................................................... ES-21 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Plan ................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.2 Geographic Scope ................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.3 Planning Process and Stakeholder Involvement ....................................................................... 1-7 1.4 Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................................. 1-8 1.5 Guiding Principles ................................................................................................................ 1-10 1.6 Planning Authority and Framework ....................................................................................... 1-12 1.7 Relationship to Pierce county Plans and Agreements ............................................................. 1-14 1.8 Major Studies Supporting Plan Development ........................................................................ 1-17 CHAPTER TWO MAJOR RIVER FLOODING IN PIERCE COUNTY ........................................................... 2-1 2.1 Pierce County River Systems ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Flooding and Future Trends .................................................................................................... 2-7 2.3 Flood Hazards and Impacts ................................................................................................... 2-11 2.4 Pierce County Particpiation in the NFIP Community Rating System ......................................... 2-21 CHAPTER THREE FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT POLICIES ............................................................. 3-1 3.1 General Policies ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Project Policies ...................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Floodplain Land Use Policies ................................................................................................... 3-5 3.4 Flood Warning and Emergency Response Policies .................................................................... 3-6 3.5 Funding Policies ..................................................................................................................... 3-6 CHAPTER FOUR PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 4-2 Pierce County Public Works & Utilities iii www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management PIERCE COUNTY RIVERS FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN 4.1 Flood Hazard Information, Mapping and Technical Assistance .................................................. 4-4 4.2 Regulations and Management of Land Uses .......................................................................... 4-16 4.3 River Channel Management ................................................................................................. 4-31 4.4 Flood Risk Reduction Facility Repair and Maintenance ........................................................... 4-44 4.5 Flood Education, Flood Warning and Emergency Response .................................................... 4-50 4.6 Coordination, Adaptive Management, and Multiple Benefits .................................................. 4-61 4.7 Implementation of Capital Projects ....................................................................................... 4-78 CHAPTER FIVE RIVER REACH CHARACTERIZATION, MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDED
Recommended publications
  • Outline for Thesis

    Outline for Thesis

    THESIS APPROVAL The abstract and thesis of Thomas H. Nylen for the Master of Science in Geology presented October 25, 2001, and accepted by the thesis committee and the department. COMMITTEE APPROVALS: _______________________________________ Andrew G. Fountain, Chair _______________________________________ Scott F. Burns _______________________________________ Christina L. Hulbe _______________________________________ Keith S. Hadley Representative of the Office of Graduate Studies DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL: _______________________________________ Michael L. Cummings, Chair Department of Geology ABSTRACT An abstract of the thesis of Thomas H. Nylen for the Master of Science in Geology presented October 25, 2001. Title: Spatial and Temporal Variations of Glaciers (1913-1994) on Mt. Rainier and the Relation with Climate Databases have been constructed for the purpose of studying glacier changes at Mt. Rainier. Glacier cover on Mt. Rainier decreased 18.5% (112.3 km2 to 88.1 km2) between 1913 and 1971 at a rate of about -0.36 km2 a-1. The total area in 1994 was 87.4 km2, which equates to a rate of -0.03 km2 a-1 since 1971. Glaciers with southerly aspect lost significantly more area than those with a northerly aspect, 26.5% and 17.5% of the total area, respectively. Measured and estimated total volumes for Mt. Rainier glaciers also decreased. From 1913 to 1971 the total volume decreased 22.7% from 5.62 km3 to 4.34 km3 and from 1971 to 1994 decreased 3.1% to 4.21 km3. Nisqually Glacier shows three cycles of retreat and advance but an overall loss of 0.44 km2 since 1931. Cross-correlation with snowfall suggests about a decade response time for the glaciers.
  • Battlefields & Treaties

    Battlefields & Treaties

    welcome to Indian Country Take a moment, and look up from where you are right now. If you are gazing across the waters of Puget Sound, realize that Indian peoples thrived all along her shoreline in intimate balance with the natural world, long before Europeans arrived here. If Mount Rainier stands in your view, realize that Indian peoples named it “Tahoma,” long before it was “discovered” by white explorers. Every mountain that you see on the horizon, every stand of forest, every lake and river, every desert vista in eastern Washington, all of these beautiful places are part of our Indian heritage, and carry the songs of our ancestors in the wind. As we have always known, all of Washington State is Indian Country. To get a sense of our connection to these lands, you need only to look at a map of Washington. Over 75 rivers, 13 counties, and hundreds of cities and towns all bear traditional Indian names – Seattle, Tacoma, Yakima, and Spokane among them. Indian peoples guided Lewis and Clark to the Pacifi c, and pointed them safely back to the east. Indian trails became Washington’s earliest roads. Wild salmon, delicately grilled and smoked in Alderwood, has become the hallmark of Washington State cuisine. Come visit our lands, and come learn about our cultures and our peoples. Our families continue to be intimately woven into the world around us. As Tribes, we will always fi ght for preservation of our natural resources. As Tribes, we will always hold our elders and our ancestors in respect. As Tribes, we will always protect our treaty rights and sovereignty, because these are rights preserved, at great sacrifi ce, ABOUT ATNI/EDC by our ancestors.
  • Anthropological Study of Yakama Tribe

    Anthropological Study of Yakama Tribe

    1 Anthropological Study of Yakama Tribe: Traditional Resource Harvest Sites West of the Crest of the Cascades Mountains in Washington State and below the Cascades of the Columbia River Eugene Hunn Department of Anthropology Box 353100 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-3100 [email protected] for State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW contract # 38030449 preliminary draft October 11, 2003 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary 5 Map 1 5f 1. Goals and scope of this report 6 2. Defining the relevant Indian groups 7 2.1. How Sahaptin names for Indian groups are formed 7 2.2. The Yakama Nation 8 Table 1: Yakama signatory tribes and bands 8 Table 2: Yakama headmen and chiefs 8-9 2.3. Who are the ―Klickitat‖? 10 2.4. Who are the ―Cascade Indians‖? 11 2.5. Who are the ―Cowlitz‖/Taitnapam? 11 2.6. The Plateau/Northwest Coast cultural divide: Treaty lines versus cultural 12 divides 2.6.1. The Handbook of North American Indians: Northwest Coast versus 13 Plateau 2.7. Conclusions 14 3. Historical questions 15 3.1. A brief summary of early Euroamerican influences in the region 15 3.2. How did Sahaptin-speakers end up west of the Cascade crest? 17 Map 2 18f 3.3. James Teit‘s hypothesis 18 3.4. Melville Jacobs‘s counter argument 19 4. The Taitnapam 21 4.1. Taitnapam sources 21 4.2. Taitnapam affiliations 22 4.3. Taitnapam territory 23 4.3.1. Jim Yoke and Lewy Costima on Taitnapam territory 24 4.4.
  • The Recession of Glaciers in Mount Rainier National Park, Washington

    The Recession of Glaciers in Mount Rainier National Park, Washington

    THE RECESSION OF GLACIERS IN MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK, WASHINGTON C. FRANK BROCKMAN Mount Rainier National Park FOREWORD One of the most outstanding features of interest in Mount Rainier National Park is the extensive glacier system which lies, almost entirely, upon the broad flanks of Mount Rainier, the summit of which is 14,408 feet above sea-level. This glacier system, numbering 28 glaciers and aggregating approximately 40-45 square miles of ice, is recognized as the most extensive single peak glacier system in continental United States.' Recession data taken annually over a period of years at the termini of six representative glaciers of varying type and size which are located on different sides of Mount Rainier are indicative of the rela- tive rate of retreat of the entire glacier system here. At the present time the glaciers included in this study are retreating at an average rate of from 22.1 to 70.4 feet per year.2 HISTORY OF INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED ON THE GLACIERS OF MOUNT RAINIER Previous to 1900 glacial investigation in this area was combined with general geological reconnaissance surveys on the part of the United States Geological Survey. Thus, the activities of S. F. Em- mons and A. D. Wilson, of the Fortieth Parallel Corps, under Clarence King, was productive of a brief publication dealing in part with the glaciers of Mount Rainier.3 Twenty-six years later, in 1896, another United States Geological Survey party, which included Bailey Willis, I. C. Russell, and George Otis Smith, made additional SCircular of General Information, Mount Rainier National Park (U.S.
  • Geology of Blaine-Birch Bay Area Whatcom County, WA Wings Over

    Geology of Blaine-Birch Bay Area Whatcom County, WA Wings Over

    Geology of Blaine-Birch Bay Area Blaine Middle Whatcom County, WA School / PAC l, ul G ant, G rmor Wings Over Water 2020 C o n Nest s ero Birch Bay Field Trip Eagles! H March 21, 2020 Eagle "Trees" Beach Erosion Dakota Creek Eagle Nest , ics l at w G rr rfo la cial E te Ab a u ant W Eagle Nest n d California Heron Rookery Creek Wave Cut Terraces Kingfisher G Nests Roger's Slough, Log Jam Birch Bay Eagle Nest G Beach Erosion Sea Links Ponds Periglacial G Field Trip Stops G Features Birch Bay Route Birch Bay Berm Ice Thickness, 2,200 M G Surficial Geology Alluvium Beach deposits Owl Nest Glacial outwash, Fraser-age in Barn k Glaciomarine drift, Fraser-age e e Marine glacial outwash, Fraser-age r Heron Center ll C re Peat deposits G Ter Artificial fill Terrell Marsh Water T G err Trailhead ell M a r k sh Terrell Cr ee 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 ± Miles 2200 M Blaine Middle Glacial outwash, School / PAC Geology of Blaine-Birch Bay Area marine, Everson ll, G Gu Glaciomarine Interstade Whatcom County, WA morant, C or t s drift, Everson ron Nes Wings Over Water 2020 Semiahmoo He Interstade Resort G Blaine Semiahmoo Field Trip March 21, 2020 Eagle "Trees" Semiahmoo Park G Glaciomarine drift, Everson Beach Erosion Interstade Dakota Creek Eagle Nest Glac ial Abun E da rra s, Blaine nt ti c l W ow Eagle Nest a terf California Creek Heron Glacial outwash, Rookery Glaciomarine drift, G Field Trip Stops marine, Everson Everson Interstade Semiahmoo Route Interstade Ice Thickness, 2,200 M Kingfisher Surficial GNeeoslotsgy Wave Cut Alluvium Glacial Terraces Beach deposits outwash, Roger's Glacial outwash, Fraser-age Slough, SuGmlaacsio mSataridnee drift, Fraser-age Log Jam Marine glacial outwash, Fraser-age Peat deposits Beach Eagle Nest Artificial fill deposits Water Beach Erosion 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles ± Chronology of Puget Sound Glacial Events Sources: Vashon Glaciation Animation; Ralph Haugerud; Milepost Thirty-One, Washington State Dept.
  • Nisqually Land Trust Land Trust Acquires Rare Nisqually River

    Nisqually Land Trust Land Trust Acquires Rare Nisqually River

    Winter 2016 NISQUALLY LAND TRUST Newsletter Land Trust Acquires Rare Nisqually River Salmon Property Has Potential for Extending Yelm-Tenino Trail to River he Land Trust continued its renewed push to protect “It was well over ten years ago that we first identified this Thigh-priority salmon habitat on the main stem of the valuable shoreline property as important for protection,” Nisqually River by acquiring a prized shoreline property in said Lands Committee Chair George Walter. “Over the the river’s Whitewater Reach, just below Yelm. years we have kept in contact with the owner, and we’re very happy to announce that we have now acquired the The ten-acre property includes over 2,000 feet of salmon- property for permanent protection. Securing this much producing shoreline, an exceptional run of habitat to find high-quality habitat in such a relatively developed area is a in a single property. The Whitewater Reach is rated highest rare opportunity.” priority for protection in both the Nisqually Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan and the Nisqually Steelhead (continued on page 7) Recovery Plan. The Land Trust has acquired a key property with 2,000 feet of Nisqually River salmon shoreline (right bank, above) and potential for extending the Yelm-Tenino Trail. Land Trust Acquires Ohop Creek Spawning Property - Page 5 President’s Letter ummertime, and the livin’ is…wait, it’s OUR MISSION Sautumn already! How’d that happen? The Nisqually Land Trust acquires and We had another great summer here in the manages critical lands to permanently Northwest. Maybe just a little too warm for benefit the water, wildlife, and people of a couple of days there, but not so warm that the Nisqually River Watershed.
  • Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound

    Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound

    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-78 Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound July 2006 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Techni- cal Memorandum NMFS series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Documents published in this series may be referenced in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS- F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Techni- cal Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be cited as follows: Ruckelshaus, M.H., K.P. Currens, W.H. Graeber, R.R. Fuerstenberg, K. Rawson, N.J. Sands, and J.B. Scott. 2006. Independent populations of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-78, 125 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-78 Independent Populations of Chinook Salmon in Puget Sound Mary H. Ruckelshaus,
  • Greenwater Access and Travel Management Project Environmental Assessment

    Greenwater Access and Travel Management Project Environmental Assessment

    United States Department of Agriculture Greenwater Access and Travel Management Project Environmental Assessment Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Snoqualmie November Forest Service National Forest Ranger District 2016 For More Information Contact: Snoqualmie Ranger District 902 SE North Bend Way North Bend, WA 98045 (425) 888-1421 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.
  • Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment August 2004

    Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment August 2004

    Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment August 2004 Pierce County Biodiversity Network Assessment – August 2004 Acknowledgements Pierce County Planning and Land Services Department-Advance Planning Division Katherine Brooks, Senior Planner Karen Trueman, GIS Specialist Chip Vincent, Principal Planner Pierce County Executive’s Office Debby Hyde, Special Projects Coordinator Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife John Jacobson, Senior GIS Analyst, Habitat Program Marc McCalmon, Landscape Conservation Analyst, Habitat Program Erik Neatherlin, Landscape Conservation Planner, Habitat Program Michelle Tirhi, Urban Biologist-South Puget Sound Region University of Washington, Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Unit Karen Dvornich, Public Education and Outreach Coordinator, NatureMapping Program and Washington GAP Analysis Project Assistant Chris Grue, Principal Investigator and Leader, WACFWRU Metro Parks Tacoma John Garner, Education Coordinator Tahoma Audubon Society Bryan Flint, Conservation Coordinator Puyallup River Watershed Council Dave Seabrook TerraLogic GIS Chris Hansen, Principal Levon Yengoyan, Principal Authors Katherine Brooks, Pierce County Planning and Land Services Karen Dvornich, University of Washington Michelle Tirhi, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Erik Neatherlin, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Marc McCalmon, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife John Jacobson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Reference Citation Brooks, K., K.M. Dvornich, M. Tirhi, E. Neatherlin, M. McCalmon, and
  • Carbon River Access Management Plan

    Carbon River Access Management Plan

    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98 503 APR 2 6 20ll In Reply Refer To: 13410-2010-F-0488 Memorandum To: Superintendent, Mount Rainier National Park Ashford, Washington From: Manager, Washington Fish and Wildlife Lacey, Washington Subject: Biological Opinion for the Carbon River Access Management Plan This document transmits the Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion based on our review of the proposed Carbon River Access Managernent Plan to be implemented in Mount Rainier National Park, Pierce County, Washington. We evaluated effects on the threatened northern spotted owl (Sfrlx occidentalis caurina),marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus),bttll trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and designated bull trout critical habitat in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your July 29,2010 request for formal consultation was received on August 2,2010. This Biological Opinion is based on information provided in the June 28, 2010 Biological Assessment and on other information and correspondence shared between our respective staff. Copies of all correspondence regarding this consultation are on file at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in Lacey, Washington. If you have any questions about this mernorandum, the attached Biological Opinion, or your responsibilities under the Act, please contact Vince Harke at (360) 753-9529 or Carolyn Scafidi at (360) 753-4068. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation BIOLOGICAL OPINION U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Reference: 13410-2010-F-0488 Carbon River Access Management Plan Mount Rainier National Park Pierce County, Washington Agency: National Park Service Consultation Conducted By: U.S.
  • The Hidden History of Western Washington Logging Camps: St

    The Hidden History of Western Washington Logging Camps: St

    Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU All Master's Theses Master's Theses Summer 2017 The Hidden History of Western Washington Logging Camps: St. Paul and Tacoma Lumber Company’s Camp #5 ca. 1934-1947 Kayley Bass Central Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Bass, Kayley, "The Hidden History of Western Washington Logging Camps: St. Paul and Tacoma Lumber Company’s Camp #5 ca. 1934-1947" (2017). All Master's Theses. 737. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd/737 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF WESTERN WASHINGTON LOGGING CAMPS: ST. PAUL AND TACOMA LUMBER COMPANY’S CAMP #5 ca. 1934-1947 ____________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty Central Washington University ____________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Cultural and Environmental Resource Management ____________________________________ by Kayley Marie Bass August 2017 i CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Graduate Studies We hereby approve the thesis of Kayley Marie Bass Candidate for the degree of Master of Science APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY ______________ __________________________________________ Dr. Patrick Lubinski, Committee Chair ______________ __________________________________________ Dr. Steve Hackenberger ______________ __________________________________________ Dr. Stephen Moore ______________ __________________________________________ Dean of Graduate Studies ii ABSTRACT THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF WESTERN WASHINGTON LOGGING CAMPS: ST.
  • Dynamic Habitat Models for Estuary-Dependent Chinook Salmon: Informing Management in the Face of Climate Impacts

    Dynamic Habitat Models for Estuary-Dependent Chinook Salmon: Informing Management in the Face of Climate Impacts

    Dynamic habitat models for estuary-dependent Chinook salmon: informing management in the face of climate impacts Melanie Jeanne Davis A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2019 Reading Committee: Julian D. Olden, Co-Chair David A. Beauchamp, Co-Chair Charles A. Simenstad Program Authorized to Offer Degree: School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences © Copyright 2019 Melanie Jeanne Davis University of Washington Abstract Dynamic habitat models for estuary-dependent Chinook salmon: informing management in the face of climate impacts Melanie Jeanne Davis Co-chairs of the Supervisory Committee: Dr. Julian D. Olden Dr. David A. Beauchamp A complex mosaic of estuarine habitats is postulated to bolster the growth and survival of juvenile Chinook salmon by diversifying the availability and configuration of prey and refugia. Consequently, efforts are underway along the North American Pacific Coast to return modified coastal ecosystems to historical or near-historical conditions, but restoring habitats are often more sensitive to anthropogenic or climate-mediated disturbance than relict (unaltered) habitats. Estuaries are expected to experience longer inundation durations as sea-levels rise, leading to reductions in intertidal emergent marshes, mudflats, and eelgrass beds. Furthermore, rising ocean temperatures may have metabolic consequences for fall-run populations of Chinook salmon, which tend to out-migrate during the spring and summer. Extensive monitoring programs have allowed managers to assess the initial benefits of management efforts (including restoration) for juvenile salmon at local and regional scales, but at present they have limited options for predicting and responding to the concurrent effects of climate change in restoring and relict coastal ecosystems.