DOCSLIB.ORG

Mouth of the Columbia River Dredged Material Placement Sites Update Clatsop County, Oregon and Pacific County, Washington

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mouth of the Columbia River Dredged Material Placement Sites Update Clatsop County, Oregon and Pacific County, Washington FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Mouth of the Columbia River Dredged Material Placement Sites Update Clatsop County, Oregon and Pacific County, Washington August 2018 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Mouth ofth e.Collim bia Rive1· ·Drc~ged Ma t~rial J?fac~megl SitesUp.dat~ Clatsop County, Oregon and Pacific County, Washington Army Corps of Engineers, Portland Di~trict I find the Proposed A.ction, as described inthe environrne~talassessment (EJ\.)for ''Mouth ofthe Columbia RiverDredgedMaterial Placement Sites Update;. Clatsop Caunty, Oregon and Pacific Com:1ty, Washir]gton,i' will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and that an envirornnental hnpactstatement is not tequh'ed. The EA was prepared by the Corps of Engin~ei·s, Port1and District. .PROJECTPb'R.POSE AND NEED The purpQse of the Proposed A.ctioni s toadd tw.o sites to the netWork oflong~tel'f11 dreclged ntateri~l placement sites, suppprtingqvery~Jl regional;sedi111entwam1gem9uta.nd increase the operational flexibility of dredging iti the Mouth of the Colum t5fa River (MCRYand Colt1mbia RiverFederal NavigationChannel (INC), Thetwoproposed ,Sitesa1:e a§;horelirre place111erit site atEast Sand Jslan<:l (ESI} and an it1-water placement Site off~shore ftom NorthHead (North Head .Near Shore~(NHNS)},along the Wlf&hington cq3:st '.µxpandingthenetwqtk ofplac~mefltsites retains a critical sand resource in the Columbia River littoral zone< that would otherwise be lostif materials were placed in offshore sites. 1 Furthehnon~, expand it1g the net¥)orkbf neatshote sites incre~ses the efficiency of dredging oper~tiorrs by util izin~ ~it~s closer to the i\1CR as opposed to sitesJocated further offshore, where :transittimes and placement costs arexincreased. The stmctural stability ofBSlplays>an integralrole+n stabilizing the.FNC andmaintaini~gsate navigation in the MGR and FNC.The need for addingESl to the.network of placement sites arises from an area of erosion on the south shoreline of ESI1 which:vvill ct.1ntit1ue fo faode and tiltimatelytesultirr .the island breachil)g withoufthe addition ofsup_plententalmaterfaL Without suppleintmlingJhe shoreli11ewithdrcqgcdmaterials1 an island breach wo~ldlikely alter sediment transpo1i and shoaling patterns in the MGR and est nary. Shoreline placernent atESlis needed in 2018 to prevent the island :fr01I1 breaching and periodic placement would be needed to maintain the shoreline and prevent an. island breachln the future. the need f6r addingthe filllis site to thenetwork ofplacementsites adses from limited opportunities to place qredged mate rim atexisting :>hes in the MCR. While the, existing sites red is tribute sediment back into the littoral zone, the srea is still experiencing a depletion of sediment and an.additional site i.s neededtqsuppdrLC§,ed~ent11umagemi;nteflorts. ;ilongtbe Wa~hfugton coast. An additional. nem·shore site would increase opportunities to retain dean, sandy matel'iaU11 the littoral zohewfthoutover··hurdening the eX.istil1g nearshore placementsites. 1 A l i~oral zope isanea~1Jore~9yiron1nent.'o/ith ;natur<!Ay oc¢Ul'ring 11rosi~and depositional(acc~tion ){1fucesses, A constant sediment somce is ne'eded in order to batance the 5cdi ment bud gel within a zone. .... PROPOSED.ACTION To'inci-easeoperationill tlexibUitg of tne Corps' dredglngmissiou" the Ptiipc,sedAction includes addingESiandthe NHNS'siteto thenetworkofplaceJ11ent sites fu. theMCR, and the associated cmlStru~til)n atESlto prepare the shoreline for placement. Ed-rt Sai1dlWm1d At EST, tlnfrc are t\vo phaRcs of the proposed action:· ihe first phas~ consisting of'construction and preparation ofthc'])lacement site, followed by operational use ofthe site t:hro'nghthe placement 'ofdredged materials. In COf:ljunctfon with,thfa action,Jbe Cotps is pr0posing 1o: 1. Remove selectpilings from. a derelict pier structure on the .southern shoreline of ESifu ,redµce,cQncen4-atel.1 wayc .c:ne1·gyfrom diffracting waves and river currents focusing em~1,gy along thtls11oreline;theProposed Action includes the removal of §elect pilings and the rocks supporting the pHings; 2. Placement ofapp1·oxilnntcly &0,000 cubic yards (cy) of dredged materialon.the sl10f('1ine ofPSI in 2018, COY"ering approximately 14.5 (ltres; 3. Co11dud periodic.sho~lin~ .. pla<:cmentto ··supplcmc~1ttl.1e shore Iinlj.with ·sandy material and stabilize the islandthroughthc benefidaluse of dredged materials: on an as•rweded basis, QS'determined bythe Corps . .. North HeadNear ShoreSft{ The NHNS site would'.he nsed as abencfioial i1se placement stte where materia 1would be placed ill t:ftin layers indifferent areaswithhrthe designated boun~fary. Following plf}cement,the 9edim~nt ·b e.xpect~g tpdlspersp .into· the Huor al cell and ·sµpplement nearqy beaches, and thus help protect tbe MCR coal'fal zonefrom increased ,stonn rind '>vav e event<>. Addingthc NIINS placement site to the rrehvtlrk of existing pla~eru.entsites wiUfncreasethe Corps' flexibility in managing sediment dtt;dgcdfr(1JU .the MCR. Th~total volume of rnateria.I dre?gcd pe1·season averages approximately 3.5--4;5 million cubic.yards;.thc addition ofNHNS sJtewould not increase the.volume or scope ofcu,rreut dredging actiyitie.s, A inaximum of50Q,000 cy ofdredged material wpµl\:Lbe place<l at tb~:.NHNSsi~ dt¢iug any givFn piaccm<mt eycnL Material would be placed ill a thin layer to reduce. potentially ad:vcnie impacts to species and Increase the rate of habitat recovery. · DETERMINATION Under ~E}:>A, the Corp& evaluates whether any effocts'(1ssociated with •the:a.ltematj vcs un~er cons idcration are si $fiifl ca1.~t. 40 C. F.R, .§ 1508 ,_27 lists crilcri<J.useful to assess whethe1· the proposed action·wi!I •;signfficantlyaffectthe humanenvironment't: l) ·lrnpacts thatmay be both benefic;iaLand adverse: ~or~liac placement.at ~St1J1ay he;ncfit· Juvenile salrrionids.f!y ipcreasirig sh'.tllo:wMwatel'habitat in the lower estuary (Section 5,6). Placement at the NHNS site will recharge thelittoralzone, bcnei1tit1g beach re~ nourishment efforts. Adverse cffectS ofp1aeement auhe NH.NS site would be minimized by· thin Jayli;l:.placemcnt.me~hods described in the· EA~ L.ocajized ·increased.turbidity due ·fo placemein and drndg)ngacti v!tics may ca11sc temporary~dv~rse impacts. on ~quutk species and habitat in the vicinfty. of the project H owcver, those impacts are 'like 1y to be :shrntw liy:ed .as the c-0nstttiction activityis temporal')' .in natul'e (Section.5 .3).. Neither the 2 beneficial, nor the adverse impacts;discussedin the EA areHkelyto be significant as described in the envitonmental effects sectiol'tof the EA. 2) The Degree towhichthe Action Affects Public T-I~~lth and Safety: Publichealthand >safety .would not be adversely .affected by these actions; Dredge material placement is perfor:tned by the coms and lt$ contractors who areJequitedto adhere to strict safety measures while wotking.(Section5.10). The general p11blic isnot allowed to enter .!.!btlStt·llctlon site.s \vJtlle dredge placementoperations are underway. 3) Vniqrie Charactel'isiics ofGeographical Ai'ea: As discussed in Chapter 4 ofthe'EA, the: projecLL1fea is Jocated ..within the Col~mbiaJliver. ESI, tho.ugh historically useda§a place.ment sit~. Is erddingandwiU likely breach inthe absence ofsupplementaLmaterial placed along the shoreline. The NHNS site is located on the Washington coast and placement of dredged materials is expectedto retainsedimeut in the littoral zone, suppm'ting regional sediment fllanagtmentefforts; 4) Highly Controvel'siaLE:ffects 01tthc Quality oftheJiumanEnvironment: The effects of the .proposed actions are not controversiaL.No.Congressional interest is associated wiili the ptoj~ct, nof:has th~e bee11sub~famial pµblic in.terest inthe prpjt~ct. 5) HighlyJJnccrtain, Unique, or Unkno\\11 Risli~: Adding t\vo sites to the dredge material placement network, as proposed in the EA,is considered roµtine a.ctivity ·tl1at has prediCtable. outcomes. No portion ofthe project is as5ociated with highly11rtcertain, uniqu~, 01' unknown risks. Shoreline placementat ~SI will rebuild the shoreline .to its !orrn~rJootpri~t, anqplacement at tht: NHl".('S site;will increase flexibilicyof dredging operations in the MCR and retain sediment in the Ji(toral wne. ·· 6) ~uturePrecedents: The actions and:associ~ted impacts d7scribedi11the EA are eonsidered minor modifications .to the placement network and are toutine in nature; Neitherplacem~ntatESI, nor placement at t4eNljN-S sit~ would set a p~·e:s.identfor future actions undertaken by the Corps. Both types of actions typicallytake place within the MGR on anannuaJ basis,. and nothing rela~cd ·t{) the tWq new actions would deviate from methods, timing, or impacts associatedwith prev ioits activities of a similm• nature . 7) . Significant C~ml.1lati~e Impacts: The impacts analysis for .the proposed l;l.Ctions presenteci in theJ3A did npt reve~l significantyuinulatiye. imps~ts {Section 6\3). Adding shoreline placement on ESl and in-waterplacemcnt at the NHNS site arc .not likely to result in significant cµm11lati\'eimpac~ when combined withJhe impa.ets ofother past, present, and future actions. Several bther. actions are fuking place. and/or scheduled to take place within the M(:R FN(;; however.none ofthem is associated.with individ~alimpacts that wouklresultjnsignificant cumulati:y.t;: impayts when c01nbi11ed with otheractioi:ii;;,. 8) ·Natiorral.RegisterofllistoricPlaces:(NRBPJandOtherHisforicalJmd··culturallx Significant Places: ESI is an lmportant component of the MCR navigation infrastructure iwedcdto maiJ1~ain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation
    2019 OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES COMPILATION CHAPTER 736 Parks and Recreation Department Published By DENNIS RICHARDSON Secretary of State Copyright 2019 Office of the Secretary of State Rules effective as of January 01, 2019 DIVISION 1 PROCEDURAL RULES 736-001-0000 Notice of Proposed Rules 736-001-0005 Model Rules of Procedure 736-001-0030 Fees for Public Records DIVISION 2 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 736-002-0010 State Park Cooperating Associations 736-002-0015 Working with Donor Organizations 736-002-0020 Criminal Records Checks 736-002-0030 Definitions 736-002-0038 Designated Positions: Authorized Designee and Contact Person 736-002-0042 Criminal Records Check Process 736-002-0050 Preliminary Fitness Determination. 736-002-0052 Hiring or Appointing on a Preliminary Basis 736-002-0058 Final Fitness Determination 736-002-0070 Crimes Considered 736-002-0102 Appealing a Fitness Determination 736-002-0150 Recordkeeping, Confidentiality, and Retention 736-002-0160 Fees DIVISION 3 WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY PLAN 736-003-0005 Willamette River Greenway Plan DIVISION 4 DISTRIBUTION OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE FUNDSTO PUBLIC AND PRIVATELY OWNED LANDMANAGERS, ATV CLUBS AND ORGANIZATIONS 736-004-0005 Purpose of Rule 736-004-0010 Statutory Authority 736-004-0015 Definitions 736-004-0020 ATV Grant Program: Apportionment of Monies 736-004-0025 Grant Application Eligibility and Requirements 736-004-0030 Project Administration 736-004-0035 Establishment of the ATV Advisory Committee 736-004-0045 ATV Operating Permit Agent Application and Privileges 736-004-0060
    [Show full text]
  • Role of the Estuary in the Recovery of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: an Evaluation of the Effects of Selected Factors on Salmonid Population Viability
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-69 Role of the Estuary in the Recovery of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: An Evaluation of the Effects of Selected Factors on Salmonid Population Viability September 2005 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 Technical Memorandum NMFS series to issue infor- mal scientific and technical publications when com- plete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Docu- ments 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 Technical 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: Fresh, K.L., E. Casillas, L.L. Johnson, and D.L. Bottom. 2005. Role of the estuary in the recovery of Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead: an evaluation of the effects of selected factors on salmo- nid population viability. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-69, 105 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-69 Role of the Estuary in the Recovery of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: An Evaluation of the Effects of Selected Factors on Salmonid Population Viability Kurt L.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Program Chair
    Science Program 44th Annual Meeting of the Pacific Seabird Group 22-25 February, 2017 Daily Schedule Overview Tacoma Convention Center (TCC) Comments or questions, please contact Local Committee: [email protected] Tuesday, 21 February 2017 (pre-conference) Hotel Murano, Lido Boardroom 1300-1700 Short-tailed Albatross Recovery Team (START) Meeting – by invitation Wednesday, 22 February 2017 0730–1700 REGISTRATION DESK OPEN (TCC Lobby) Committee Meetings – all welcome, unless otherwise indicated. Boardroom N, Ballroom AB, Boardroom S, Commencement Bay N, 1 TCC TCC TCC CUW Aleutian Tern Tech 0900-1230 EXCO MAMU Tech Comm TUPU Tech Comm Comm 1230-1300 BREAK Seabird Monitoring SCMU and GUMU Tech 1300-1500 EXCO MAMU Tech Comm Comm Comm FWS Pacific Seabird SCMU and GUMU Tech 1500-1700 EXCO MAMU Tech Comm Program Comm 1700-1830 KIMU Tech Comm 1800-2100 WELCOME RECEPTION (Hotel Murano, Venice Ballroom) 1 Center for Urban Waters (CUW), 326 East D St. Tacoma WA 98421. https://www.urbanwaters.org 1 Thursday, 23 February 2017 0730–1700 REGISTRATION DESK OPEN (TCC Lobby) Ballroom AB Meeting Room 315 Meeting Room 316 0830-0900 Welcome and Opening Remarks PLENARY: P. Dee Boersma (Ballroom AB) 0900-1000 Natural History and Long-Term Studies Are Fundamental to Science 1000-1030 Coffee Break SPS 2: Sound to Sea: 1030-1200 Marine Birds Across the Population Biology Tools and Techniques Salish Sea Lunch (on your own) and Meetings 1200-1330 NOAA Fisheries Seabird Workgroup (1200, Boardroom N) – by invitation Former Chairs Meeting (1215-1320,
    [Show full text]
  • OB 15.1 1989 Spring
    OREGON BIRDS is a quarterly publication of Oregon Field Ornithol• MEMBERSHIP IN OFO BRINGS YOU ogists. Oregon Birds is printed at the University of Oregon Press. Member• ship in Oregon Field Ornithologists is on an annual basis and includes a sub• • Oregon Birds — OFO's quarterly journal with news briefs of interest to scription to Oregon Birds. ISSN 0890-2313 Oregon birders • short notes and articles on status and identification of Oregon's birds • bird-finding guides to Oregon's better birding spots and Editor Owen Schmidt rarer species • reviews of printed material of interest to Oregon's birders. Assistant Editor Sharon K. Blair Associate Editor Jim Johnson • Proceedings of the Oregon Bird Records Committee — OFO members stay current on the rare birds of Oregon. OREGON FIELD ORNITHOLOGISTS • Annual meetings — As a member, you are invited to participate in President Larry Thornburgh, North Bend (1989) OFO's birding meetings, held at some of Oregon's top Secretary Donna J. Lusthoff, Beaverton (1989) birding spots. Treasurer Kit Larsen, Eugene (1989) • Publications — OFO pub• Past President Alan Contreras, Jefferson City, MO lishes useful field cards and other Directors David A. Anderson, Portland (1988-90) field checklists accurate according Alice Parker, Roseburg (1987-89) to the Official Checklist of Oregon Bill Stotz, Ashland (1987-89) birds prepared by the Oregon Bird Tom Mickel, Eugene (1988-90) Records Committee. OREGON BIRD RECORDS COMMITTEE Secretary Clarice Watson, Eugene (1989) Members Tom Crabtree, Bend (1989-91) FOR USE IN 1989 ONLY Jeff Gilligan, Portland (1987-89) Steve Heinl, Eugene (1989-91) OREGON FIELD ORNITHOLOGISTS David Irons, Beaverton (1987-89) APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP & Jim Johnson, Portland (1987-89) MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL Larry McQueen, Eugene 1988-90) Harry Nehls, Portland (1988-90) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Estuary Program Story Map Text-only File 1) Introduction Welcome to the National Estuary Program story map. Since 1987, the EPA National Estuary Program (NEP) has made a unique and lasting contribution to protecting and restoring our nation's estuaries, delivering environmental and public health benefits to the American people. This story map describes the 28 National Estuary Programs, the issues they face, and how place-based partnerships coordinate local actions. To use this tool, click through the four tabs at the top and scroll around to learn about our National Estuary Programs. Want to learn more about a specific NEP? 1. Click on the "Get to Know the NEPs" tab. 2. Click on the map or scroll through the list to find the NEP you are interested in. 3. Click the link in the NEP description to explore a story map created just for that NEP. Program Overview Our 28 NEPs are located along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts and in Puerto Rico. The NEPs employ a watershed approach, extensive public participation, and collaborative science-based problem- solving to address watershed challenges. To address these challenges, the NEPs develop and implement long-term plans (called Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (link opens in new tab)) to coordinate local actions. The NEPs and their partners have protected and restored approximately 2 million acres of habitat. On average, NEPs leverage $19 for every $1 provided by the EPA, demonstrating the value of federal government support for locally-driven efforts. View the NEPmap. What is an estuary? An estuary is a partially-enclosed, coastal water body where freshwater from rivers and streams mixes with salt water from the ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment of Marine Geophysical Surveys by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth for the Southern California Collaborative Offshore Geophysical Survey
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF MARINE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS BY THE R/V MARCUS G. LANGSETH FOR THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE OFFSHORE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY Submitted to: National Science Foundation Division of Ocean Sciences 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725 Arlington, VA 22230 Submitted by: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD 8675 Discovery Way La Jolla, CA 92023 Contact: Professor Neal Driscoll 858.822.5026; [email protected] Prepared by: Padre Associates, Inc. 5290 Overpass Road, Suite 217 Goleta, CA 93113 June 2012 Southern California Collaborative Offshore Geophysical Survey (SCCOGS) Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................... 1 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................... 6 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................... 6 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................ 6 2.3 PROJECT ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 6 2.3.1 Mobilization and Demobilization .............................................................. 9 2.3.2 Offshore Survey Operations .................................................................... 9 2.3.2.1 Survey Vessel Specifications ..................................................... 10 2.3.2.2 Air Gun Description ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Do Sturgeon Limit Burrowing Shrimp Populations in Pacific Northwest Estuaries?
    Environ Biol Fish (2008) 83:283–296 DOI 10.1007/s10641-008-9333-y Do sturgeon limit burrowing shrimp populations in Pacific Northwest Estuaries? Brett R. Dumbauld & David L. Holden & Olaf P. Langness Received: 22 January 2007 /Accepted: 28 January 2008 /Published online: 4 March 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008 Abstract Green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, and we present evidence from exclusion studies and field white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus, are fre- observation that the predator making the pits can have quent inhabitants of coastal estuaries from northern a significant cumulative negative effect on burrowing California, USA to British Columbia, Canada. An shrimp density. These burrowing shrimp present a analysis of stomach contents from 95 green stur- threat to the aquaculture industry in Washington State geon and six white sturgeon commercially landed in due to their ability to de-stabilize the substrate on Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, and the Columbia River which shellfish are grown. Despite an active burrowing estuary during 2000–2005 revealed that 17–97% had shrimp control program in these estuaries, it seems empty stomachs, but those fish with items in their unlikely that current burrowing shrimp abundance and guts fed predominantly on benthic prey items and availability as food is a limiting factor for threatened fish. Burrowing thalassinid shrimp (mostly Neo- green sturgeon stocks. However, these large predators trypaea californiensis) were important food items for may have performed an important top down control both white and especially for green sturgeon taken in function on shrimp populations in the past when they Willapa Bay, Washington during summer 2003, where were more abundant.
    [Show full text]
  • Grays Harbor Juvenile Fish Use Assessment: 2012 Annual Report
    Grays Harbor Juvenile Fish Use Assessment: 2012 Annual Report Prepared for the Chehalis Basin Habitat Work Group February, 2013 Prepared by: Todd Sandell, James Fletcher, Andrew McAninch and Micah Wait Setting the net in Half Moon Bay, Grays Harbor Estuary, 2012 Sculpin displaying in a Wild Fish Conservancy “photarium”, April 2012 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1 Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................ 7 1.1 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................7 1.2 Study Area ...................................................................................................................8 Specific Hypotheses: ......................................................................................................... 10 Section 2: Methods ................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Habitat Inventory/ Sample Site Selection.................................................................... 12 2.2 Field Sampling Methodology ....................................................................................... 15 Data Recording/Water Quality Measures ............................................................................................ 17 2.3 Age Class Assignments ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13 -- Puget Sound, Washington
    514 Puget Sound, Washington Volume 7 WK50/2011 123° 122°30' 18428 SKAGIT BAY STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA S A R A T O 18423 G A D A M DUNGENESS BAY I P 18464 R A A L S T S Y A G Port Townsend I E N L E T 18443 SEQUIM BAY 18473 DISCOVERY BAY 48° 48° 18471 D Everett N U O S 18444 N O I S S E S S O P 18458 18446 Y 18477 A 18447 B B L O A B K A Seattle W E D W A S H I N ELLIOTT BAY G 18445 T O L Bremerton Port Orchard N A N 18450 A 18452 C 47° 47° 30' 18449 30' D O O E A H S 18476 T P 18474 A S S A G E T E L N 18453 I E S C COMMENCEMENT BAY A A C R R I N L E Shelton T Tacoma 18457 Puyallup BUDD INLET Olympia 47° 18456 47° General Index of Chart Coverage in Chapter 13 (see catalog for complete coverage) 123° 122°30' WK50/2011 Chapter 13 Puget Sound, Washington 515 Puget Sound, Washington (1) This chapter describes Puget Sound and its nu- (6) Other services offered by the Marine Exchange in- merous inlets, bays, and passages, and the waters of clude a daily newsletter about future marine traffic in Hood Canal, Lake Union, and Lake Washington. Also the Puget Sound area, communication services, and a discussed are the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and variety of coordinative and statistical information.
    [Show full text]
  • USFWS Outreach/Education FY2005 Protected Salmonid Survey/Angler Outreach Project Progress Report
    USFWS Outreach/Education FY2005 Protected Salmonid Survey/Angler Outreach Project Progress Report Cooperative Agreement # 134104 Report Date: March 24, 2008 Reporting Period: November 1, 2005–December 5, 2007 Project Rationale and Objectives In recent years, Wild Fish Conservancy has received reports from recreational anglers of observed violations of no-harvest rules for trout, salmon and char in the marine waters of Washington State. Such illegal take may be significantly compromising conservation efforts, and may stem in part from confusion about the geographic range of the fishery regulations or from misidentification of protected species as harvestable salmonids. To assist in the protection of the anadromous life-history forms of these fishes, this cooperative project has developed educational signage that alerts the public about state and federal harvest restrictions on at-risk salmonids and illustrates diagnostic features to facilitate species identification in the field. The signs, installed throughout coastal Washington State, target Washington’s recreational nearshore anglers. To assess recreational fishing pressure on selected species, the project has implemented a 12-month harvest survey. The objective of the survey is to collect quantitative and qualitative information volunteered by anglers, which Wild Fish Conservancy will analyze and provide to USFWS and WDFW as feedback to assist with refinement of biologically based fishing regulations that are accessible and understandable by the public. Methods The regulatory signage utilized in this project focuses on anadromous bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and sea-run coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) and were developed by the USFWS’s Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (Fig. 1). At all posting sites, the regulatory sign was accompanied by an advertisement (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II, Chapter 2 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem Subbasins
    Volume II, Chapter 2 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem Subbasins TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.0 COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY AND LOWER MAINSTEM ................................ 2-1 2.1 Subbasin Description.................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.2 History ................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.3 Physical Setting.................................................................................................... 2-7 2.1.4 Fish and Wildlife Resources ................................................................................ 2-8 2.1.5 Habitat Classification......................................................................................... 2-20 2.1.6 Estuary and Lower Mainstem Zones ................................................................. 2-27 2.1.7 Major Land Uses................................................................................................ 2-29 2.1.8 Areas of Biological Significance ....................................................................... 2-29 2.2 Focal Species............................................................................................................. 2-31 2.2.1 Selection Process............................................................................................... 2-31 2.2.2 Ocean-type Salmonids
    [Show full text]
  • CR-102 (June 2012) PROPOSED RULE MAKING (Implements RCW 34.05.320) Do NOT Use for Expedited Rule Making Agency: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
    CR-102 (June 2012) PROPOSED RULE MAKING (Implements RCW 34.05.320) Do NOT use for expedited rule making Agency: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Preproposal Statement of Inquiry was filed as WSR 14-24-118 filed 12/3/14;or Original Notice Expedited Rule Making--Proposed notice was filed as WSR ; or Supplemental Notice to WSR Proposal is exempt under RCW 34.05.310(4) or 34.05.330(1). Continuance of WSR Title of rule and other identifying information: See attachment A. Hearing location(s): Submit written comments to: Civic Center Name: Wildlife Program Commission Meeting Public Comments 411 South Balsam Street Address:600 Capitol Way North Moses Lake, WA 98837 Olympia, WA 98501 e-mail [email protected] fax (360) 902-2162 by (date) 2/24/15 Date: March 20-21, 2015 Time: 8:00 AM Assistance for persons with disabilities: Contact Tami Lininger by March 1, 2015 Date of intended adoption: On or after April 9, 2015 (Note: This is NOT the effective date) TTY (800) 833-6388 or (360) 902-2267 Purpose of the proposal and its anticipated effects, including any changes in existing rules: See attachment A Reasons supporting proposal: See attachment A Statutory authority for adoption: RCW 77.04.012, 77.04.055, Statute being implemented: RCW 77.04.012, 77.04.055, 77.12.047, 77.12.150 and 77.12.240. 77.12.047, 77.12.150 and 77.12.240. Is rule necessary because of a: CODE REVISER USE ONLY Federal Law? Yes No Federal Court Decision? State Court Decision? Yes No If yes, CITATION: Yes No DATE February 2, 2015 NAME (type or print) Joanna Eide SIGNATURE TITLE Rules Coordinator (COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE) Agency comments or recommendations, if any, as to statutory language, implementation, enforcement, and fiscal matters: When filing the permanent rule-making order (CR-103P), the WAC sections containing rule amendments will be consolidated into two or three Order Typing Service (OTS) documents.
    [Show full text]