DOCSLIB.ORG

WILLAPA BAY Geographic Response Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WILLAPA BAY Geographic Response Plan WILLAPA BAY Geographic Response Plan (WB-GRP) Response Strategies and Priorities December 2020 This page was intentionally left blank Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 Before you print this document This section and its appendices are provided in “landscape” page orientation. The detailed 2-page information sheets for response strategies, notification strategies, staging areas, and boat launch locations in the appendices have been designed for duplex printing (front and back side of paper), “open to top” configuration. 1 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 INTRODUCTION This section provides information on GRP response strategies and the order they should be implemented, based on Potential Oil Spill Origin Points (POSOPs) and the proximity and relative priority of sensitive resources near those point locations. Area maps, sector maps, and information on staging areas and boat launch locations are also provided in this section. During a spill incident, GRP response strategies should be implemented as soon as possible. Unless circumstances unique to a particular spill situation dictate otherwise, the priority tables in Strategy and Response Priorities should be used to decide the order that GRP strategies are deployed. The downstream movement of oil and the time it takes to mobilize response resources to deploy GRP strategies must always be considered when setting implementation priorities. Information on resources at risk, sensitive areas, and flight restrictions can be found in the Resources at Risk section. Information on shoreline countermeasures can be found in the Northwest Area Shoreline Countermeasures Manual (NWACP Section 9420). The Northwest Area Contingency Plan (NWACP) is available online at http://www.rrt10nwac.com/NWACP/Default.aspx. These GRP strategies have been created to reduce spilled oil’s impact on sensitive resources. They are not everything that should or could be done during a response to lessen the chance of injury to natural, cultural, and economic resources. Control and containment of an oil spill is always a higher priority than the implementation of response strategies. Although designed to be implemented during the initial phase of an oil spill, strategies may continue to be used throughout a response at the discretion of Unified Command with guidance provided by the Environmental Unit. On-site Considerations Before Deploying a GRP Strategy Will equipment or vehicles need to be staged on or near a roadway? If so, traffic control may be required. Contact the Washington State Patrol or local, county, municipality, or tribal police for assistance. At minimum, Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) guidelines for work zone traffic control should be followed when working on or near a roadway. 2 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 AREA OVERVIEW MAPS The following maps provide a geographic overview of the Willapa Bay GRP planning area. Sector maps provide more detail on the location of response strategies, notification strategies, staging areas, boat launch locations, and POSOPs. Detailed information for each location can be found in the matrices or in this section’s appendices. Priority tables for potential oil spill origin points can be found below. 3 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 4 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 5 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 6 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 7 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 8 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 9 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 10 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 11 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 STRATEGY AND RESPONSE PRIORITIES Strategy Priorities based on Potential Oil Spill Origin Points Potential Oil Spill Origin Points (POSOPs) are geographic locations that have a defined list of response strategy implementation priorities provided in a table within this section. The placement of each POSOP is often based on spill risks in the area. Occasionally POSOPs are generalized to ensure implementation priorities are developed throughout an entire planning area. These points are displayed on area overview and sector maps as red squares. In establishing priorities during a response, or selecting an appropriate POSOP, the downstream movement of spilled oil and the time it takes to mobilize and deploy response resources must be considered. Generally, on streams, creeks, and rivers, GRP strategies should first be implemented downstream, well beyond the furthest extent of the spill, with deployments continuing upstream towards the spill source and in some cases slightly beyond. POSOPs are alphabetically designated. The following tables provide the strategy implementation order for Potential Oil Spill Origin Points in this GRP: points WB-A through WB- C. The priority tables provided in this section were developed using a combination of variables, including: notification time, travel time for responders and equipment, average and seasonal flow rates, average winds, deployment time, proximity to the spill source, trustee input, the relative priority of the resources at risk, and other considerations. Source control and containment are a higher priority than GRP strategy implementation 12 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 Table 1: WB-A WB-A (Entrance to Willapa Bay) Implementation Strategy Strategy Details Sector Map Comments Priority Number (Page #) 1 WB-3 WB- (1-2) 38-39 2 WB-4 WB- (1-2) 40-41 3 WB-5 WB- (1-2) 42-43 4 WB-6 WB- (1-2) 44-45 5 WB-2 WB- (1-2) 36-37 Table 2: WB-B WB-B (Willapa River Mile 3.5) Implementation Strategy Strategy Details Sector Map Comments Priority Number (Page #) 1 WB-15 WB-5 58-59 2 WB-51 WB-5 120-121 3 WB-50 WB-5 119-120 4 WB-11 WB-5 54-55 5 WB-12 WB-5 56-57 13 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 Table 3: WB-C WB-C (Bridge over Naselle River) Implementation Strategy Strategy Details Sector Map Comments Priority Number (Page #) 1 WB-25 WB-4 76-77 2 WB-27 WB-4 80-81 3 WB-26 WB-4 78-79 4 WB-28 WB-4 82-83 5 WB-29 WB-4 84-85 MATRICES Naming Conventions (Short Names) Each strategy, staging area, and boat launch location in this document has been given a unique “Short Name” which includes one to six letters denoting the associated waterbody. Following the letters are numbers that specify the location. Notification strategies are indicated by an “-N” at the end of the name. Staging Areas and Boat Launches are indicated by the prefix “SA” or “BL”. 14 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 15 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 16 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 17 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 18 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 19 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 20 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 Strategy Strategy Strategy Boat Staging Sector Location Boom Length Resources At Risk Comments Details Name Type Req? Area Map (Page#) WB-2 North Cove Exclusion Boom 1000ft Yes Remote Salmonids, Seal Haulout By boat only from Sector 36-37 46.70657 Tokeland Area, Shellfish, Slough and Tokeland Marina. The WB-1 -123.98742 Marina Marsh Habitat, T/E Species, Shoalwater Tribe has an Waterfowl, Wetlands ATV for access to site along the sandbar. WB-3 Kindred Slough Exclusion Boom 2000ft Yes Remote Eelgrass, Marine Mammals, By boat only from Sector 38-39 46.71166 Tokeland Salmonids, Seal Haulout Tokeland Marina. WB-1 -123.97356 Marina Area, Shellfish, Slough and Marsh Habitat, T/E Species, Waterfowl, Wetlands WB-4 Kindred Slough Exclusion Boom 200ft Yes Onsite Eelgrass, Marine Mammals, Must cross private farm Sector 40-41 Tide Gate Seal Haulout Area, Shellfish, land to levee road and WB-1 46.71424 Slough and Marsh Habitat, block culvert. -123.99093 T/E Species, Waterfowl, Wetlands WB-5 Teal Duck Exclusion Boom 100ft No Onsite Eelgrass, Marine Mammals, Must cross private farm Sector 42-43 Slough Tide Salmonids, Seal Haulout land to get to tide gate, WB-1 Gate Area, Shellfish, Slough and access from Highway 46.72369 Marsh Habitat, T/E Species, 105 at north end of -123.98859 Waterfowl, Wetlands levee road. Permission is required. WB-6 Willapa Bay Exclusion Boom 500ft No Onsite Eelgrass, Marine Mammals, Take Hwy 105 from Sector 44-45 Cedar River Stage on Salmonids, Seal Haulout Raymond toward WB-1 confluence Hwy 105 at Area, Shellfish, Slough and Tokeland. 46.74016 site Marsh Habitat, State Lands, -123.97499 T/E Species, Wetlands 21 Willapa Bay Geographic Response Plan December 2020 WB-7 North River Exclusion Boom 600ft Yes Onsite Marine Mammals, Take Hwy 105 west Sector 46-47 46.75112 Smith Creek Salmonids, Seal Haulout from Raymond to North WB-5 -123.88754 Boat Launch Area, T/E Species, River Bridge, 10.5 miles. Waterfowl, Wetlands WB-8 Smith Creek Exclusion Boom 400ft Yes Onsite Marine Mammals, Take Hwy 105 west Sector 48-49 46.74732 Smith Creek Salmonids, Seal Haulout from Raymond to Smith WB-5 -123.88447 Boat Launch Area, Slough and Marsh Creek Bridge, 10 miles. Habitat, State Lands, T/E Species, Waterfowl, Wetlands WB-9 Fleiss Creek Exclusion Boom 100ft No Onsite Salmonids, Seal Haulout Take Hwy 105 from Sector 40-51 46.70645 Stage along Area, Slough and Marsh Raymond toward WB-5 -123.82257 Hwy 105 Habitat, T/E Species, Tokeland. Go 5.4 miles Waterfowl, Wetlands from turnoff of Hwy 101 onto Hwy 105. WB-10 Johnson Slough Exclusion Boom 100ft No Onsite Salmonids, Seal Haulout Take road from Sector 52-53 Tide Gate Stage along Area, Slough and Marsh Highway 105 to Willapa WB-5 46.70549 Hwy 105 Habitat, T/E Species, Bay Airport, dike access -123.82321 Waterfowl, Wetlands road is off airport road.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Waters of the United States in Washington with Green Sturgeon Identified As NMFS Listed Resource of Concern for EPA's PGP
    Waters of the United States in Washington with Green Sturgeon identified as NMFS Listed Resource of Concern for EPA's PGP (1) Coastal marine areas: All U.S. coastal marine waters out to the 60 fm depth bathymetry line (relative to MLLW) from Monterey Bay, California (36°38′12″ N./121°56′13″ W.) north and east to include waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington. The Strait of Juan de Fuca includes all U.S. marine waters: Clallam County east of a line connecting Cape Flattery (48°23′10″ N./ 124°43′32″ W.) Tatoosh Island (48°23′30″ N./124°44′12″ W.) and Bonilla Point, British Columbia (48°35′30″ N./124°43′00″ W.) Jefferson and Island counties north and west of a line connecting Point Wilson (48°08′38″ N./122°45′07″ W.) and Partridge Point (48°13′29″ N./122°46′11″ W.) San Juan and Skagit counties south of lines connecting the U.S.-Canada border (48°27′27″ N./ 123°09′46″ W.) and Pile Point (48°28′56″ N./123°05′33″ W.), Cattle Point (48°27′1″ N./122°57′39″ W.) and Davis Point (48°27′21″ N./122°56′03″ W.), and Fidalgo Head (48°29′34″ N./122°42′07″ W.) and Lopez Island (48°28′43″ N./ 122°49′08″ W.) (2) Coastal bays and estuaries: Critical habitat is designated to include the following coastal bays and estuaries in California, Oregon, and Washington: (vii) Lower Columbia River estuary, Washington and Oregon. All tidally influenced areas of the lower Columbia River estuary from the mouth upstream to river kilometer 74, up to the elevation of mean higher high water, including, but not limited to, areas upstream to the head of tide endpoint
    [Show full text]
  • Net Shore-Drift and Artificial Structures Within Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR WWU Graduate School Collection WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship Spring 1995 Net Shore-Drift nda Artificial Structures within Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and Mouth of the Columbia River, Washington B. Patrice (Berenthine Patrice) Thomas Western Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Thomas, B. Patrice (Berenthine Patrice), "Net Shore-Drift nda Artificial Structures within Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and Mouth of the Columbia River, Washington" (1995). WWU Graduate School Collection. 812. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/812 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in WWU Graduate School Collection by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WWU LIBRARIES NET SHORE-DRIFT AND ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURES WITHIN GRAYS HARBOR, WILLAPA BAY, AND MOUTH OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER, WASHINGTON by B. Patrice Thomas Accepted in Partial Completion of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Dean of Graduate School Advisory Committee Chair, Dr. Christopher A. Suczek Director, Dr. Maurice L. Schwartz Member, Dr. Thomas A. Terich MASTER’S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Western Washington University, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this thesis is allowable only forscholarly purposes. It is understood, however, that any copying or publication of this thesis for commercial purposes, or for financial gain, shall not be allowed without my written permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Estuarinerestorationopportunities
    Final Report Ranking of Estuarine Habitat Restoration Priorities Coastal Resources Alliance and the UW Olympic Natural Resources Center June 5, 2007 Project # 04-1641N Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Project Deliverables ................................................................ 4 Habitat Assessment & Criteria for Ranking Restoration Opportunities ................ 4 GIS system & Maps ...................................................................................................... 9 Stakeholder meetings .................................................................................................. 10 Integration of the Recommendations in the WRIA 24 Strategic Plan ................... 10 Description of the Willapa Estuary ........................................................... 10 Estuarine Habitat, Stressors, & Restoration Opportunities .................. 13 Mud and Sand Flats .................................................................................................... 15 Mudflat Stressor: Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora).............................. 16 Restoration Recommendation: Spartina Control ....................................... 17 Eelgrass ........................................................................................................................ 17 Stressors to Eelgrass and Recommendations ....................................................... 18 Spartina & Eelgrass ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Analysis Report
    PACIFIC COUNTY Grant No. G1400525 Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County Prepared for: Pacific County 1216 W. Robert Bush Drive PO Box 68 South Bend, WA 98586 Prepared by: STRATEGY | ANALYSIS | COMMUNICATIONS 2025 First Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle WA 98121 110 Main St # 103 Edmonds, WA 98020 Drafted June 2014, Public Draft September 2014, Revised January 2015, This report was funded in part Final June 2015 through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology. The Watershed Company Reference Number: 130727 Cite this document as: The Watershed Company, BERK, and Coast and Harbor Engineering. June 2015. Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County. Prepared for Pacific County, South Bend, WA. Acknowledgements The consultant team wishes to thank the Pacific County Shoreline Planning Committee, who contributed significant comments and materials toward the development of this report. The Watershed Company June 2015 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Page # Readers Guide .................................................................................. i 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ............................................................................. 1 1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction ................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 4 2 Summary of Current Regulatory Framework
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinance No. 183 Pacific County Shoreline Master Program
    ORDINANCE NO. 183 PACIFIC COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AN ORDINANCE WHICH IMPLEMENTS A MASTER PROGRAM FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF THOSE SHORELINES WITHIN PACIFIC COUNTY, INCLUDING A GOAL, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS: PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF THE REGULATORY PROGRAM, INCLUDING A PERMIT SYSTEM: PRESCRIBING PENALTIES: AND GENERALLY CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 WHEREAS, the Washington Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58 referred to herein as SMA) recognizes that shorelines are among the most valuable and fragile resources of the state, and that state and local government must establish a coordinated planning program to address the types and effects of development occurring along shorelines of state-wide significance; and WHEREAS, Pacific County (County) is required to update its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) pursuant to the SMA and WAC 173-26; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2016, the County’s State Environmental Policy Act responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance; and WHEREAS, there was extensive public participation with respect to the SMP update in compliance with the SMP Public Participation Program which was adopted by the Board of Pacific County Commissioners via Resolution 2014-022 on May 27, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Pacific County Planning Commission, after numerous study sessions and public meetings and hearings, recommended approval of the SMP update at its meeting of March 3, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Board of Pacific County Commissioners adopted Resolution 2016-036 at their meeting of September 27, 2016, to adopt the updated SMP, which was transmitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology for review; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Ecology approved the SMP update on September 28, 2017, with required and recommend changes; and WHEREAS, Resolution 2000-039 was adopted by the Board of Pacific County Commissioners on April 11, 2000 and is hereby repealed with the adoption of Ordinance No.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific County (Wria 24) Strategic Plan for Salmon Recovery
    PACIFIC COUNTY (WRIA 24) STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SALMON RECOVERY CHUM SALMON (Oncorhynchus keta) June 29, 2001 Prepared for: Pacific County P.O. Box 68 South Bend, WA 98586 Prepared by : Applied Environmental Services, Inc 1550 Woodridge Dr. SE Port Orchard, WA 98366 TTABLEABLE OOFF CCONTENTSONTENTS PPageage i CHAPTER PAGE 1.0 Executive Summary 1 1.1 The Pacific County (WRIA 24) Strategic Plan for Salmon Recovery 1 2.0 Introduction 2 2.1 Historical Perspectives and Conditions 2 2.2 Ecosystem Conditions 2 2.3 Future Priorities 3 3.0 Mission Statement, Strategy, Guiding Principles and Key Issues 5 3.1 Willapa Bay Water Resources Coordinating Council Mission Statement 5 3.2 Willapa Bay Water Resources Coordinating Council Mission Strategy 5 3.3 Willapa Bay Water Resources Coordinating Council Guiding Principles 5 4.0 WRIA 24 Watershed Characteristics 8 4.1 Introduction 8 4.2 Data Sources 8 4.3 Critical Elements of Salmon Habitat 9 4.3.1 Spawning and Rearing Habitat 9 4.3.2 Floodplain Conditions 10 ` 4.3.3 Streambed Sediment Conditions 11 4.3.4 Riparian Conditions 12 4.3.5 Water Quality and Quantity Conditions 13 4.3.6 Estuarine Conditions 14 4.4 Salmon Habitat in the Willapa Basin 14 4.4.1 Limiting Factors, Gap Analysis and Methods of Assessment by Watershed 16 4.4.2 Salmon Habitat Assessment in the Willapa Basin by Watershed 18 5.0 Review and Funding Process for Pacific County 44 5.1 Overview 44 5.2 Regulatory Framework 44 5.2.1 Salmon Recover Funding Board (SRFB) 44 5.2.2 Lead Entities 44 5.2.3 Technical Advisory Group (TAG) 45 5.2.4 TAG and
    [Show full text]
  • 6 Land Use Analysis
    The Watershed Company May 2015 Potential Restoration Opportunities Restoration opportunities relevant to the Coastal Ocean AU are highlighted in Table 5-24. Table 5-24. Restoration Opportunities in the Coastal Ocean Assessment Unit Actions Source • Supplement sediment to account for lost sediment resulting from management Lower Columbia of the Columbia River dams and to maintain coastal protection from rising sea Solutions Group levels and increased storm frequency and/or intensity. Possible locations include on Benson Beach and/or North Head. Disposal locations should be based on best available science to support maintenance of sediment transport processes along the Long Beach Peninsula. Consider developing a permanent disposal fixture on the North Jetty to support disposal of dredge spoils. • Continue monitoring of short-term and long-term effects of sediment disposal and supplementation programs to inform best management solutions. • Continue to conduct beach clean-ups Marine Debris Action Team 2013 • Monitor and respond to tsunami debris • Collect and manage data on derelict fishing gear locations and remove derelict fishing gear 6 LAND USE ANALYSIS 6.1 Approach Analysis Scale Inventory data were used to describe significant land use features. Inventory data were collected at the waterbody and reach-scale for future use in developing appropriate shoreline designations. The data analyzed and reported in this Chapter are, for the most part, restricted to those lands landward of the OHWM. Where necessary to the analysis, uses that occur waterward of the OHWM are identified specifically. For the purposes of understanding broad- scale land use trends, data are summarized by waterbody. Specific uses or trends are described in more detail where appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County
    PACIFIC COUNTY Grant No. G1400525 Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County Prepared for: Pacific County 1216 W. Robert Bush Drive PO Box 68 South Bend, WA 98586 Prepared by: STRATEGY | ANALYSIS | COMMUNICATIONS 2025 First Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle WA 98121 110 Main St # 103 Edmonds, WA 98020 September 2014 This report was funded in part through a grant from the The Watershed Company Washington Department of Ecology. Reference Number: 130727 Cite this document as: The Watershed Company, BERK, and Coast and Harbor Engineering. September 2014. Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County. Prepared for Pacific County, South Bend, WA. The Watershed Company September 2014 T A B L E O F C ONTENTS Page # 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ............................................................................. 1 1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction ................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 3 2 Summary of Current Regulatory Framework ........................... 4 2.1 Shoreline Management Act ........................................................................... 4 2.2 Pacific County ................................................................................................ 4 2.2.1 Shoreline Master Program .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Friday, October 9, 2009 Part II Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 226 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rulemaking To Designate Critical Habitat for the Threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon; Final Rule VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:06 Oct 08, 2009 Jkt 222001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09OCR2.SGM 09OCR2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2 52300 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE northwest to the Bering Strait; the lower DPS by June 30, 2009. However, an Columbia River from river kilometer extension was requested and granted, National Oceanic and Atmospheric (RKM) 74 to the Bonneville Dam; and with a new deadline of October 1, 2009. Administration certain coastal bays and estuaries in This rule describes the final critical California (Elkhorn Slough, Tomales habitat designation, including responses 50 CFR Part 226 Bay, Noyo Harbor, and the estuaries to to public comments and peer reviewer [Docket No. 080730953–91263–02] the head of the tide in the Eel and comments, a summary of changes from Klamath/Trinity rivers), Oregon the proposed rule, and supporting RIN 0648–AX04 (Tillamook Bay and the estuaries to the information on green sturgeon biology, head of the tide in the Rogue, Siuslaw, distribution, and habitat use, and the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Alsea rivers), and Washington methods used to develop the final and Plants: Final Rulemaking To (Puget Sound). Particular areas are also designation. Designate Critical Habitat for the excluded based on impacts on national We considered various alternatives to Threatened Southern Distinct security and impacts on Indian lands.
    [Show full text]
  • A Marine and Estuarine Habitat Classification System For
    A marine and Estuarine HObi ta t classification system for Washington State Acknowledgments The core of the classification scheme was created and improved through discussion with regional agency personnel, especially Tom Mumford, Linda Kunze, and Mark Sheehan of the Department of Natural Re- sources. Northwest scientists generously provided detailed information on the habitat descriptions; espe- cially helpful were R. Anderson, P. Eilers, B. Harman, I. Hutchinson, P. Gabrielson, E. Kozloff, D. Mitch- ell, R. Shimek, C. Simenstad, C. Staude, R. Thom, B. Webber, F. Weinmann, and H. Wilson. D. Duggins provided feedback, and the Friday Harbor Laboratories provided facilities during most of the writing process. I am very grateful to all. AUTHOR: Megan N. Dethier, Ph.D., Friday Harbor Laboratories, 620 University Rd., Friday Harbor, WA 98250 CONTRIBUTOR: Linda M. Kunze prepared the marsh habitat descriptions. WASHINGTON NATURAL HERTI'AGE PROGRAM Department of Natural Resources Forest Resources Division PO Box 47016 Olympia, WA 98504-7016 BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION: Dethier, M.N. 1990. A Marine and Estuarine Habitat Classification Sys- tem for Washington State. Washington Natural Heritage Program. Dept. Natural Resources. 56 pp. Olympia, Wash. Reprinted in March 1997. Acronyms Used in Text ELWS extreme low water of spring tides m meter($ mm millimeter(s) MHWS mean high water of spring tides MLLW mean lower low water PPt parts per thousand Table of Contents Acknowledgements inside front cover Abstract 5 Preface 6 Introduction Outline of the System Definitions Description of Habitats Marine Systems Estuarine Systems Bibliography 47 Appendix A - Translation Table A-1 Abstract A classification system for marine and estuarine habitat types in Washington State is described.
    [Show full text]