DOCSLIB.ORG

Caspian Tern Management to Reduce Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Caspian Tern Management to Reduce Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary Caspian Tern Management to Reduce Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary Final Environmental Impact Statement by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District 333 SW 1st Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204-3495 NOAA Fisheries 525 NE Oregon Suite 500 Portland, Oregon 97232 January 2005 Recommended Citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Caspian Tern Management to Reduce Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Portland, Oregon. Cover Photo Credits: Background and inset photo of Caspian terns, courtesy of Dr. Dan Roby, Ph.D., U.S. Geological Survey; salmonid photo courtesy of Bonneville Power Administration. Caspian Tern Management to Reduce Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary Final EIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………..………….………TOC-1 Executive Summary……………………………....………………………………………..….........……….…...…ES-1 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1- 1 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................................................................ 1- 2 1.2.1 Guiding Principles ..................................................................................................................... 1- 4 1.2.2 Context of Purpose and Need .................................................................................................. 1- 4 1.3 Authority and Responsibility..................................................................................................................... 1- 5 1.3.1 US Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................................... 1- 5 1.3.2 US Army Corps of Engineers.................................................................................................. 1- 5 1.3.3 National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) ........................................................ 1- 6 1.4 Policy, Legal Compliance, Consultation, an Coordination with Others................................................ 1- 7 1.4.1 Policy and Legal Compliance ................................................................................................... 1- 7 1.4.2 Consultation and Coordination with Others .......................................................................... 1- 7 Public Outreach .................................................................................................................... 1- 7 Coordination with Other Agencies..................................................................................... 1- 8 Coordination with Tribal Governments............................................................................. 1- 8 1.5 Scoping.......................................................................................................................................................... 1- 8 1.5.1 Issues and Concern Identified During Scoping..................................................................... 1- 8 1.5.2 Issues Raised, but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................................ 1- 9 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Alternative Development ........................................................................................................................... 2- 1 2.1.1 Rationale for Alternative Design............................................................................................. 2- 1 2.2 Similarities Among Alternatives............................................................................................................... 2- 2 2.3 Detailed Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 2- 2 2.3.1 Alternative A – No Action (Current Management Plan) ..................................................... 2- 2 2.3.2 Alternative B – No Management............................................................................................. 2- 3 2.3.3 Alternative C – Redistribution of East Sand Island Tern Colony – Preferred Alternative ...... 2- 3 2.3.4 Alternative D – Redistribution and Lethal Control of East Sand Island Tern Colony ...... 2- 6 2.4 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan........................................................................................... 2- 7 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study ........................................................... 2- 7 2.5.1 Elimination of Caspian Terns from East Sand Island.......................................................... 2- 7 2.5.2 Maximum Redistribution of Terns throughout the Region ................................................. 2- 8 2.5.3 Lethal Control of East Sand Island Tern Colony ................................................................. 2- 9 2.5.4 Reduction of Caspian tern Nesting Habitat on East Sand Island and No Active Facilitation to Other Sites within the Region................................................................... 2- 9 2.6 Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 2- 10 Table of Contents TOC - 1 Caspian Tern Management to Reduce Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary Final EIS Caspian Tern Management to Reduce Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary Final EIS CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Physical Environment ................................................................................................................................ 3- 1 3.2 Biological Environment.............................................................................................................................. 3- 5 3.2.1 Caspian Terns............................................................................................................................. 3- 5 3.2.2 Fish .............................................................................................................................................. 3- 10 3.2.3 Federally Endangered and Threatened Fish ........................................................................ 3- 12 3.2.4 Other birds.................................................................................................................................. 3- 15 3.2.5 Mammals..................................................................................................................................... 3- 15 3.2.6 Federally Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants............................................... 3- 16 3.3 Socioeconomic Environment...................................................................................................................... 3- 17 3.3.1 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries ................................................................................ 3- 17 3.4 Tribal Fisheries............................................................................................................................................ 3- 18 3.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................................... 3- 19 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 Effects to Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 4- 1 4.1.1 Alternative A .............................................................................................................................. 4- 1 4.1.2 Alternative B .............................................................................................................................. 4- 1 4.1.3 Alternative C .............................................................................................................................. 4- 2 4.1.4 Alternative D.............................................................................................................................. 4- 4 4.2 Effects to Biological Environment............................................................................................................ 4- 4 4.2.1 Effects to Caspian Terns .......................................................................................................... 4- 4 4.2.1.1 Alternative A............................................................................................................. 4- 4 4.2.1.2 Alternative B............................................................................................................. 4- 6 4.2.1.3 Alternative C............................................................................................................. 4- 8 4.2.1.4 Alternative D ............................................................................................................ 4- 11 4.2.2 Effects to Fishes ........................................................................................................................ 4- 12 4.2.2.1 Alternative A............................................................................................................. 4- 12 4.2.2.2 Alternative B............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • In the Native Plant Garden
    The Mountaineers: Seattle Branch Naturalists Newsletter March 2019 Naturalists ONE STEP AT A TIME Contents • In the Native Plant Garden .......1 In the Native Plant Garden • February Hikes .............................2 The native plant garden is now enjoying much needed care and rejuvenation thanks to the Washington Native Plant Society local chapter, who are providing • Upcoming Hikes ...........................5 leadership in the garden in terms of care, planting and a vision of the garden. With leadership from George Macomber. The garden is benefitting from their • Lecture Series ..............................5 experience in native plant care and propagation. • Native Plant Society ...................6 The Native Plant Society is having work parties and we will be invited to • Odds and Ends .............................7 participate. Their hand is already showing in the careful pruning, cleaning and clearing and many of our plantings will benefit. Check out the garden. It is just • Photos ............................................11 by the climbing rocks on the north end of the Seattle clubhouse. • Intro to Natural World ...............12 • Contact Info .................................13 JOIN US ON: Facebook Flickr Red flowering current Pruning work at the garden 1 The Mountaineers: Seattle Branch Naturalists Newsletter February Naturalist Hikes MOSS WORKSHOP FIELD TRIP – REDMOND WATER PRESERVE Mossbacks OLD SAUK RIVER TRAIL – FEB 2 As we discovered this is arguably the best moss laden trail we’ve ever been on. It was covered with
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Living (Abiotic) Elements Shape Habitat
    Forest Birds Fast Facts LIGHT: Dominated by tall trees, layered canopy = very shady, openings made from a fallen tree provide sunny areas AIR: Trees slow wind, except along forest edges and openings. Shade = cool temps WATER: Fog and rain collect in tree branches and drip to ground. SOIL: Lots of organics (needles, decaying leaves, tree trunks) makes lots of space for air and water. Soil absorbs and holds water like a sponge. Varied Thrush • Slender bill good at gleaning soft foods like insects, pillbugs, snails, worms, fruits and some seeds from ground. • Hops and pauses to look for food. Flips leaves and debris with bill. • Perching feet – three toes forward, hind toe back. • Can sing 2 separate notes at same time and breathe while singing. Common Raven Varied Thrush • Versatile beak. Eats everything from carrion and garbage, to eggs, nestlings, insects, seeds, rodents and fruit. • Strong, sturdy feet and grasping toes to manipulate food and perch. • Acrobatic flight, hops on ground. Uses sight to find food. Northern Flicker • The toes are placed two forward, two back to grip firmly, while the tail feathers are stiff and pointed to help brace while pounding. • Bill is shaped like a chisel. Flickers don’t excavate as much as other types of woodpeckers so have a slightly curved bill and less sharp. Common Raven • Flickers eat insects and are especially fond of ants (flickers will forage on the ground as well as on trees). Probe and explore crevices. • Distinctive flight – flap, dip, flap, dip • Woodpeckers have long, sticky and barbed tongues to extract bugs.
    [Show full text]
  • Caspian Tern Nesting in South Carolina
    CASPIAN TERN NESTING IN SOUTH CAROLINA TRAVIS H. McDANIEL and THEODORE A. BECKETT III Although the Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia) is known to be a year-round resident of South Carolina, the 1970 edition of South Carolina Bird Life (p. 608) lists it as a non-breeding species because no nest or eggs have been collected in the state. E. Milby Burton, T.A. Beckett III, and others who have studied the colonial birds breeding on the islands along the coast of South Carolina during the past 50 years have never found a Caspian Tern nest or chick. Wayne's statement that the species nests in the Royal Tern colonies at Cape Romain (Birds of South Carolina, 1910, p. 4) has been widely accepted, though in retrospect it appears to have been based upon questionable information received from others rather than upon field work actually conducted by the distinguished ornithologist of Oakland Plantation near Mt. Pleasant. On 5 June 1970 Travis H. McDaniel, then manager at Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge, made a routine check of nesting birds on Cape Island. As he walked through a Black Skimmer and Gull-billed Tern colony at the south end of the island, he noticed two tern eggs that were appreciably larger than those normally laid by Royal Terns, which are common nesters. During three years at Cape Romain, he had noted that Royal Terns usually lay only one egg. As McDaniel returned to his patrol truck, the birds began to settle back on their eggs. At this time he saw a very large tern dropping down from the air to settle on a nest despite harassing by Black Skimmers.
    [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]
  • Caspian Tern Nesting Island Construction Draft Supplemental
    Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (with Draft Amended FONSI) and Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis Caspian Tern Nesting Island Construction Project Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, California U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District June 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Proposed Project 1.1 Proposed Project Description 1.2 Proposed Location 1.3 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action 1.4 Project Authority 2.0 Scope of Analysis 3.0 Proposed Action 3.1 Habitat Construction: Sheepy Lake in Lower Klamath NWR 3.1.1 Demolition and Disposal of Sheepy Floating Island 3.1.2 Sheepy Rock Island Design 3.1.3 Timing of Construction 3.1.4 Construction Methods 3.1.5 Access 3.1.6 Staging Area 3.1.7 Temporary Access Road 3.1.8 Maintenance Methods 3.1.9 Summary of Fill Requirements and Footprint 3.1.10 Post-Construction Monitoring 4.0 Alternatives 4.1 No Action Alternative 4.2 Repair the existing floating island 5.0 Impact Assessment 6.0 Summary of Indirect and Cumulative Effects 6.1 Indirect Effects 6.1.1 Caspian Terns 6.1.2 Fishes 6.1.3 Endangered and Threatened Species 6.1.4 Other Birds 6.1.5 Socioeconomic Effects 6.2 Cumulative Impacts 7.0 Environmental Compliance 8.0 Agencies Consulted and Public Notifications 9.0 Mitigation Measures 10.0 Draft Amended FONSI LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Map of Tule Lake NWR and Lower Klamath NWR within the vicinity of Klamath Basin NWRs, Oregon and California 3.1 Sheepy Lake Floating Island Failure (1 of 3) 3.2 Sheepy Lake Floating Island Failure (2 of 3) 3.3
    [Show full text]
  • Wood Warblers of North America Kitsap Great Give Www
    APRIL 2019 Kitsap Audubon Society – Since 1972 KingfisherTHE April 11, 2019, 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. - Poulsbo Library Wood Warblers of North America Photographer Robert Howson Our presenter, will focus on wood warblers from his Robert Howson, photographic collection of more than developed an early 500 North American, tropical and interest in birds while European bird species. still in grade school. The wood-warblers of North This interest continued America present a challenge to the throughout high school birders across our country. Even and into college where though they are a colorful group, he graduated with a identification can be a challenge. Not triple major in biology, only do certain members of the group history, and religion. make themselves difficult to see as He earned a Masters in they flit among the highest branches of history and worked on our tallest trees, but especially in fall, a Doctorate in religious their plumages can be confusing. They education. He has make up one of our largest families, taught on various levels, outnumbering plovers and sandpipers including elementary, combined. The same is true if you secondary, and college combine gulls and terns into a single ranks. Most recently he unit. Warbler species even outnumber was the chairman of the the total number of sparrow species history department at Townsend’s Warbler by found on our continent. We invite you Cedar Park Christian School in Bothell, Robert Howson. to attend a photographic presentation Washington. which deals with this delightful family. He and his wife Carolyn have Bring your identification skill along lived in Kirkland for the last 40 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River
    Bonneville Power Administration, USACE – Portland District, USACE – Walla Walla District, and Grant County Public Utility District Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River 2013 Draft Annual Report 1 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River 2013 Draft Annual Report This 2013 Draft Annual Report has been prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Grant County Public Utility District for the purpose of assessing project accomplishments. This report is not for citation without permission of the authors. Daniel D. Roby, Principal Investigator U.S. Geological Survey ‐ Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331‐3803 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541‐737‐1955 Ken Collis, Co‐Principal Investigator Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Avenue Bend, Oregon 97702 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541‐382‐3836 Donald Lyons, Jessica Adkins, Yasuko Suzuki, Peter Loschl, Timothy Lawes, Kirsten Bixler, Adam Peck‐Richardson, Allison Patterson, Stefanie Collar, Alexa Piggott, Helen Davis, Jen Mannas, Anna Laws, John Mulligan, Kelly Young, Pam Kostka, Nate Banet, Ethan Schniedermeyer, Amy Wilson, and Allison Mohoric Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331‐3803 2 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest Allen Evans, Bradley Cramer, Mike Hawbecker, Nathan Hostetter, and Aaron Turecek Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Ave. Bend, Oregon 97702 Jen Zamon NOAA Fisheries – Pt.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Threatened Fishes in Warner Basin, Oregon
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 50 Number 3 Article 5 10-31-1990 Conservation status of threatened fishes in arnerW Basin, Oregon Jack E. Williams Division of Wildlife and Fisheries, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. Mark A. Stern The Nature Conservancy, Portland, Oregon Alan V. Munhall Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview, Oregon Gary A. Anderson Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lakeview, Oregon Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Williams, Jack E.; Stern, Mark A.; Munhall, Alan V.; and Anderson, Gary A. (1990) "Conservation status of threatened fishes in arnerW Basin, Oregon," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 50 : No. 3 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol50/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Creat &Isio N:l.luraUst 50(3), 1900, pp. 243-248 CONSERVATION STATUS OF THREATENED FISHES IN WARNER BASIN, OREGON 1 l 3 Jack E. Williams , MarkA. Stern \ Alan V. Munhall , and Cary A. Anderson"" A8S'TRACT.-Two fedemlJy listed fisbes, the Foskett speckled daceand Warnersucker, are endemic to Warner Basin in south central Oregon. The Foskett speckled dace is native only to a single spring in Coleman Valley. Anearby'spring was stocked with dace in 1979 and 1980, and now provides a second population. The present numbers ofdace probably are at their Wgbest levels since settlement ofthe region.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for Rangeland Health Assessment O'keeffe FRF
    ee e_ O'KEEFFE FRF INDIVIDUAL ALLOTMENT #0203 Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (BLM, 1997) Introduction The Range Reform '94 Record of Decision (BLM, 1995a) recently amended current grazing administration and management practices. The ROD required that region-specific standards and guidelines be developed and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. In the State of Oregon, several Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) were established to develop these regional standards and guidelines. The RAC established for the part of the state covering the O'Keeffe FRF Individual Allotment is the Southeastern Oregon RAe. These standards and guidelines for Oregon and Washington were finalized on August 12, 1997 and include: Standard 1 - Upland Watershed Function Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. • dard 2 - Riparian/Wetland Watershed Function • Riparian-wetland areas are in properly functioning physical condition appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. Standard 3 - Ecological Processes Healthy, productive, and diverse plant and animal populations and communities appropriate to soil, climate, and landform are supported by ecological processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the hydrologic cycle. Standard 4 - Water Quality Surface water and groundwater quality, influenced by agency actions, complies with State water quality standards. Standard 5 - Native, T&E, and Locally Important Species Habitats support healthy, productive, and diverse populations and communities of native plants and animals (including special status species and species of local importance) appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. NDARD 1 - UPLAND WATERSHED CONDITION: Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate, and landform.
    [Show full text]
  • PSE's Avian Protection Program Special Thanks
    FEBRUARY, 2020 Kitsap Audubon Society – Since 1972 KingfisherTHE February 13, 2020, 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. - Poulsbo Library PSE’s Avian Protection Program For 40 years, Puget Sound Energy has worked to preserve bird habitats and prevent eagles, osprey, hawks, trumpeter swans and other birds from coming into contact with power lines and utility equipment. Puget Sound Energy’s Avian Protection Program promotes a consistent avian-safe system across our eight-county electric service area. While it is not possible to prevent all injurious contact between birds and electric equipment, PSE makes significant investments to reduce the number of incidents. For over 45 years Mel Walters has helped keep birds safe from man-made structures and electrical facilities. As an environmental biologist and consultant he provides expertise in wildlife and wetland The Kingfisher is printed on recycled mitigation, endangered species, paper by Blue Sky Printing and osprey habitat, erosion control mailed by Olympic Presort, both and avian protection. family-owned local businesses. Special thanks . to our Bainbridge Island members and friends for generously designating Kitsap Audubon for a portion of their ONE CALL FOR ALL contributions. Is it okay to feed birds? - Gene Bullock The January snows were of bird seed every year; and a reminder that when we more people watch birds than encourage birds to depend on watch football, baseball and all us for food, we have a special other public sporting events responsibility to them when combined. Some 18 million of snow, ice and sub-freezing us travel to watch birds. Bird temperatures make food harder Watching and related businesses to find.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization 2010
    KITSAP COUNTY FINAL DRAFT SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION Prepared for and by Kitsap County Department of Community Development, Environmental Programs 614 Division St. Port Orchard, WA 98366 FINAL DRAFT: NOVEMBER 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... i 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 SUMMARY OF REPORT CONTENTS AND REFERENCES ........................................... 1 1.1.1 Background ................................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Characterization Areas .................................................................................. 1 1.1.2.1 Marine Shoreline Summaries (by drift cell) .................................. 2 1.1.2.2 Freshwater Shoreline Summaries (by water body) ...................... 7 1.1.3 1. Recommendations and Management Options ........................................ 11 1.1.4 Public Access and Shoreline Use Analysis ................................................. 11 1.1.5 Characterization Data Gaps ........................................................................ 12 1.1.6 Appendices ................................................................................................. 12 1.2 GLOSSARY and ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]