Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout057 80 r I (' :' : RESOLUTION NO. 57 -80 I I . WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners is charged wHh the responsibility of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Jefferson County; and WHEREAS, this responsibil ity includes protecting and enhancing the resources of the County from which many of the citizens derive their 1 ivel ihoCld; and WHEREAS, the County has analyzed and evaluated the probable and potential impacts associated with the proposed Northern Tier pipeline project; and WHEREAS, the analysis attached hereto illustrates a number of concerns and impacts associated with the project which have not been adequately addressed by the Northern Tier Pipeline Company, particulary regarding the subjects of soil liquefacti on and alternati ve submarine pi pel ineroutes; and WHEREAS, the submarine pipeline portion of the proposed project has not been given careful review by the applicant, including a review of other routes which may avoid liquefiable soils; and WHEREAS, these probable and potential impacts as addressed in the ~ttached report represent a threat to the long term productivity of the resources of the County; and WHEREAS, the mitigative measures presented in the attached report provide further protection to the resources of the County, but do not mitigate all impacts or concerns. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council and Northern Tier Pipeline Company give careful consideration of the report attached hereto, its findings, and its proposed mitigative measures; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners oppose the Northern Tier Pipeline Company's proposal for the transshipment of oil from the Olympic Peninsula to the mid-western region of the United States. APPROVED and ADOPTED this/6th day of June, 1980. SEAL: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON a,~~~ . . O'Meara, Chairman B.G. Brown, Member ATTEST: ~ VGl ,. - ' 6 t~tlt r" 0 1305 r ' Northern Tier Pi~ine ~em Analysis of facilities and effects .. .. Jefferson County, Washington. INTRODUCTION Jefferson County lies in the heart of the Olymoic Peninsula. The County stretches from the Pacific Ocean on the west to Puget Sound and Hood Canal on the east. The marine waters framing the eastern boundary nf the County are among the most productive found anywhere in the Puget Sound basin. For instance, Discovery Bay is one of the areas within the State containing the proper balance of environmental conditions for the commercial production of native littleneck clams on a sustained yield basis. The streams and rivers emptying into the waters surrounding East Jefferson County are an equally important resource as they are rearing areas for many anadromous fish species. "The Northern Tier Pipeline Company envisions, in part, a submarine pipeline that runs in an easterly direction from Point Williams, Clallam County, to an area near Protection Island, Jefferson County, which then runs in a northeast- erly direction to Partridge Point, Island County. It is the combination of existing environmental conditions and resource base, coupled with the proposed pipeline project, which raised a number of concerns for Jefferson County. Bas- ically these concerns fall into four major categories: (1) physical and biolog- ical impacts from construction (trenching, test water discharge, etc.); (2) physical and biological impacts from operation (pipeline leakage or rupture, or an oil spi 11 at transshipment poi nt); (3) soci o-economi c impacts of construction (housing, transportation~ etc.); and (4) socio-economic impacts of operation (oil spill contingency, etc.). The review and assessment that follows evaluates the identified and poten- tial impacts from the Northern Tier project as they may affect Jefferson County. It is meant to be an objective and detailed review of the proposed project. While it is quite certain that not all the impacts associated with the project are documented here, major areas of concern are carefully illustrated. The reviewof the anticipated impacts are within the three areas of (1) alignment, (2) construction, and (3) operation. The reviel'/ incl'.Idt;s grailhic repn:sentation of the pipeline corridor and major areas of Anvironfllenta! concei~n. For impacts that are anticipated, mitigative measures are proposed. Project elements that require more information or' further study before an assessment can accurately be made, have been identified. ... --~, JEFFERSON COUNTY ENVIRONMENT Within Jefferson County's boundaries are a number of unique and abundant resources. It is this resource base that has sustained past generations, and which, in turn, future generations will derive their livelihoods. The Northern Tier Pipeline Company's proposal to install an oil pipeline from Port Angeles, Washington, toClearbrook, Minnesota, poses a threat to a part of the County's economic base as well as to some of the distinctly unique characteristics found here. Thereport that follows is an attempt to objectively analyze the pipeline proposal, minimize tne associated impacts, and protect the County's resource base. Physical Resources Jefferson County is located on the northern portion of Washington's Olympic Peninsula. The County is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, the east by the waters of Admiralty Inlet, Hood Canal, and Kitsap County. On the north it adjoins Clallam County and on the south it is adjacent to Mason and Gray's Har- bor Counties. Jefferson County is 1,805 square miles in size dnd is dominated by the Olympic Mountains which occupy the majority of land area in the County. The terrain in the eastern portion of the County ranges from the mountain heights of the Olympic Range, to the sandy beaches along the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Admiralty Inlet, and Hood Canal. Glaciers, both continental and alpine, have been the primary sculptors of the County. The geology, a part of the Puget Sound lowlands, is represented by a complicated series of strata deposited from many separate and distinct periods of glaciation. The coastal area of the County is a complex interrelated system of inlets, bays, and deep water channels. The importance of the County's shorelines is derived from the diverse and valuable physical and biological resources they contain. For example, the waters of Discovery Bay are classified as "Class AA", extraordinary, in quality, and support one of the largest commercial clam farms in the State of Washington. Protection Island is representative of some of the unique aspects of the County. A recent study indicates that approximately seventy percent of all seabirds nesting in Washington's inland waters inhabit the island. In addition, the island provides an important habitat for the pupping and rearing cycles of harbor seals. Cultural Resources Jefferson County has experienced oneof the fastest growth rates on the Olympic Peninsula over the past years. The semi-rural atmosphere, along with the availability of cultural and natural resources, has attracted many people to this area. The three major sectors of Jefferson County's economy are the forest pro- ducts, trade and services, and marine products industries. The trade and services sector has recently expe.rienced an expansion as the result of the grow- ing tourist industry. The increasing influx of tourists is due to the attrac- tion of the County's miles of pristine shorelines, abundant and unique fish and wil dl i fe, and its architectural heri tage and di stinct hi story. The legacy of marine related activities and employment continues to hold importance in the County. Commercial fishing and packing, boat building, and associated industries are flourishing. In addition, the County's many natural resources accommodates a variety of recreational pursuits such as shellfish harvesting, fishing, hunting, and camping. The use of the County's resource base has, and will continue to be, the mainstay of economic activity. NORTHERN TIER PIPELINE . COMPANYS PROPOSAL The proposed pipeline system originates at the onshore storage facilities near Port Angeles, Clallam County, approximately fifteen miles west of Jeffer- son County. The forty-two inch diameter line proceeds in an easterly direc- tion through Clallam County to the vicinity of Port Williams. There the route enters the Strait of Juan de Fuca to a point southeast of Proteotion Island, Jefferson County, then north to emerge near Point Williams on Whidbey Island, Island County (see Figure 1). The pipeline route travels eastward through Washington, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota, and terminates in Minnesota. The submarine portion of the pipeline extends through approximately ten miles of Jefferson County's waters. A trench will be excavated along the anticipated route by either the jetting or post-plow method. The pipeline, which will most likely be constructed by the lay-barge method, will set at a minimum depth of three feet from the top of the pipe to the original sea bed elevation. The proposed route will traverse closely to several sensitive areas of the County. The pipeline will cross just north of Discovery Bay, an area rich in marine resources (see Figure 3). Extensive tidal wetlands and associated flora and fauna provide an important habitat in the life cycle of many species of fish and shellfish found in the region. Rearing and spawning grounds are provided for anadromous fish within the bay. Substantial commercial harvesting of fish and shellfish is a further indi- cation of the resources of the bay. Hundreds of acres of cl ams and geoducks are farmed in these waters. In adddition, the native littleneck clam, which has become near extinct in Washington waters, occurs in numbers conducive to commerical harvesting in Discovery Bay. The bay provides ample sport fishing as well as commercial fishing. Food sources for fish, birds and mammals are prolific there and are recognized as an important link in the food chain for a myriad of species. Protection Island, another sensitive area, is situated just north of Dis- covery Bay and the proposed pipeline route (see Figure 2). It has been named one of the three most unique and endangered ecosystems in the State of Washing- ton by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. , The island is noted as the major breeding colony of the Rhinoceros Auklet in the northeastern Pacific region. the largest breeding colony of Glaucous- -winged Gulls in Washington, the last nesting site of the Tufted Puffin in Puget Sound, and a major breeding area of Pelagic Cormorants, Pigeon Guille- mots and mack Oystercatchers. It is also an important puppi ng and 1 oafi ngarea for harbor seals and is significant for Pleistocene Paleontology. The abundant resources of the surrounding waters offer sources of food for both birds and mammals. These breeding populations have resulted due to the minimized intrusion of human activities, A further area of sensitivity is found directly between Discovery Bay and Protection Island. According to preliminary engineering reports submitted by the applicant, there are extensive soils in this vicinity which may be subject to liquefaction (see Figure 1). In the event of an earthquake, unconsolidated sands and silts may liquefy and become structurally questionable. In addition, soils of this nature may flow upon liquefaction and create a scouring effect. The potential liquefaction occurs over a three mile area to depths greater than twenty feet. The pipeline route is proposed to tr~verse these geologically hazardous soils. IMPACTS OF NIP.C.'s PROPOSAL Alignment The submarine pipeline route was originally proposed to follow a course north of Protection Island. According to the project engineers: numerous c.dverse conditionsare found north of the island causing the southern route to to be more desirable. These conditions include excessive tidal currents, severe and unpredictable winds, potential soil liquefaction, potential ship anchor damage, difficulty of emergency repair, and difficulty for a pipe- -laying barge to maintain its station during wind and current velocities. Many of these conditions are found along the preferred southern route as well, however, some to a lesser degree. It is explained in the application thatiF du('il~gthe permitting process or during surveying of the pipeline route geological hazards or environmentally sensitive areas are discovered, a route change will be adopted to avoid these at'eas. Concern: The northern and southern route selection was first initiated by a desk top mapping exercise, After this initial layout, bottom scanning and soil sampling took place. While both routes exhibited adverse soil and other conditions, the southern route was chosen. This choice was predicated on a number of factors; the length of pipe exposed to soil liquefaction, the risk of anchor damage, and the ease of pipe laying due to the protected nature of the route. The County's concern is that given the known problems and hazards of the northern and southern routes, no other alternatives were explored. The soil liquefaction problem encountered by the preferred route is found in an area bordered by two of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the County; Protection Island and Discovery Bay. In the event of a seismic occurance and loss of support due to soil liquefaction, the submarine pipeline is vulnerable and may rupture, causing immediate de9radationto these sensitive areas. Mitigation: Measures to lessen alignment impacts are as fonows: a. Explore and establish a submarine pipeline route that avoids liquef d soils. b. Design and en nee a submarine pl line to\^Jithst6md d los~, areas f 1i able soils to s t t on of a pr fedel~al agencies. c. Develop further studies on the exact extent and reaction of liquefi If; soi 1 sin the even;L of a seisrni C occu.rance and probable impacts on the txuc- tural integrity of the pipeline. Construction Construction of the submarine pipeline crossing will proceed from east to west. A pipeline trench will be excavated using either the jetting or post-plow method and the line will then be installed by use of a lay-barge. It is antic- ipated the pipeline sections will be anchored at the landward sites and then connected at some point between these sites. A twenty-four hour work day is expected for this portion of construction. Upon completion, the pipeline will be subjected to hydrostatic testing before and after it is placed in the trench to determine its integrity. NOISE AND GLARE Concern: A sustained work schedule of twenty-four hours per day could create an impact to the nearby residential communities and sensitive animal species. Mit i gati on: struction at'e as a. Noise levels 173-600. b. Shielding methods should be employed to minimize glare impacts on residents and animal communities. c. Length of a work day should be reviewed for suitability with residential properties and animal populations, particularly seals that inhabit Protec- tion Island. Measures to lessen nOlse and glare impacts created by con- follows: should not exceed allowable standards pursuant to W.A.C. TRENCHING Concern: Turbidity and siltation resulting from trenching activities may incur adverse impacts to the surrounding biota. Comprehensive studies of the existing marine floor conditions have not been completed to determine whether hardpan or bedrock would beencouRtered. Mitigation: Measures to lessen trenching impacts created by construction are as follows: a. A study of marine flood conditions including potential turbidity and silta- tion impacts should be completed prior to permit approval. Mitigative techniques should then be designed by the appropriate agencies. b. No blasting along the submarine route should be permitted as a means of trenching. HOUSING Concern: Jefferson County fcresees no available housing for transient workers due to the needs of the existing tourist industry. Clallam County is expected to experience a shortage in housing, which may result in an over-spill of workers to ,Jefferson County. Mitigation: Measures to lessen housing impacts created by c~nstruction are as follows: a. Designated temporary construction camps should be identified by Jefferson County and Northern Tier to mitigate impacts to existing transient housing accommodations and overnight recreational areas. b. Such camps should meet all local standards for water supply, sewage disposal, and the like. STAGING AND STORING Concern: Staging and storing areas within Jefferson County would complicate traffic handling capabilities. Mitigation: Measures to lessen staging and storing impacts created by construction are as follows: a. No staging and storage areas should be permitted within the County without local approval of the area designation and design of such facilities. b. No use of County roads should be permitted without the design of proper mitigative measures and local approval. TESTING Concern: The discharge of hydrostatic test water into State waters with- out prior neutralization could cause degradation of water quality. Mitigation: Measures to lE:ssen impacts of test VJater discharge are as fo 11 ows : a. Land disposal of the effluents should be utilized if at all possible b. If marine disposal must be used, environmental consideration should be a part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Dis- charge should be practiced in areas where maximum flushing and disposal action can be obtained. INSPECTION Conce rn : of this scope. pipeline. Human error is often the greatest cause of problems in projects Inaccuracies or oversights could affect the integrity of the Mitigation: Measures to lessen impacts of possible oversights are: a. Acomprehenisve inspection process should be designed, and adhered to, to insure the integrity of the project. b. Inspection of all construction processes should be carried out by an inde- pendent party during all working hours. c. Inspection should include a picture profile of the submarine pipeline to insure it has been properly placed within the trench. TIMHJG Concern: Construction activities will create greater adverse impacts to marine species within the area during particular sensitiveseasons. Seal pup- ping, salmon spawning and migration, and bird hatching seasons all have dis- tinct periods when life cycles may be disrupted due to disturbances. Mitigation: Measures to lessen impacts of construction on the biota are as follows: a. Construction activities should be scheduled to avoid sensitive periods OT the biota as described by the appropriate State agencies. b. During construction, responsible agency representatives should be on hand to determine adverse situations and define proper mitigative measures. tion, several inferred fault lines cross the proposed route (see Figure 1). The likelihood of a strong earthquake is expected to occur one or more times during the average 1 i fetirne of the proposed project. The impacts on the submarine pipeline attributed to horizontal and vertical movement and stress have not been addressed. Mitigation: A measure to lessen seismicity impacts throughout the duration of the project is: a. Prior to certification, complete engineering details should be completed that insures the pipeline's integrity to withstand possible vertical and horizontal stress due to seismic action. LIQUEFACTION Concern: An earthquake intensity of Vi or Vii on the Modified Mercalli scale could produce ground accelerations of about two-tenths g-force. At this acceleration, liquefaction of some soils along the proposed route isantici- pated according to the applicant's engineering report. Information on these and other circumstances which may cause undue stress to the submarine pipeline has not been adequately addressed. If the pipeline experiences a rupture or leak as a result or this geologic hazard, the surrounding waters and resources will be adversely impacted. The lack of information on these soils and their potential impacts to the project inhibits a proper assessment of the proposal. Mitigation: Measures to mitigate liquefaction impacts throughout the duration of the project are as follows: a. Explore and establish a submarine route that avoids liquefiable soils. b. Design and engineer a submarine pipeline to withstand a loss of support in areas of liquefiable soils to the satisfaction of appropriate State and federal agencies. c. Develop further studies on the exact extent and reaction of liquefiable soils in the event of seismic occurance and probable impacts on the struc- tural integrity of the pipeline. TOURIST AND ~ilARINE INDUSTRIES Concern: Tourism within the County is an essential economic sector, second only to the forest products industry (see Figure 2). Jefferson County's attraction is attributed to its vast natural resources, rarely found elsewhere. In the result of an oil spill these resources and the associated tourist indus- try may be adversely impacted. Marine and aquaculture industries represent a major component of the County's econon~. Commercial fishing and packing, boat building, shellfish operations, and associated activities create many employment opportunities and substantial revenues in Jefferson County. With increasing economic dependancy on these marine resources, environmental disturbances such as an oil spill would most likely have a major impact on the local economy. t.1itigation: Measures to lessen the impact on the marine and tourist indus- try created by operation are: a. A study should be completed to determine the dollar value of economic act'iv- O~eration Operational impacts are primarily the result of an oil spill or leak. Both the oil port activities in Clallam County and the regional pipeline seg- ments present potential spill risks to the inland waters. , Various trajectory analysis has forecasted that oil spillage into the Port Angeles area will be transported in an easterly direction and that Jefferson County's shoreHnes may well be affected in this event. In addition, spills within streams may also affect Jefferson County waters and marine resources. Oil spills from a submarine leak or rupture will have an immediate and direct impact on the marine environment. The deficiency of available informa- tion on chronic, low-level leaks and ruptures of the underwater line has inhib- ited a proper assessment of this proposal. Submarine spills can be expected to create substantially different impacts from the surface spills due to the lack of an air interface. Maximum amounts of toxic hydrocarbons will be suspended within the water column and mixed with submarine sediment. As an oil slick developes at the water's surface it will cap the spill area and further inhibit the evaporation of the most toxic ele- ments. Oil spill risk figures are based on statistical analysis of historical data. The analysis does not address itself to the extreme geomorphol09ical constraints of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound. Further, should spi1ls occur, tidal currents and wind factors combine to make spills extremely difficult at best to contain. The seimsmic activitiy of the area poses potential problems to the pipe- line project. The probable maximum earthquake intensity that will occur in the Puget Sound region is estimated at VII on the Modified Mercalli scale, however, it is possible a quake might reach VIII. Movement and stress subjected to the pipeline from earthquakes may create damage. Associated with the area's seimsic activity is the potential liquefaction of soils along the proposed submarine piepline route. In the event nf an earth- quake, unconsolidated sands and silts may liquefy and become unable to hold a pipeline in its original place. In some cases, liquefaction has caused soils to flow. The distructive power of such flows can be subtantial due to a scour- ing affect or a loading increase on the pipeline. According to the applicant's engineering report, the potential for 11 faction of soils occurs over a three mile distance, to depths great0~ twenty feet. These soil s are located between Di scovery Bay and Is" and. Discovery Bay, Protection Island and Admiralty Inlet ar'e areas 01 ate susceptiblity in the case of a submarine originated spill. These waters are extremely valuab12 as feeding and spawning grounds for indigenous and trans- i ent fauna. One of the greatest problems associated with an oil spill is the loss of food or habitat for marine and non-marine biota. Catastrophies of this nature may eliminate major portions of commercially significant and biologically unique resources. SEISMICITY Concern: The Puget Sound region is known to be seismically active. In 1976 thirteen earthquakes were recorded along the proposed submarine pipeline route, three of these at Point Partridge, the eastern landfill site. In addi- ities which are likely to be impacted by oil spills. b. An indemnification plan and funds should be created to insure protection of persons and property in the event of oil spills. OIL SPILLS Concern: Chronic low-level leaks from the submarine pipeline may remain undetected for an extensive period of time. Submarine currents could carry spilled oil far from the point of origin without becoming apparent on the sur- face. large oil spills would likely have a major impact on the unique biological communities found on Protection Island, in Discovery Bay, and i~ surrounding waters. Spills must be discovered as expediently as possible. In addition, it is unlawful for oil to enter the waters of the State, except under the circumstances pursuant to Chapter 90.48.320, R.C.W. Excep- tions which would allow the discharge of oil from the submarine pipeline could degrade the marine waters and resources of the County. Mitigation: Measures to lessen inpacts of oil spills created by operation are: a. The submarine pipeline route should be inspected by service vessels daily. Inspection should not be restricted to the route itself because of submar- ine current action. b. Bi-monthly aerial surveys should be made as required by federal regulations. c. Visual inspection should be performed after any and all seismic events. d. Detailed annual inspections should be exercised. This includes acoustic and visual inspection as well as investigation by divers. e. local individuals should be trained and utilized for inspection procedures as much as possible. f. A central telephone reporting ~ervice should be established for the public to report oil spills. g. The local jurisdictions should be notified and allowed to comment prior to any oil discharge exceptions pursuant to Chapter 90.58.320, R.C.W. OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY/FIRE PROTECTION PLAN Concern: The tidal currents and wind factors of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound combine to make spills virtually impossible to contain. Information regarding the impact of fire and expansion on biological habi- tats and residential communities of the County has not been addressed in avail- able reports. Clean-up facilities and trained personnel are not available in Jefferson County, nor is funding available for acquiringthe necessary equipment and trained personnel. Mitigation: Measures to further lessen impacts of oil spills created by operation are as follows: a. A detailed oil spill contingency and fire protection plan should be estab- lished for the affected counties, particularly Island, Jefferson, and Clallam Counties. b. One representative from each interested or~ffected county should be involved in the creation of the plan. c. The oil spill contingency plan for the region should address open water recovery, beach spill clean-up, training program, equipment and storage facilities, and visual and exercise inspection of equipment. d. Local residents should be utilized for clean-up procedures. Training should be provided and a yearly retraining should be mandatory. This could be facilitited through the local fire departments and Emergency Medical Train- ing Service. e. The contingency plan should include the organization of necessary manual 1 abor. f. Special attention should be given to protecting Discovery Bay and Protection Island. TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS Concern: The submarine pipeline directly north of Discovery Bay is viewed as a potential point of rupture due to liquefiable soils. Trajectory analysis of oil spillage has not been focused on the bay. Further, the analysis of oil spill movement is primarily based on surface currents. A spill originating from the submarine pi pel ine may react quite differently from surface spill s. Mitigation: Other measures to lessen oil spill impacts throughout the dur- ation of the project are: a. An oil spill trajectory analysis should be completed to determine the possi- bilities of oil entering Discovery Bay. The area of potential liquefaction should be viewed as a possible pipeline rupture area within the study. b. Further research on the bottom currents throughout the submarine pipeline route'shou1d be generated and the movement of oil substantiated. c. Following these studies, oil spill containment procedures should become a part of the oil spill contingency plan. PIPELINE LIFE EXPECTANCY Concern: The risk of chronic low-level leaks or complete rupture will increase with the age of the system. If the use of the pipeline is extended beyond the life expectancy of the proposal, the safety of the system may be in question. Mitigation: line rupture is: a. To insure safe operation after the life expectancy of the for pipeline evaluation should be developed. This system yearly certification after evaluation of the system. A measure to be taken to arrest the impact of possible pipe- project, a system should provide for ABANDON~~ENT Concern: The future shut-down and abandonment of the oil pipeline is inevitable. Removal of the submarine portion will create additional environ- mental disturbances. Mitigation: Ameasureto lessen dbandonment impacts is.: d. Upon abandonment, the submarine portion of the pipeline should be flushed clean, capped and sealed, and left in place. ....: '" .. IXI '" ~ a; ... a; <l ~ \', \ " \ " \ ", \......., ''\ " '" " '" " \. "" " , " ", ", " , " ~;s.,\ ~, "1.... , \('~ " 0.:.... , ~~" '\. , '" 0; :> o u .. 6 1 I ! I I I i I i I I I '" .. IXI E I . Z o ~ mj ::!~ 00 m:t UJZ ....<( ctIX <cm ;:;: UJ :;) o :; IXI !- a: UJ ~ o Cl ---- o UJ IX: IX: UJ .... Z ...:: m w Z :; ~ u: ;;"i..'~".'t'lf, uJ Cl Q a: ... a: <t ... \" " '" \ , \ , '" ''\ " , " " , , , " , \ " \\ " " " , " " " \. " " " , " ,'\ , \ '\, \ '\ \ ~, "O~~ \ ~, \ ~~~, \ ", \ " \ ',,\ \ \ " \ '\.\ , 1 , " , " , III " a: o III " it >>- cI '"' . ~ o ... .. is t IIIl E ;; ! ...... en .e III III d a: S e en e 0 III Z a: ::::l e 0 w .... en ... e ::::l 5l en 0 en << 0 w a: z u ::::i .... .... w <( <( 0 0- 0 III W a: E en C\J en C) f 0 u.. a: D. ~ ,. ,;;']/,,:;. """"~"__";""""._;..".._.",.""",:,::__~,.;~~"""'_~~_"~_"'"'''''''''''''~'"'".-""""'-..':.,-.....,+".....,i.-c,;"_.,,..__.-__~..,.;;,.....~,,..."",..,'''.,'' ,~..,",...~.'><..-"".,;,.,.<"-,-~,~,..."'.._~.,,..-.>~.<..,.,.-...,.'-" ... .., 9 a: ... a: .. .. ,'-.. \ "- \ ""- \ " \ " \. ""- '" ""- , ""- \. "- , "- " "'- , '-.. " " , \. , 't '\ . . . . . . ,. .. . .. :\..... . . , '. .. . ,. :.~.~ . ..'2 ~ .. ..~- .. . . . "': . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . '. . . ....... . .. . . .. . . . . . .. I .. I..... . . .. . .. . . . . .'''.'', ~ , ..~.......'...... .. ~~ ...... ~, 'c'~ '\ , '\ , " \ \ \' \ \. \ ',,- \ , , \. , '\ , ("') CJ il: ~ . UJ .., z ... .., II: o ... .., ... .. ,. .. CD ,. .. UI E ! Cl ~ :r U) ii: z 0 U) ~ ~ ~ <( <( ~ If) 0 ~ .J ~ <( :>' 0 0 0 a: t: :J UJ a: 0 ~ UJ 0 ~ ~ UJ 0 ~ Cl 0 o z ::> OW I/)~ 1/)0 I/) a:: Ow a::z U::i w OQ. ~ii: o Q. o ~ illID[J@ BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown, Donald, et. ale Investigation of Petroleum in the Marine Environs of th Strait of Juan de Fuca and Northern Puget--Sound. Seattle, Washington: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1979. Bureau of Land Management. Environmental Statement, Crude Oil Transportation System. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978. . Cannon, G.A., ed. Circulation in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Seattle, Washing- ton: Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 1978. Cross, Jeffrey, et. ale Nearshore Fish and Macroinvertebrate Assembla es the Strait of Juan de Fuca Including Food Habits of the Common Nearshore Boulder, Colorado: Ecosystems Analysis Program, 1978. Wash,ington State Department of Fisheries. "Fishery Value Information for North ern Iier Pipel ine Environmental Impact Statement." Woods Hole, r'1assachusetts: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1978. Ebbesmeyer, Curtis, et. ale D namics of Port Anaeles Harbor and A roaches, vJas - ington. Seattle, Washington: Evans-Hamilton, Inc., 1979. Everitt, Robert. "Use of Protection Island by Marine ~1ammals. II Seattle, Washin - ton: National Ma~ine Mammal Laboratory, 1979. Everitt, Robert; Fiscus, Clifford; and DeLong, Robert. Marine ~1aml11als Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Boulder, Colorado: Marine Analysis Program, 1978. Hampson, George and Maul, Edwin. "Salt Marsh Grasses and #2 Fuel Oil." bloods H 1f', Massachusetts: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1978. Jefferson County. tlorthem Tier Proposal Within Jeffer?on County; Analysis Jf Facil Hies and Effects. Port Tmmsend, Washington: Jeffr::rson County Planning Department, 1979. ~ Unpublished maps and data pertaining to soils and other physical fe~tures. Por Townsend, ~~ashi ngton: Jefferson County Pl anni n9 Department, 1978. Jefferson County. Jefferson Count Com rehensive Plan; A Polic Guide for Grow h and Development. Port Townsend, Washington: Jefferson County Planning Departme t, 1979. Ci ty of Port Townsend and Jefferson County. Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program. Port Townsend, Washington: Jefferson County Plannin Department, 1974. Lenberg, Norm. Hydroacoustic Assessment of Puget Sound Herring,_.1972-1978. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Fisheries, 1978. Little, Arthur D., Inc. The Onshore Impact~ of Alaskan Oil and Gas Development in the State of Washington. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Ecology, 1977. I Manuwal, David; Wahi, Terence; and Speich, Steven. The Seasonal Distribution and Abundance of Marine Bird PopuJLatio~~1n the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Northern Puget Sound in 1978. Boulder, Colorado: Marine Ecosystems Analysis Program, 1979. McCreary, F.R. Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area, Washington. Washington, D.C: U.S. Soil Conservation Services, 1975. McGary, Noel and Lincoln, John. Tide Prints. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, 1977. Northern Tier Pipeline Company. Application for Site Certification. 1979. Nyblade, Carl. The Intertidal and Shallow Subtidal Benthos of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Spring 1976-Winter 1977. Boulder, Colorado: Ma~ine Ecosystems Analysis Program, 1978. . Oceanographic Commission of Washington. Submarine Pipeline Crossings at Admir- alty Inlet, Puget Sound. Olympia, Washington: Washington State L~gislature, 1975. Oceanographic Institute of Washington. Existing and Incremental Oil Spill Risk Analysis for the Federal Northern Tier Pipeline Environmental Statement. Seattle, Washington: Oceanographic Institute of Washington, 1978. "0il Spills in 1978, An International Summary and Review." Oil Spill Intelli- gence Report, Boston, Massachusetts, CahnersPublishing Company, 1979 Pizzo, Joseph; Johnson, Thomas; and Harshman, Gary. WaShington State Refineries: Petroleum, Petroleum Derivatives and Wastewater Effluent Characteristics. Seattle, Washington: Oceanographic Institute of Washington, 1976. Save the Resources Committee, Inc. "Evaluation of the Department of the Interior Draft Report Entitled West to East Crude Oil Systems", Port Townsend, Washington, 1979. ,. Speich, Steven, andWahl, Terence. "Pt'otection Island: Recommendation for Its Management Protection and Survival II , 1979. Thorsen, Gerald. Letter to Leonard Madsen in reference to geologic hazards of the Northern Tier proposed submarine pipeline, November 6, 1979. Vining, Robert. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Commercial Harvest- ing of Subtidal Hardshell Clams with an Hydraulic Escalator Shellfish Harvester. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Fisheries, 1977. Washington State Department of Fisheries. Puget Sound Commercial Net Fishery Data Report for 1977. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Fisheries, 1979. Washington State Department of Ecology. Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Volume XI. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Ecology, 1978. 4 , .