Marine Spatial Plan

Submitted By

26 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Makah Tribe (Katie Wrubel)

12/12/17 @ 1:22 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: US EPA (Justine Barton)

12/12/17 @ 9:39 AM

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I have focused my review on the dredging and disposal, and sand mining portions of the document. Please globally change "dredge disposal" to "dredged material disposal" in the document and figures. Please con...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington Dungeness Crab Asso... (Larry Thevik)

12/12/17 @ 9:08 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Tami Pokorny

12/12/17 @ 8:35 AM

I'm grateful to the agency personnel, WCMAC members, Coast MRC members and others who worked tirelessly to contribute to this quality plan for the Coast. I'd especially like to compliment Jennifer Hennessey for her leadership and tenacity!

No attachments

Comment From: Coalition of Coastal Fisheries... (Dale Beasley)

12/12/17 @ 7:00 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Arthur Grunbaum

12/12/17 @ 5:24 AM

I incorporate by reference those comments and concerns of the Quinault Indian Nation and the Washington State Crabbers Association. In general I am in support of the MSP document. I do have a few concerns and minor suggested tweaks, however. ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Olympic Coast National Marine ... (Carol Bernthal)

12/12/17 @ 4:03 AM

No attachments

Comment From: USACE, Dredged Material Manage... (Kelsey van der Elst)

12/12/17 @ 4:02 AM

To Whom it May Concern, On behalf of the Corps' Navigation Section and the Dredged Material Management Office, which serves as the lead agency for Washington's inter-agency Dredged Material Management Program, I would like to submit the following co...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Navy Region Northwest (Christine Stevenson)

12/11/17 @ 11:11 PM

Thank you for providing us the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the draft Marine Spatial Plan for Washington's Pacific Coast. We appreciate the efforts to date on developing this draft plan that will guide evaluations of proposed new oc...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Surfrider Foundation and Washi... (Gus Gates)

12/11/17 @ 12:57 PM

No attachments

Comment From: The Nature Conservancy (Jodie Toft)

12/11/17 @ 5:50 AM

To whom it may concern, We would like to congratulate the Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council and the Department of Ecology for successfully drafting Washington's first Marine Spatial Plan. The Nature Conservancy began working on Marine...↓ Spatial Planning (MSP) in 2008 by assisting in the development of draft MSP legislation that would later become law. Since then, the Conservancy has remained involved in MSP by assisting in stakeholder engagement and outreach, developing and piloting data visualization tools, reviewing ecological data, and supporting the WCMAC chair. Conservancy staff have also attended most WCMAC meetings to observe and provide public comment. We have provided detailed comments on earlier drafts of the plan and are pleased to see our suggestions incorporated in the current draft. Please note our additional, minor comments on the draft plan at the end of this letter. The Conservancy would like to highlight one element of our engagement in MSP. We consider the Ecologically Important Areas (EIA) delineation key for determining where development could potentially adversely impact the marine ecosystem. Accordingly, Conservancy staff undertook an assessment of the EIA relative to a similar assessment done by the Conservancy in 2013 (Pacific Northwest Marine Ecoregional Assessment ). The full report of our comparison of the two analyses will be available online at WashingtonNature.og in coming months, along with a presentation by Conservancy staff to the WCMAC in May 2017. While the two analytical approaches differ, they both develop a feasible framework for mapping the complicated biodiversity off the Washington coast. However, because data quality is poor in our Washington waters, and we strongly encourage agencies and other organizations to develop a plan for generating new science to fill the identified gaps. In this plan, we advocate for a focus on how climate change will affect species quantity and distribution and how species utilize the Study Area over time (through seasons and their own life cycles). Additionally, future versions of the MSP will benefit from explicit consideration of how the MSP ties in with plans in adjacent areas (e.g., Oregon, California, British Columbia). There is increasing evidence in the literature that planning to the size of the ecosystem and its processes translates to better conservation and management outcomes. This need to plan to appropriate scale is heightened by effects of climate change and ocean acidification, that are already affecting Washington's marine resources. Regional and transboundary management decisions become especially relevant in fisheries, where the resource may be moving in and out of the study area depending on the time of year. As fish stocks move, interoperability of management systems across borders may become necessary for effective and equitable resource benefits. Working together from a zoomed-out perspective will likely enable more successful accomplishment of the desired conservation outcomes for the plan. Please contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Jodie Toft - Senior Marine Scientist Garrett Dalan - Washington Coast Community Relationship Manager Molly Bogeberg - Marine Conservation Coordinator ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 1.4 Planning Process Summary Add text to the Coastal Marine Resource Committees section (p. 1-9) to indicate that state planning staff presented to MRCs on MSP at the MRC Summit in November 2017. 2.3 Socioeconomic Setting Reference the follow two efforts in the Coastal Hazards and Community Vulnerability, beginning on page 2-73: • Ruckelshaus Center Report, "Washington State Coastal Resilience Assessment Final Report. " • Sea level rise is another coastal hazard that is affecting community vulnerability along the outer coast. The Washington Coastal Resilience Project is working to refine sea level rise projections and integrate projections into local planning processes and capital funding projects. Reference the Washington Coast Works Sustainable Small- Business Competition in the Future Trends section (p. 2-77), as it is an example of "coastal communities identifying many opportunities for socioeconomic growth for an economically sustainable future" 3.3 Use Analysis A better understanding of the economics of various human uses, like fishing, would contribute to a more robust use analysis. For instance, in Washington State a tension emerged between high value fisheries (e.g. shellfish) and lower-value fisheries (e.g. hake) in terms of highlighting intensity of fishing in an area. As it stands, one high-value fishery in each area is valued lower than a corresponding combination of lower-value fisheries in terms of ex-vessel value. This is concerning to many Washington Dungeness crab fishermen, who may only fish one species in a specific area, while attaining most of their value in turn. Stakeholders want to be sure their uses are taken seriously, and more robust economic information that shows more detail in the spatial outputs could help alleviate some of their concerns. *Please see attachment for official letter with references.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Albert Carter

12/11/17 @ 5:15 AM

Comments on the MSP: My name is Al Carter. I am the safety and compliance manager at Ocean Gold Seafoods Inc. I am a former Grays Harbor County commissioner having served two terms from 2003 until 2010. I hold a seat on the Pacific Fisheries Mana...↓gement Council subcommittee, (Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory Subpanel) and the US/Canada Whiting Treaty, (US Advisory Panel). I also help establish and hold a seat on the Grays Harbor Marine Resource Committee. I am also a member of the Coalition of Coastal Fisheries. As a County Commissioner I served on the Governor's Ocean Policy Working Group. That group led to the formation of the Washington Coast Marine Advisory Council, (WCMAC). First let me say that this is a huge undertaking and I am fully supportive of this endeavor. I do have several comments that I would like to have entered into the record. Words have meaning and how things are presented in these documents show a bias toward Ocean Energy and new ocean uses and show a lack of priority for existing uses. There is literally no way that a new use will NOT interfere, eliminate or compete with existing uses. What's in the plan? How to use the plan? The draft plan provides: Guidance for new ocean uses along Washington's Pacific coast, such as renewable energy projects and offshore aquaculture. Baseline data on coastal uses and resources to capture current conditions and future trends. Requirements and recommendations for evaluating new ocean uses through different phases of project review, consistent with existing laws and regulations. Recommendations to protect important and sensitive ecological areas and existing uses like fishing. Words have meaning. First sentence gives the priority of ocean uses to new uses. Why is a non-existent use (Ocean Energy) given the top spot in this report? This is an industry that does not exist, at all. Fishing, (shown as the fourth item in this list) is regulated to the bottom. This shows a complete bias towards a speculative use that could alter the landscape for existing uses by precluding then from being used in areas where Ocean Energy would be placed. This needs to be changed and existing uses MUST be given the priority that it deserves. Existing jobs, the existing culture of our coastal communities, the existing lives of working people and current industry MUST be given priority over highly speculative and non-proven technologies. There is no infrastructure for bringing ocean energy to the coastline. There is no infrastructure for taking the newly created energy and distributing it to the existing grid or put into use for any purpose. Exiting industries and jobs and communities MUST be given the priority of ocean use above anything new that would interfere or eliminate existing uses. The Marine Spatial Plan Study Area: The MSP Study Area consists of marine waters of the Pacific Ocean adjacent to Washington's Coastline from the intertidal zone out to the continental slope. It extends from ordinary high water on the shoreward side out to a water depth of 700 fathoms (4,200 feet) offshore and from Cape Flattery on the north of the Olympic Peninsula south to Cape Disappointment at the Mouth of the Columbia River. The Study Area includes two large estuaries: Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. It covers approximately 480 nautical miles of coastline and spans 5,839 square nautical miles (7,732 square statute miles). Washington has the shortest coastline of all three coastal states at 136 nautical miles, and that vast areas, over 4000 square miles, are under co-management with coastal Indian tribes. The MSP area also includes 2408 square miles under marine sanctuary guile lines and large areas of military operating zones. These documents, as presented, do not adequately describe or reflect in the text, or in the narrative, that these existing spatial limitations exist. Nor do they describe the expected impact on space available for any potential new use. Any new use, (Ocean Energy always seems to be the new use that is discussed), will not be allowed into to the 4000 square miles that are currently under some kind of guide lines for existing use, (i.e.; coastal tribes, military or the marine sanctuary). That will leave only the area that is not under these guide lines to be the areas that will allow Ocean Energy devices. These devices, based on their own information, can take up to a square mile each. So that will leave only 3732 square miles, (the most critical areas for commercial fishing and sometimes the only areas available in Washington for existing fishing, as the only space available for these new uses. What happens when a new use pushes into and interferes with or eliminates an existing use? How are those conflicts measured? Without have a priority set for existing uses the new uses will become the flavor of the day and push out uses that don't fit with the new owner's profit margins and can be viewed as just something that is in the way of their future projects. Too often when new uses are put to the test they push out or compete for existing space. Each use should be given its due, but not to the extent that existing lives and communities will be put at risk. The move to set aside ocean space for an industry that doesn't exist, has not been tested to see if it is even feasible off the coast is very premature. Remember that this is a very dynamic ocean and is very violent and disruptive to any uses place in it. Before any space should be considered for Ocean Energy, exhaustive testing and actual on the ocean trials of equipment should be done to see if these projects are even feasible. Overarching Goal: Ensure a resilient and healthy marine ecosystem on Washington's coast that supports sustainable economic, recreational, and cultural opportunities for coastal communities, visitors, and future generations. This comment really says it all and shows that the plan has given thought to how to keep and maintain our heathy marine ecosystem. More emphasis needs to be given to local communities and the economic impact of new uses upon the existing jobs and the economies and cultures of these communities. The maps in this plan do not show the minimal conflict/ adverse impact areas with existing uses as the legislature intended. More should be shown that describes the impacts of these new uses on existing uses. Any project should that would displace an existing use should show how it will maximize the space available for jobs, benefits to coastal communities and to the state of Washington. We have the last areas of undeveloped coastal line left in the continental United States. We must be extremely careful how we move forward in the future with the uses that will be placed in our ocean. The Washington CMSP and the EIS needs to fulfill the legislative intent to Protect and Preserve fishing, map all existing uses, and establish "if" there is a viable NO conflict place available for new uses like Ocean Energy off the Washington coast. We should be able to determine how to have minimal adverse impact on fishing that AVOIDS HIGH VALUE FISHING GROUNDS and unique ecological areas.We can do better and should do better to value our existing uses and finds ways for new uses and economic opportunities to be included. All of this can be done, its harder to include everything and certainly takes more time. Time we have, resources are limited and once used up or destroyed that are certain to never return. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Albert A. Carter 315 Lawrence Drive Hoquiam, WA 98550 360-581-3220 Alcarter55@gmail.co.

No attachments

Comment From: Key McMurry

12/11/17 @ 3:28 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Solenne Walker

12/07/17 @ 7:21 AM

The Pacific Coast of Washington is one of the last best wild ocean, beach and coastal ecosystems on the planet! Recognize that there are few left. It is imperative that we value conservation and protection of this area for future generations to come...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cathy Steiger

12/06/17 @ 4:53 AM

Keep Wa coast remote. Feeling green about energy resources, I hope those more knowledgable can find a way to keep it remote. Looking at Hwy 101 1930s photo to 1980 photo is heart wrenching. no casino on the beach or even close to 101. LaPush, you...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Surfrider Foundation (Gus Gates)

11/09/17 @ 11:00 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Makah Office of Marine Affairs (Amy Trainer)

11/09/17 @ 10:50 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Coastal Trollers Association (Steve Wilson)

11/09/17 @ 10:40 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Pacific County Economic Develo... (Jim Sayce)

11/08/17 @ 11:00 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Willapa Resources (Dick Sheldon)

11/08/17 @ 11:00 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Coalition of Coastal Fisheries... (Dale Beasley)

11/08/17 @ 11:00 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Frank Wolfe

11/08/17 @ 11:00 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Craig Zora

11/08/17 @ 1:47 AM

Please incorporate the new UN Guidelines for Regulating Marine Noise (file attached) into the Marine Spatial Plan.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington Dungeness Crab Fish... (Larry Thevik)

11/07/17 @ 11:14 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Lennett Hollandsworth

10/27/17 @ 4:28 AM

As the population of Washington State continues to increase due to the decades long economic boom of Puget Sound, recreational lands will become increasingly important along our coastline to replace what has been and will continue to be lost around t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: John Smith

10/24/17 @ 2:26 AM

Please Protect our ocean

No attachments