DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft City of Longview Comprehensive Plan 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft City of Longview Comprehensive Plan 2019 -Draft Comprehensive Plan Update July 2019- Draft City of Longview Comprehensive Plan 2019 -Draft Comprehensive Plan Update July 2019- City of Longview 2019 Comprehensive Plan City of Longview, Washington Prepared for: The City of Longview, Washington Community Development 1525 Broadway Longview, WA 98632 Contact: Steve Langdon 360/442-5086 Prepared by: Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments 207 4th Avenue North Kelso, WA 98626 Contact: Bill Fashing 360/577-3041 July 2019 -Draft Comprehensive Plan Update July 2019- Acknowledgements Longview City Council Mike Wallin Scott Vydra Chet Makinster Don Jensen, Mayor Steve Moon Mary Alice Wallace Ken Botero Longview Planning Commission Shawn D. Marvin Craig Collins Jim Fisher “Trey” Weller L. Davis III Ray Van Tongeren Barry Morrill Ramona Leber Pat Price Christine Schott Lyle Smith Micah Shea City of Longview Kurt Sacha, City Manager Ruth Bunch, GIS Department John Brickey, Director, Community Development Steve Langdon, Planning Manager Adam Trimble, City Planner Lisa Vertrees, Planning Commission Secretary Jeff Cameron, Public Works Director Craig Bozarth, City Engineer Joe Phillips, Economic Development Coordinator Jennifer Wills, Parks and Recreation Director Jim McNamara, City Attorney Chief Jim Duscha, Longview Police Department Christ Smith, Human Resources Director Chris Skaugset, Library Director Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments Robert Stevens, Transportation/Community Development Ken Pearrow, Transportation/Community Development Deborah Johnson, Community Development Chalaina Kroll, Project Assistant Bill Fashing, Executive Director -Draft Comprehensive Plan Update July 2019- Prepared by: City of Longview Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments -Draft Comprehensive Plan Update July 2019- Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 1 What is a Comprehensive Plan? ......................................................................................................... 1 What Are the Benefits of Comprehensive Planning? .......................................................................... 1 Why Should We Keep Updating the Comprehensive Plan? ................................................................ 2 What Laws Govern Comprehensive Planning? ................................................................................... 2 Planning Area Boundary (PAB) ............................................................................................................... 3 Citizen Participation ................................................................................................................................ 4 City Vision ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Implementing the Plan ........................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 2 Land Use……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Existing Conditions and Trends ............................................................................................................... 7 Land Consumption by Type……………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 Vacant and Underutilized Land……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 Longview Land-Use Issues……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 Quality of Life ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Neighborhood Connectivity and Circulation…………………………………………………………………………………….15 Transportation Choices and Alternatives …………………………………………………………………………………………16 Corridor Improvements…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16 Freight and Goods Mobility……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16 Future Development in Longview ........................................................................................................ 17 Future Land Use Map ........................................................................................................................... 20 Districts ............................................................................................................................................. 21 Land Use Goals, Objectives, and Policies…………………………………………………………………………………………28 Chapter 3 Housing………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………36 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 36 Existing Conditions and Trends ............................................................................................................ 36 Historical Housing Trends ................................................................................................................. 36 Consumer Housing Choices .................................................................................................................. 38 i | Page -Draft Comprehensive Plan Update July 2019- Housing Quality .................................................................................................................................... 38 Housing Age ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Home Values .................................................................................................................................... 41 Housing Conditions by Area ............................................................................................................. 45 Revitalization Strategies ................................................................................................................... 48 Housing Supply and Affordability......................................................................................................... 50 Housing Supply ................................................................................................................................. 50 Land Consumption and Growth Patterns ......................................................................................... 52 Housing Affordability ............................................................................................................................ 56 Home Prices ..................................................................................................................................... 56 Consolidated Plan ................................................................................................................................. 58 Other Factors Affecting Affordability ................................................................................................... 59 Housing Goals and Policies………………………………………………………………………………………………………………60 Chapter 4 Economic Development .............................................................................................. 63 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 63 Summary of Existing Conditions and Trends ....................................................................................... 63 Labor Force and Unemployment………………………………………………………………………………………………….64 Industry Employment…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..64 Personal Income……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..68 Retail Sales……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...69 Downtown………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..69 Strengths and Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 70 Economic Development Goals, Objectives, and Policies………………………………………………………………….71 Chapter 5 Natural Environment .................................................................................................. 77 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….77 Statutory Planning Requirements……………………………………………………………………………………………………77 Summary of Existing Conditions……………………………………………………………………………………………………...78 Wetlands……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..78 Frequently Flooded Areas……………………………………………………………………………………………………………78 Aquifer Recharge and Wellhead Protection…………………………………………………………………………………80 Fish and Wildlife Habitat……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..83 ii | Page -Draft Comprehensive Plan Update July 2019- Geologically Hazardous Areas……………………………………………………………………………………………………..85 Shorelines of the State………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..86 Brownfields…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………88 Natural Environment Goals, Objectives, and Policies………………………………………………………………………88 Chapter 6 Energy and Telecommunications………………………………………………………………………………..93 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………93 Utility Regulation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………93 Electricity……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….93 Natural Gas…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….94 Telecommunications……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….95
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2021 PNWA Projects
    PNWA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PNWA supports the following infrastructure projects that enhance the region’s economy and environment NAVIGATION PROJECTS Mouth of the Columbia River Jetties major rehabilitation. Support funding to complete work at the South Jetty. Columbia & Lower Willamette River. Support robust funding to maintain the Lower Columbia River to -43’ and the Mouth of the Columbia River at -55’. Support development, implementation and funding of the 20-year plan to manage sediment on the Lower Columbia River. Columbia River pile dike system. Support rehabilitation of the pile dike system between the Mouth of the Columbia River and Bonneville dam to reduce dredging, increase channel stability, create/maintain beneficial fish habitat, and increase bank protection. Columbia River turning basins. Support federal funding for deepening and maintenance of turning basins, including deepening the Longview Turning Basin and establishment of a federally authorized turning basin at river mile 77. Columbia River anchorages. Support deepening and maintenance of designated federal anchorages. Work with Corps and Coast Guard to support designation of additional anchorage locations as needed. Columbia/Snake River inland locks. Support federal funding for the eight navigation locks on the Columbia Snake River System to fully maintain these projects for maximum efficiency. Snake River navigation. Maintain the navigation channel, river flows, and minimum operating pool as needed for safe and efficient navigation. Columbia/Snake dolphins. Support funding for refurbishment and/or replacement of dolphins located on the inland system. Specific location includes Ft. Rains just above Bonneville Dam. Abandoned and derelict vessels. Support federal funding to assess, remove and dispose of abandoned or derelict vessels that pose a threat to safe and efficient navigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Intentionally Left Blank for Duplexing
    Intentionally left blank for duplexing Project Information: What is the Project Name? Port of Longview - Industrial Rail Corridor Expansion (IRCE) Who is the Project Sponsor? Port of Longview Was an INFRA application for this project submitted previously? (If Yes, please include Yes, FASTLANE FY17, INFRA FY18 title). Port of Longview Industrial Rail Corridor Expansion (ICRE) Project Project Costs: INFRA Request Amount $48.8M Estimated federal funding (excl. INFRA) $0 Estimated non-federal funding $31.9M Future Eligible Project Cost (Sum of previous three rows) $80.7M Previously incurred project costs (if applicable) $ 2.2M (2017-2019) Total Project Cost (Sum of ‘previous incurred’ and ‘future eligible’) $82.9M Are matching funds restricted to a specific project component? If so, which one? No Project Eligibility: Approximately how much of the estimated future eligible project costs will be spent $0 on components of the project currently located on National Highway Freight Network (NHFN)? Approximately how much of the estimated future eligible project costs will be $0 spent on components of the project currently located on the National Highway System (NHS)? Approximately how much of the estimated future eligible project costs will be $0 spent on components constituting railway-highway grade crossing or grade separation projects? Approximately how much of the estimated future eligible project costs will be $80.7 million spent on components constituting intermodal or freight rail projects, or freight projects within the boundaries of a public or private freight rail, water (including ports), or intermodal facility? Project Location: Small or large project? Small State(s) in which project is located? Washington Urbanized Area in which project.
    [Show full text]
  • A Literature Review of the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material and Sediment Management Plans and Strategies
    Portland State University PDXScholar Center for Public Service Publications and Reports Center for Public Service 1-26-2016 A Literature Review of the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material and Sediment Management Plans and Strategies Portland State University. Hatfield School of Government. Center for Public Service Michelle Welch Portland State University Eric Thomas Mogren Portland State University Lauren Beeney Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/publicservice_pub Part of the Hydraulic Engineering Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Portland State University. Hatfield School of Government. Center for Public Service; Welch, Michelle; Mogren, Eric Thomas; and Beeney, Lauren, "A Literature Review of the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material and Sediment Management Plans and Strategies" (2016). Center for Public Service Publications and Reports. 34. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/publicservice_pub/34 This Article is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Center for Public Service Publications and Reports by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. A LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE BENEFICAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS AND STRATEGIES January 26, 2016 Figure 1: Lower Columbia River Project Area. Source: Portland District, US Army Corps of Engineers. Prepared for: Portland District US Army Corps of Engineers Prepared by: Center for Public Service Mark O. Hatfield School of Government Portland State University Michelle Welch Graduate Student Excecutive Masters of Public Administration Eric T. (Rick) Mogren, PhD Senior Fellow Center for Public Service Center for Lauren Beeney Public Service Project Manager National Policy Consensus Center TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 4 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Longview, Cowlitz County, WA Size: Small Project
    Project Title: Industrial Way/Oregon Way Intersection Project Location: Longview, Cowlitz County, WA Size: Small Project Urban/Rural: Rural INFRA Request: $13,420,000 Contact: Ken Hash, Public Works Director Supporting Materials Website. Phone: (360) 442-5202 Website links to referenced Email: [email protected] attachments provided Address: 1525 Broadway Street throughout this narrative Longview, WA 98632 document. Table of Contents 1. PROJECT SUMMARY 1 2. PROJECT LOCATION 7 3. PROJECT PARTIES 9 4. GRANT FUNDS, SOURCES AND USES OF ALL PROJECT FUNDING 10 5. MERIT CRITERIA 11 5.1 Criterion #1: Support for National or Regional Economic Vitality 12 5.2 Criterion #2: Leveraging of Federal Funding 17 5.3 Criterion #3: Potential for Innovation 19 5.4 Criterion #4: Performance and Accountability 20 6. PROJECT READINESS 21 7. LARGE/SMALL PROJECT REQUIREMENTS 24 8. CONCLUSION 25 To address significant deficiencies at the intersection of two critical state highways, the project would construct a fully elevated signalized intersection southwest of the existing Basic Project Information intersection and realign adjacent road and rail connections to provide better freight access, relieve congestion, improve safety and enhance access to industrial users and undeveloped industrial property. What is the Project Name? Industrial Way/Oregon Way (IWOW) Intersection Project Who is the Project Sponsor? Longview, Washington Was an INFRA application for this project submitted No previously? (If Yes, please include title) Project Costs Fill in Information Below INFRA Request Amount $13,420,000 Estimated Federal funding (excl. INFRA), anticipated to be $0 used in INFRA funded future project Estimated non-Federal funding anticipated to be used in $83,230,000 INFRA funded future project.
    [Show full text]
  • PORT TALK the Port of Longview Stands out Among Neighboring Ports by Maintaining Control Over Its Docks
    PORT TALK The Port of Longview stands out among neighboring ports by maintaining control over its docks. THE PORT OF LONGVIEW: WORKING FOR OUR COMMUNITY There are 75 ports in the state of Washington, each operating The Port’s unique position as an operating port, opposed to a differently than the others, catering to various cargo imports and landlord/non-operating port, brings with it great responsibility. exports, interacting with different modes of transportation as cargo The Port of Longview’s operations department is responsible comes and goes. These ports work to achieve a similar goal, which for determining how to strategically load and unload vessels, is to safely and efficiently transfer cargo for its customers for the including managing equipment and labor needs to meet customers’ Port labor works to offload a transformer. economic benefit of their local community. expectations and time lines. The Port of Longview and neighboring ports work by different To keep operations rolling, the Port directly owns hundreds of TOP 5 BENEFITS OF A WORKING PORT business models. Perhaps the most distinctive difference among pieces of equipment and conveyor systems that are built and Construction: The Port has a consistent need for skilled these ports is how they execute cargo handling operations. maintained on-site by steady crews of ILWU longshore labor. All construction workers and related services. There’s always of these operations take place on more than 830 acres of property, something being built, renovated, wired or plumbed. While other ports on the Columbia River, such as Port of Kalama rail lines, docks, buildings and roads constructed and maintained and Port of Vancouver, lease docks to private companies or contract using an in-house maintenance crew second-to-none.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Facts on the Oil Refinery, Crude-By-Rail & LPG Export
    Key Facts on the oil refinery, crude-by-rail & LPG export terminals at the Port of Longview Another crude-by-rail proposal on the Columbia—and an oil refinery and LPG export terminal, too! - Riverside Refining expanded its plans for the Port of Longview. In addition to a refinery, Riverside’s backers are also promoting the Washington Energy Storage Transfer (WEST) project: a crude-by-rail trans-loading terminal and an LPG export terminal. Riverside and WEST are both backed by a company called Waterside. - Riverside and WEST propose to bring explosive Bakken crude oil or heavy crude from the Alberta tar sands to Longview by rail –up to two unit trains each day-- and send tankers carrying crude oil and refined petroleum through the environmentally sensitive Columbia River estuary. Riverside plans to refine 30,000 barrels for crude per day at the Port of Longview, WA. - WEST proposes to bring one unit train of LPG per day (72,500 barrels per train) to the Port of Longview for export to international markets. - WEST, Riverside, and the Port of Longview, and officials in the Washington Governor’s office have been discussing the refinery for months behind closed doors. Crude-by-rail and oil refineries don’t belong in our communities, or on the Columbia. - Crude-by-rail is extremely dangerous. Even new-generation rail tank cars are only puncture resistant up to 12 miles per hour. - Oil refineries emit carcinogens and neurotoxins into the air we breathe. - Riverside Refining LLC’s proposed refinery and the WEST crude-by-rail and LPG export terminals would be less than a quarter mile from homes and commercial businesses in Longview.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) Designed to Identify Regional Priorities for Economic and Community Development
    Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) 2018-2022 March 2018 FINAL CEDS 2018| Page1 CEDS 2018| Page2 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Adopted by the Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments Board of Directors March 29, 2018 This document was prepared to meet the requirements of 13 CFR § 303.6(b)(3)(i) and the terms of award ED17SEA 3020068 from the Economic Development Administra�on, US Department of Commerce The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommenda�ons are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administra�on or the US Department of Commerce. Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments Economic Development Program CEDS 2018| Page3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CWCOG Board Bill Hallanger, Cowlitz 2 Fire & Rescue General/Special Members (vo�ng) Victor Leatzow, Cowlitz Fire District No. 5 Dennis Weber, Cowlitz County Dell Hillger, Beacon Hill Water & Sewer District Mike Backman, Wahkiakum County Scot Vydra, City of Longview Associate Members (non-vo�ng) Mike Karnofski, City of Kelso Chris Bailey, Lower Columbia College David Vorse, City of Castle Rock Ilona Kerby, Lower Columbia CAP Rosemary Siipola, City of Kalama Ted Sprague, Cowlitz EDC Susan Humbyrd, City of Woodland Chris Pegg, Housing Opportuni�es of SW WA Sue Cameron, Town of Cathlamet Bill Marcum, Kelso-Longview Chamber Dave Quinn, Cowlitz PUD Meg Morris, Wahkiakum Chamber Jeff Wilson, Port of Longview Debra Dudley, City of Rainer, OR Troy Stariha, Port of Kalama Jeff Cameron, River Ci�es Transit Dale Boon, Port of
    [Show full text]
  • Charting Washington State's Economy
    CHARTING WASHINGTON STATE’S ECONOMY: WHY FREIGHT MATTERS A Freight Primer by the Washington Public Ports Association and the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board Dear Friends of a strong Why does trade matter to the PORTS CREATE JOBS and healthy state economy, state of Washington, its citizens, and businesses? PORT DISTRICTS The state of Washington stands astride an international trade route that links our state to 75 IN WASHINGTON STATE the world’s economy. Imports and exports through our ports sustain thousands of The state of Washington exported $79.6 billion in Washington businesses. Imports not only bring consumer goods and raw materials into goods in 2016. Goods exports accounted for DIRECT our state, they also increase opportunities for Washington producers to export their 19.2% of Washington's state Gross Domestic JOBS Product (GDP) in 2014, according to the United 71,300 products at lower costs by providing container capacity. Staying competitive in global markets supports jobs and helps families stretch paychecks further. States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. With more than 95% of MARITIME Much of the cargo received at Washington's ports is discretionary and can move through the world’s population and 80% of the world’s 25,300 ACTIVITIES JOBS alternative gateways. In order to preserve the shipping options available to local purchasing power outside of the United States, producers, we must compete aggressively to preserve and expand access to trade routes. future American economic growth and job creation depends on open markets abroad. BILLION IN The Washington Public Ports Association (WPPA) has been forecasting waterborne cargo $4.6 ECONOMIC IMPACT through the state’s port system since 1975.
    [Show full text]
  • EGT-ILWU LABOR DISPUTE PORT of LONGVIEW, WA November
    EGT-ILWU LABOR DISPUTE PORT OF LONGVIEW, WA 2011-2012 Frank Randolph General Counsel, Port of Longview Setting: Longview, Washington Setting: Longview, Washington Cowlitz County: Population: 102,000 Longview/Kelso: 50,000 Logging/Paper mills Median family income $46,500 Characters: Port of Longview Characters: Port of Longview Operating since 1921 66 miles to Pacific Bulk cargos: grains, coke, logs, pot ash, iron oxide, wind energy 2008-2012: Record years 2012: Over $30 million revenues Good labor relations Characters: ILWU Characters: ILWU 42,000, AFL-CIO Group, 60 local unions, West Coast, HQ: San Francisco, “The International” Bloody Thursday: July 5, 1934, Holiday Locals in Portland, Vancouver and Longview Local 21, over 200 members, Characters: EGT Characters: EGT, LLC (De) Members: Bunge North America, Inc (Mgr) Itochu International, Inc. STX Pan Ocean (America), Inc. EGT Investment Corp (Portland) Characters: Local Law Enforcement Characters: Local Law Enforcement Cowlitz County Sheriffs Department: Sheriff Mark Nelson, 43 deputies Longview Police Department Chief Jim Duscha, 38 officers Others FIVE OVERLAYS NEGOTIATIONS CONSTRUCTION CONFRONTATION LITIGATION COMMUNICATIONS Negotiations: EGT-POL Lease negotiations began in 2006 Lengthy, complex Gathered speed towards the end Concluded June 2009 Negotiations: EGT-POL Lease, 6.3, Warranty of Labor “Lessor warrants that there are no agreements or restrictions affecting the Port…requiring union labor…except only as expressly set forth on Exhibit G-2….” Negotiations: EGT-POL Lease, Exhibit G-2 “Lessor…refers Lessee to the provisions of the Working Agreement between the ILWU Local 21 and the Port….” Negotiations: EGT-ILWU POL never directly involved Nov ‘10: Local President informs Commission ILWU will be excluded Dec ’10: Port protests to EGT Jan ‘11: EGT files declaratory action against POL in WDWA.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Association of Port Authorities
    Dan Polacek [email protected] (360) 425-3305 Longview, Washington – The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) recently honored the Port of Longview with two Awards of Excellence as part of their 53rd annual Communications Awards Program which honors member ports throughout the Western Hemisphere for outstanding communications projects. The Port earned the highest score and Award of Excellence in the category Audio Only Presentations for its Port Talk Radio series, a 60-second version of its monthly Port Talk newsletter. The Port again earned the highest score and Award of Excellence in the category Visual Only Presentations for a 64-foot, outdoor educational display at last year’s Cowlitz County fair. This is the fourth year in a row that the Port of Longview has earned awards in the national competition, bringing home nine awards since 2016. “Year after year I continue to be impressed with our communications staff,” said Port Commission President, Doug Averett. “I am exceedingly proud of their creativity and commitment to teaching the community about the complexities of the Port, as are my fellow Commissioners.” The Port of Longview’s projects competed with entries submitted by ports across the United States, including the Port of New Orleans, Port of Stockton, Port of New York/New Jersey, North Carolina Ports, Port of South Louisiana, Port of Beaumont and Port of Corpus Christi Authority. The 2019 AAPA Communications Awards Program utilized 32 professional public relations practitioners from the Washington, D.C. area who cumulatively spent 128 hours over two weeks judging 15 classifications of entries from ports nationwide, ranging from advertisements, periodicals, videos and websites, to social media and overall campaigns.
    [Show full text]
  • Cowlitz (Name for Themselves Is Stl'pumsh), Language: Lower Cowlitz Language (Stl'pulimuhkl), Language Family: Salishan Language Family
    1. Description 1.1 Name of society, language, and language family: Society: Cowlitz (Name for themselves is Stl'pumsh), Language: Lower Cowlitz Language (Stl'pulimuhkl), Language Family: Salishan Language Family. *The original Cowlitz language has been lost* (2, “Lower Cowlitz Language”) The Upper Cowlitz took on a different (Sahaptin) language from their “Lower” counterparts. “Lower Cowlitz was a Salishan language of Washington state, related to Chehalis. The people called themselves Stl'pulmsh-- Cowlitz was the name of the river whose banks they lived on. The Upper Cowlitz, who used to live further up the same river, is a Sahaptin tribe who spoke a dialect of the unrelated Yakama language. Forced together onto the same reservation, the two tribes rapidly lost their languages, and today neither Cowlitz Salish nor Cowlitz Sahaptian is spoken any longer.” (2, “Lower Cowlitz Language) 1.2 ISO code (3 letter code from ethnologue.com): ISO 639: cow 1.3 Location (latitude/longitude): Southwestern Washington, Kelso (the seat of Cowlitz County and an original Cowlitz village) is located at Latitude: N 46° 8' 48.4044" Longitude: W 122° 54' 30.4002" (7) 1.4 Brief history: “The Cowlitz Indians were originally considered to be "a large and powerful Salishan tribe." Because they were an interior tribe (that is, their territory did not open onto a large body of water), they were more cohesive than other Salish groups on the coast and Columbia River, said anthropologist Verne Ray, who has intensively studied the tribe. One of the earliest accounts describes their swoop downriver to attack a Chinookan village at the mouth of the Cowlitz.
    [Show full text]
  • Landforms Along the Lower Columbia River and the Influence of Humans
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Winter 4-10-2015 Landforms along the Lower Columbia River and the Influence of Humans Charles Matthew Cannon Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geology Commons, and the Geomorphology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Cannon, Charles Matthew, "Landforms along the Lower Columbia River and the Influence of Humans" (2015). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2231. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.2228 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Landforms along the Lower Columbia River and the Influence of Humans by Charles Matthew Cannon A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geology Thesis Committee: Andrew G. Fountain, Chair Jim E. O’Connor Scott F. Burns Portland State University 2015 Abstract River systems, such as the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest, USA have been influenced by human activities, resulting in changes to the physical processes that drive landform evolution. This work describes an inventory of landforms along the Columbia River estuary between the Pacific Ocean and Bonneville Dam in Oregon and Washington. Groupings of landforms are assigned to formative process regimes that are used to assess historical changes to floodplain features. The estuary was historically a complex system of channels with a floodplain dominated by extensive tidal wetlands in the lower reaches and backswamp lakes and wetlands in upper reaches.
    [Show full text]