DOCSLIB.ORG

Comprehensive Plan Update, 2010 – 2030

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comprehensive Plan Update, 2010 – 2030 PACIFIC COUNTY, WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 2010 - 2030 March 2010 (Final Draft) Acknowledgements The Pacific County Comprehensive Plan Update was made possible through the collective contribution and participation of County Officials, County Staff and the public. Pacific County Board of Commissioners Jon Kaino, District No. 1 Norman “Bud” Cuffel, District No. 2 Clay Harwood, District No. 3 Pacific County Planning Commission Rob Snow, Chairperson Ken Osborne Marlene Martin Eric deMontigny Bill Kennedy Stan Smith Jim Sayce Pacific County Staff Mike DeSimone AICP, Community Development Director Mike Stevens, Senior Planner Bryan Harrison, County Administrative Officer David Burke, Prosecuting Attorney Partial funding assistance for the Pacific County Comprehensive Plan Update was provided by the Washington State Department of Commerce. PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2010 – 2030) MARCH 2010 PAGE II TABLE OF CONTENTS (FINAL DRAFT) Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................x List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................E-1 Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Authority to Plan ......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 History of Plan Development...................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Pacific County's Vision for the Future ........................................................ 1-4 1.5 Planning Area.............................................................................................. 1-4 1.6 Relationship to Other Plans ........................................................................ 1-7 1.6.1 Role of the Comprehensive Plan..................................................... 1-7 1.6.2 Growth Management Act Requirements ........................................ 1-7 1.6.3 Comprehensive Plan Elements ....................................................... 1-8 1.6.4 County-Wide Planning Policies ...................................................... 1-9 1.6.5 Comprehensive Plans of Incorporated Cities ................................ 1-13 1.6.6 Shoreline Master Program ............................................................ 1-13 Section 2 Land Use & Rural Areas Element 2.1 Introduction and Background ..................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Major Land Use Considerations ..................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Previous Comprehensive Plans ....................................................... 2-1 2.2 Relationship of Land Use & Rural Areas Element to Other Plans ............. 2-2 2.2.1 Growth Management Act Requirements ........................................ 2-2 2.2.2 County-Wide Planning Policies ...................................................... 2-3 2.2.3 Comprehensive Plans of Incorporated Cities .................................. 2-5 2.3 Major Issues ................................................................................................ 2-6 2.4 Land Use Inventory..................................................................................... 2-6 2.4.1 Physical Description of the County ................................................ 2-6 2.4.2 Willapa Valley ................................................................................ 2-7 2.4.3 Grayland, North Cove, Tokeland .................................................. 2-10 2.4.4 Bay Center, Nemah ....................................................................... 2-11 2.4.5 Naselle River Valley ..................................................................... 2-12 2.4.6 Southwest County ......................................................................... 2-13 2.5 Final Urban Growth Areas ........................................................................ 2-14 2.5.1 GMA Requirements for Urban Growth Areas .............................. 2-14 2.5.2 Urban Growth Areas of Incorporated Cities ................................. 2-15 2.5.3 Urban Growth Area of Unincorporated Seaview .......................... 2-16 PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2010 – 2030) MARCH 2010 PAGE iii ...TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.5.4 Seaview UGA/Rural Subdivision ................................................. 2-18 2.6 Land Use Designations ............................................................................. 2-20 2.6.1 Overview ....................................................................................... 2-20 2.6.2 Rural Area Designations ............................................................... 2-20 2.6.2.1 Remote Rural - One Unit per Ten Acres .......................... 2-21 2.6.2.2 General Rural - One Unit per Five Acres ......................... 2-21 2.6.2.3 Rural Agriculture - One Unit per Five Acres to One Unit per Ten Acres .................................................... 2-28 2.6.2.4 Rural Shoreline Development - One Unit per Acre .......... 2-28 2.6.2.5 Rural Village - Mixed Use, New Residential One Unit per Acre ............................................................................. 2-29 2.6.2.6 Rural Activity Center - Mixed Use, New Residential One Unit per Acre ............................................................. 2-29 2.6.2.7 Community Crossroad - Commercial ............................... 2-30 2.6.2.8 Industrial ........................................................................... 2-31 2.6.2.9 Public Preserve.................................................................. 2-32 2.6.2.10 Military Reservation ....................................................... 2-32 2.6.3 Resource Area Designations ......................................................... 2-32 2.6.3.1 Agriculture ........................................................................ 2-32 2.6.3.2 Forest of Long Term Commercial Significance ............... 2-33 2.6.3.3 Transitional Forest - Lot Size Determined By Setbacks ... 2-33 2.6.4 Urban Growth Area Designations around Cities .......................... 2-33 2.6.5 Urban Growth Area Designations of Unincorporated Seaview .... 2-34 2.6.6 Land Use Decision Making .......................................................... 2-34 2.7 Rural Areas of More Intensive Development ........................................... 2-35 2.7.1 GMA Provisions for More Intensive Development ...................... 2-35 2.7.2 Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development ................. 2-35 2.8 Population and Demographic Trends........................................................ 2-37 2.8.1 Recent Population Trends ............................................................. 2-37 2.8.2 Demographic Characteristics ........................................................ 2-39 2.9 Population Forecasts ................................................................................. 2-40 2.9.1 Office of Financial Management Projections ............................... 2-40 2.9.2 Projected Land Need ..................................................................... 2-41 2.10 Measures Governing Rural Development ................................................. 2-44 2.10.1 Rural Development ....................................................................... 2-44 2.10.2 Containing Rural Development .................................................... 2-44 2.10.3 Assuring Visual Compatibility ..................................................... 2-45 2.10.4 Reducing Inappropriate Conversion of Undeveloped Land ......... 2-46 2.10.5 Protecting Critical Areas, Surface and Ground Water .................. 2-46 2.10.6 Protecting Resource Lands ........................................................... 2-47 2.11 Grandfathering Nonconforming Uses ....................................................... 2-47 PACIFIC COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2010 – 2030) MARCH 2010 PAGE iv ...TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.12 Conditional Uses and Variances ............................................................... 2-48 2.13 Tourism and Recreation ............................................................................ 2-48 2.14 Trail corridors ........................................................................................... 2-49 2.15 Goals and Policies ..................................................................................... 2-50 Section 3 Critical Areas & Resource Lands Element 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 General Policy Statement ............................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Review Procedures...................................................................................... 3-1 3.4 Protection Standards, Land Use, and Notification ...................................... 3-3 3.4.1 Protection Standards ......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chehalis River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Project NEPA Environmental Impact Statement
    Appendix C References Cited in the Environmental Impact Statement September 2020 Chehalis River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Project NEPA Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX C: REFERENCES CITED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 1, Introduction CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality), 1999. Memorandum from: George T. Frampton, Jr., Acting Chair, to: Heads of Federal Agencies. Regarding: Designation of Non-Federal Agencies to be Cooperating Agencies in Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. July 28, 1999. Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2018. Memorandum for the Record. Regarding: Determination of the Requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Chehalis River Basin Dam Proposal. January 31, 2018. Corps, 2019. Chehalis River Basin Flood Damage Reduction NEPA EIS Scoping Summary Report. January 2019. CRBFA (Chehalis River Basin Flood Authority), 2019. Flood Authority Master Contact List 5-15-2019. Last modified May 15, 2019. Accessed July 27, 2020. Accessed at: https://www.ezview.wa.gov/Portals/_1492/images/Updated%20-- %20Flood%20Authority%20Contact%20Sheet%20--%205-15-2019.pdf. Work Group (Governor’s Chehalis Basin Work Group), 2018. Letter to: Jay Inslee, Office of the Governor. Regarding: Chehalis Basin Board’s Capital Budget Recommendation for 2019-2021. November 26, 2018. Chapter 2, Purpose and Need CBP (Chehalis Basin Partnership), 2004. Chehalis Basin Watershed Management Plan. Accessed at: http://chehalisbasinpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/cbp_wmp.pdf. NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program), 2015. Loss Statistics from January 1, 1978 to July 31, 2015. Updated July 2015; accessed October 2, 2015. Accessed at: http://bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov/reports/1040.htm.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Analysis of Ecological Characteristics
    Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report 5 ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 5.1 Methods A GIS-based semi-quantitative method was developed to characterize the relative performance of relevant ecological processes and functions by shoreline reach, within the County, as outlined in WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(i). The assessment used the available information gathered as part of the shoreline inventory and applied ranking criteria to provide a consistent methodological treatment among reaches. These semi-quantitative results will help provide a consistent treatment of all reaches in approximating existing ecological conditions, yet allow for a qualitative evaluation of functions for data that are not easily summarized by GIS data alone. The results are intended to complement the mapped inventory information (Appendix B) and numerical data (Table 4-3) and provide a comparison of watershed functions relative to other reaches in the County. The analysis of the ecological characteristics of the Coastal Ocean AU is different than the analysis for the other AUs. The main distinguishers for the Coastal Ocean AU are that 1) the Coastal Ocean AU does not contain distinct shoreline segments, and 2) there is a paucity of data on the dynamic, biophysical characteristics in the AU, so they are supplemented with human use data as proxies for nodes of ecological function. Reach Delineation In order to assess shoreline functions at a local scale, the ten AUs with upland areas within the County were broken into discrete reaches based on a review of maps and aerial photography. The Coastal Ocean AU is considered as a singular section (i.e., no distinct reaches) for this assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific County, Washington and Incorporated Areas
    PACIFIC COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ILWACO, TOWN OF 530127 LONG BEACH, TOWN OF 530128 PACIFIC COUNTY, 530126 UNINCORPORATED AREAS RAYMOND, CITY OF 530129 SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE 530341 SOUTH BEND, CITY OF 530130 Pacific County PRELIMINARY: AUGUST 30, 2013 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 53049CV000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone(s) New Zone Al through A30 AE B X C X Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: To Be Determined TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments ...................................................................... 1 1.3 Coordination .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • State Waterway Navigability Determination
    BODY OF WATER & LOCATION NAV CG NON-NAV CG REMARKS yellow highlight = apply to USCG for permit up to RM stipulated Alsea Bay, OR X Estuary of Pacific Ocean. Alsea River, OR X Flows into Alsea Bay, Waldport, OR. Navigable to mile 13. Ash Creek, OR X Tributary of Willamette River at Independence, OR. Barrett Slough, OR X Tributary of Lewis and Clark River. Bayou St. John, OR X Court decision, 1935 AMC 594, 10 Mile Lake, Coos County, OR. Bear Creek (Coos County), OR X Tributary of Coquille River (tidal at mile 0.5) Beaver Creek, OR X Tributary of Nestucca River. Beaver Slough, OR X See Clatskanie River. Big Creek (Lane County), OR X At U.S. 101 bridge (tidal). Big Creek (Lincoln County), OR X Flows into Pacific Ocean. Big Creek Slough, OR X Upstream end at Knappa, OR (tidal). At site of Birch Creek (Sparks) Bridge on Canyon Road near Birch Creek, OR X Pendleton, OR. Side channel of Yaquina River. 3 mi. downstream from Toledo, Blind Slough, OR X OR (tidal). Tributary of Knappa Slough. 10 mi. upstream from Astoria, OR Blind Slough/ Gnat Creek, OR X (tidal at mile 2.0). Boone Slough, OR X Tributary of Yaquina River between Newport and Toledo, OR. Side channel of Willamette River. 3 miles upstream from Booneville Channel, OR X Corvallis, OR. Boulder Creek, OR X 7 miles N of Lake Quinalt. Side channel of Columbia River. 5 miles N of Clatskanie, OR Bradbury Slough, OR X (tidal). Brownlee Reservoir, ID /OR X See Snake River. Also known as South Channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Lewis and Clark National Historical Park, Oregon and Washington
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resources Program Center Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Lewis and Clark National Historical Park, Oregon and Washington Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRTR—2007/055 ON THE COVER Upper left, Fort Clatsop, NPS Photograph Upper right, Cape Disappointment, Photograph by Kristen Keteles Center left, Ecola, NPS Photograph Lower left, Corps at Ecola, NPS Photograph Lower right, Young’s Bay, Photograph by Kristen Keteles Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Lewis and Clark National Historical Park, Oregon and Washington Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRTR—2007/055 Dr. Terrie Klinger School of Marine Affairs University of Washington Seattle, WA 98105-6715 Rachel M. Gregg School of Marine Affairs University of Washington Seattle, WA 98105-6715 Jessi Kershner School of Marine Affairs University of Washington Seattle, WA 98105-6715 Jill Coyle School of Marine Affairs University of Washington Seattle, WA 98105-6715 Dr. David Fluharty School of Marine Affairs University of Washington Seattle, WA 98105-6715 This report was prepared under Task Order J9W88040014 of the Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (agreement CA9088A0008) September 2007 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resources Program Center Fort Collins, CO i The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Hatchery Reform System-Wide Report
    Columbia River Hatchery Reform System-Wide Report February 2009 Prepared by Hatchery Scientific Review Group Acknowledgements Performing this analysis and developing recommendations for over 351 salmonid populations in the Columbia River Basin would not have been possible without the knowledge, commitment and hard work of many individuals. The HSRG members extend special thanks to the contracting staff that supported them: Gary Affonso, Greg Blair, Jeff Boyce, Amy Corsini, Nancy Bond Hemming, Michael Kern, B.J. Mirk, Joan Nichol, Grant Novak, Denise Kelsey, Robyn Redekopp, Joel Rice, Shannon Riper, Jason Shappart, Jason Volk, Jim Waldo and especially Dan Warren. Many regional fishery biologists and managers contributed both their time and expertise in meetings, tours and report reviews, notably: Paul Abbot Richard Carmichael Rod French Todd Alsbury Mark Chilcote Amy Gaskill Bill Arnsburg Guy Chilton Mike Gauvin John Arterburn Bob Clubb John Gebhards Bill Bacon Michael Coffey Jim Gidley Greg Baesler Charlie Corrarino Bryce Glaser Ronald Ballard Patty Crandell Judy Gordon Duane Banks Tim Culberson Steve Grabowski Heather Bartlett Wolf Dammers Jenny Grace Shane Bickford Greg Davis David Graves Joe Blodgett Doug DeHart Tony Grover Steve Boe Greg Delwiche Susan Gutenberger Jeff Boechler Lytle Denny Ronald Hardy Bill Bosch Dan Diggs Rod Harrod Ken Bourne James Dixon Peter Hassemer Ed Bowles Speros Doulos Steve Hays Brett Boyd Tom Dresser Jeff Heindel Robert Bradley John Easterbrooks John Hitron Keith Braun Bruce Eddy Brad Houslet Kat Brigham
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries 1938-2000
    STATUS REPORT COLUMBIA RIVER FISH RUNS AND FISHERIES 1938-2000 TEXT ONLY Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife August 2002 THE JOINT COLUMBIA RIVER MANAGEMENT STAFF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CRAIG BURLEY - PROGRAM LEADER MIKE WALL WOLF DAMMERS JOE HYMER RON ROLER CINDY LEFLEUR RICK HEITZ RICH PETTIT BRAD JAMES BRAD CADY MARC MILLER SHANE HAWKINS DAN RAWDING BOB WOODARD STEVE GRAY STEVE CAMPBELL KELLY HARLAN LISA HARLAN DENNIS GILLILAND KEN KELLER VICTOR ALBALDEJO JOHN SEWALL MICHELLE SMITH JOHN WEINHEIMER STACIE KELSEY BRYCE GLASSER JIM BYRNE STEVE THIESFELD OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PATRICK A. FRAZIER - PROGRAM LEADER PAUL HIROSE RAY BEAMESDERFER CURT MELCHER KEVLEEN MELCHER DOUGLAS CASE WAYNE VAN DER NAALD JIMMY WATTS BRET MORGAN TOM NEILL JEFF WHISLER JEFF FULOP ROY CLARK BRYANT SPELLMAN ERIC OLLERENSHAW MATT HUNTER ROBERT BROOKS SUSAN ENGWALL The Joint Staff is comprised of biologists and technicians from Oregon and Washington cooperating to provide scientific information for the management of Columbia River fisheries that harvest salmon (four species), steelhead trout, shad, smelt, walleye, and sturgeon (two species). Fisheries are monitored to obtain complete fishery statistics used to determine their influence on the various runs. Run size predictions are developed preseason to establish seasons. Run size updates, through the use of dam counts, test fishing, environmental indices, and early season catches, are used to assist in adjusting seasons to allow maximum harvest while permitting the desired escapement. Escapement and subsequent production are studied to determine the success and contribution to the fishery by brood year. Fish taken in fisheries are sampled for biological data.
    [Show full text]
  • Douglas Deur Empires O the Turning Tide a History of Lewis and F Clark National Historical Park and the Columbia-Pacific Region
    A History of Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks and the Columbia-Pacific Region Douglas Deur Empires o the Turning Tide A History of Lewis and f Clark National Historical Park and the Columbia-Pacific Region Douglas Deur 2016 With Contributions by Stephen R. Mark, Crater Lake National Park Deborah Confer, University of Washington Rachel Lahoff, Portland State University Members of the Wilkes Expedition, encountering the forests of the Astoria area in 1841. From Wilkes' Narrative (Wilkes 1845). Cover: "Lumbering," one of two murals depicting Oregon industries by artist Carl Morris; funded by the Work Projects Administration Federal Arts Project for the Eugene, Oregon Post Office, the mural was painted in 1942 and installed the following year. Back cover: Top: A ship rounds Cape Disappointment, in a watercolor by British spy Henry Warre in 1845. Image courtesy Oregon Historical Society. Middle: The view from Ecola State Park, looking south. Courtesy M.N. Pierce Photography. Bottom: A Joseph Hume Brand Salmon can label, showing a likeness of Joseph Hume, founder of the first Columbia-Pacific cannery in Knappton, Washington Territory. Image courtesy of Oregon State Archives, Historical Oregon Trademark #113. Cover and book design by Mary Williams Hyde. Fonts used in this book are old map fonts: Cabin, Merriweather and Cardo. Pacific West Region: Social Science Series Publication Number 2016-001 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior ISBN 978-0-692-42174-1 Table of Contents Foreword: Land and Life in the Columbia-Pacific
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership : Jphoto Report on the Estuary
    ander Maten 2010 udy V Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership : JPhoto Report on the Estuary Investing for Results What’s Inside: ur 2010 Report on the Estuary for threatened and endangered what is in the system, contaminant is a five-year assessment of salmonids. EPA, USGS and NOAA sources, and impacts on wildlife and Oour progress to improve the completed several one-time studies human health to direct actions to overall health of the lower Columbia that improve our understanding of reduce contamination. Investment in River. It gives us the opportunity contaminants. EPA designated the habitat restoration needs to include to take a broad look at the state of Columbia Basin a Great Water Body. In all aspects of projects and link to the river so we can focus future February, Congressman Blumenauer toxics reduction. Water Quality investments where they can be and Senator Merkley introduced the Pollutant Level Trends . 2 most effective. Columbia River Restoration Act of We need to acknowledge that results Land Use come slowly; earth systems measure 2010 to formally raise the stature of Land Cover Trends . 6 We track five measures: pollutant the Columbia to that of the Chesapeake time in thousands of years, not a levels, land cover trends, citizen Bay and other great water bodies. human lifetime and certainly not Stewardship engagement, habitat restoration and two or four year cycles. Results may Education Program Trends . 8 Citizen Volunteering Trends . .9 endangered species. The Estuary There have been challenges. come from one or two large actions; Partnership is involved with all Investment in the Columbia lags far more likely it will be the accumulation Reference these efforts, sometimes supporting behind other major water bodies of many actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Analysis Report
    PACIFIC COUNTY Grant No. G1400525 Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County Prepared for: Pacific County 1216 W. Robert Bush Drive PO Box 68 South Bend, WA 98586 Prepared by: STRATEGY | ANALYSIS | COMMUNICATIONS 2025 First Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle WA 98121 110 Main St # 103 Edmonds, WA 98020 Drafted June 2014, Public Draft September 2014, Revised January 2015, This report was funded in part Final June 2015 through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology. The Watershed Company Reference Number: 130727 Cite this document as: The Watershed Company, BERK, and Coast and Harbor Engineering. June 2015. Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County. Prepared for Pacific County, South Bend, WA. Acknowledgements The consultant team wishes to thank the Pacific County Shoreline Planning Committee, who contributed significant comments and materials toward the development of this report. The Watershed Company June 2015 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Page # Readers Guide .................................................................................. i 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ............................................................................. 1 1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction ................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 4 2 Summary of Current Regulatory Framework
    [Show full text]
  • A. Chinook Salmon Background and History of Listings
    A. CHINOOK SALMON A.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF LISTINGS Primary contributor: James M. Myers (Northwest Fisheries Science Center) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Walbaum), also commonly referred to as king, spring, quinnat, Sacramento, California, or tyee salmon, is the largest of the Pacific salmon (Myers et al. 1998). The species historically ranged from the Ventura River in California to Point Hope, AK in North America, and in northeastern Asia from Hokkaido, Japan to the Anadyr River in Russia (Healey 1991). Additionally, chinook salmon have been reported in the Mackenzie River area of Northern Canada (McPhail and Lindsey 1970). Chinook salmon exhibit very diverse and complex life-history strategies. Healey (1986) described 16 age categories for chinook salmon, seven total ages with three possible freshwater ages. This level of complexity is roughly comparable to sockeye salmon (O. nerka), although sockeye salmon have a more extended freshwater residence period and utilize different freshwater habitats (Miller and Brannon 1982, Burgner 1991). Two generalized freshwater life-history types were initially described by Gilbert (1912): “stream-type” chinook salmon reside in freshwater for a year or more following emergence, whereas “ocean-type” chinook salmon migrate to the ocean predominately within their first year. Healey (1983, 1991) has promoted the use of broader definitions for “ocean-type” and “stream-type” to describe two distinct races of chinook salmon. This racial approach incorporates life-history traits, geographic distribution, and genetic differentiation and provides a valuable frame of reference for comparisons of chinook salmon populations. For this reason, the BRT has adopted the broader “racial” definitions of ocean- and stream-type for this review.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request
    Commanding Officer 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N United States Coast Guard Oakland, CA 94612-5203 Civil Engineering Unit Oakland Staff Symbol: EMB Phone: (510) 637-5567 5090 12 May 2021 Deanna Caracciolo State-Federal Relations Coordinator, Oregon Coastal Managemment Program Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2540 Re: Coastal Consistency Determination for Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal Project Dear Ms. Caracciolo: The US Coast Guard (CG) is submitting this Coastal Consistency Determination for the CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal project. In accordance with Section 930.35(d) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Federal Consistency Regulations (15 CFR 930), submittal of this Coastal Consistency Determination reflects CG’s commitment to comply, to the maximum extent practicable, with enforceable coastal policies and goals of the State of Oregon. The CG has determined that the proposed activity would be consistent with enforceable policies and goals under the Oregon Coastal Management Plan (OCMP) and would result in no adverse environmental impacts. In accordance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, Section 307(c)(1), the enclosed Coastal Consistency Determination demonstrates that the proposed activity will be undertaken in a manner to minimize effects on coastal uses and resources. The CG respectfully requests your concurrence with its determination for the proposed project. When completed, please email a letter of concurrence to Mr. William Robinson, at [email protected]. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr.
    [Show full text]