DOCSLIB.ORG

Staff Report on 2009-2012 Sport Fishing Regulations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Staff Report on 2009-2012 Sport Fishing Regulations Attachment 3 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3406 Cherry Avenue NE Salem, OR 97303 August 8th, 2008 Commission Meeting Staff Report on 2009-2012 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulation Development: Regulation Proposal Preview This package contains the following: • Background information on angling regulation development • The angling regulation development process • Role of the Angling Regulation Review Board and results of Board’s review of Staff and Public Proposals • How to Participate in the Public Process • Key Issue Summary • A summary of proposals for 2009 that includes public feedback and staff recommendations The Fish and Wildlife Commission will preview “Category A” and “Category C” proposals on August 8, 2008 (Salem OR). A brief overview of “Category B” proposals will be presented at the August Commission meeting and the major preview of “Category B” proposals will take place at the September 12, 2008 (Newberg OR). The Commission will adopt final rules on all proposals at the September 12, 2008 Commission meeting in Salem. Presented to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission August 8th and September 12th, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2009 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulation Development Public Process to Review Sport-Fishing Regulations .................................................... 3 Background Information ................................................................................................. 3 The Role of the Angling Regulation Review Board; Screening Criteria ..................... 3 The Angling Regulation Process...................................................................................... 4 Table 1. Results of Angling Regulation Review Board screening ............................... 6 Table 2. Public attendance at nine statewide public meetings..................................... 7 How to Participate in the Public Process........................................................................ 8 Summary of ODFW, OSP and Public Proposals ........................................................... 10 Key Issues .......................................................................................................................... 10 Statewide...................................................................................................................... 10 Northwest Zone ........................................................................................................... 11 Southwest Zone ........................................................................................................... 12 Willamette Zone.......................................................................................................... 13 Central Zone................................................................................................................ 14 Northeast...................................................................................................................... 15 Southeast, Snake River, and Columbia River Zones............................................... 16 Marine Zone ................................................................................................................ 17 Summary of Proposed Changes in Angling Regulations for 2009 ..................................... 19 Statewide Zone .................................................................................................................. 19 Northwest Zone ................................................................................................................. 36 Southwest Zone ................................................................................................................. 50 Willamette Zone................................................................................................................ 72 Central Zone...................................................................................................................... 95 Northeast Zone..................................................................................................................108 Southeast Zone .................................................................................................................112 Snake River Zone..............................................................................................................117 Columbia River Zone .......................................................................................................119 Marine Zone ......................................................................................................................124 2 2009 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulation Development A Public Process Background: Every four years the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) develops Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations by utilizing a "Public Process." This process allows ODFW and Oregon State Police (OSP) staff and the general public an opportunity to propose new or modified sport fishing regulations. A series of Public Meetings will also be held throughout Oregon to get public input on all proposed angling regulations. The last Public Process occurred in 2004 and was intended to cover angling regulations from 2005 through and including the year 2008. The current public involvement process will be used to shape Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations from 2009 through and including 2012. The 2009 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulation development process was initiated in September of 2007 with development of ODFW and OSP staff proposals and will conclude in September 2008 when the Commission adopts the 2009 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations. During "Interim Years" (between major Public Review years), the Fish and Wildlife Commission has directed that angling regulation changes be limited to conservation needs, inadvertent restrictions, clarifications and new non-controversial angling opportunities. In addition, during the 2006- 2008 interim years, the Fish and Wildlife Commission also directed Staff to develop proposals for expanded angling opportunities with a focus on youth angling opportunities in urban areas of the state. Role of the Angling Regulation Review Board: To help reduce the volume of proposals that are carried through the entire 12-month Public Review Process the Commission has directed staff to have an Angling Regulation Review Board screen all proposals (ODFW/OSP and Public proposals) so only those proposals which address substantive problems or opportunities are carried forward. The Angling Regulation Review Board consists of ten public representatives solicited from various ODFW Working Groups, Task Forces, and general angling public. (Attachment 3, memo to Ed Bowles from Rhine Messmer) One member of the Fish and Wildlife Commission, Carter Kerns, also participated as a member of the Review Board. A rigorous screening process was developed to allow a high level of public participation, help reduce review costs for staff and Commissioners and focus the public on substantive proposed changes to angling regulations. All proposals rejected by the Review Board will be presented to the Fish and Wildlife Commission for final rule making. Review Board Screening Criteria: The Angling Regulation Review Board screens all proposals using criteria previously adopted as rule by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. The established criteria are as follows: Criteria for Angling Regulation Proposals (Division 11 OAR’s): (A) Easily understood, with clearly defined limits or boundaries; (B) Enforceable; (C) Consistent with statutory mandates and Department management policies, goals, plans, and rules; (D) Consistent with biologically sound principles; (E) Consistent with court orders, and approved agreements between ODFW and other management entities or landowners; 3 (F) Supported by affected citizens; (G) Consistent with regulations on similar or nearby waters, unless social or biological circumstances require diversity; (H) Necessary to achieve an identified objective; (I) Necessary to balance harvest with reproduction or recruitment; and (J) Necessary to provide angling opportunity to sequential fisheries. If taken individually, the criteria are difficult to use in a meaningful or logical fashion. For the reviews, these criteria were summarized into four main categories which encompassed Commission Criteria that could be evaluated by the Review Board. Review Board members were asked to apply these categories to examine each proposal using information provided by ODFW/OSP staff, fellow Board members and their individual expertise on the issue. If a Board member determined that any proposal failed to meet one or more of the criteria, the proposal would receive a no vote by the Board member. If the answer was "yes" for all four criteria, the Board member voted to have the proposal pass the Review Board. If the majority of Review Board members rejected a proposal, the proposal would be carried further in the process as a category “C” proposal and a recommendation of “do not adopt in current form”. If the proposal passed the Review Board with a majority vote, then the proposal would be carried forward in the public process and further analyzed by staff and presented at May public meeting. A tie vote caused the proposal to be accepted. Commission Kerns also has the option of passing a proposal that not make it through the Review Board if he considered that the proposal would need to automatically go to the Commission for consideration. The four summary categories are as follows: 1. Does the proposal establish need? (yes or no) Is protection
Load more

Recommended publications
  • South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis
    DOCUMENT A 13.66/2: COQUILLE fiVE, LOWER S.F. 17 10 03 00* I C 66x 1 COQUILLE RIVER, UPPER S.F 17 1:-03 01* ' United States Q, '0) Departimnt of Agriculture THIS PUBLICATION Forest Serilce CMN FE CHECKED OUT Pacific Northwest Region 1995 JA* fSouth Fork Coquille Wate1hed Analysis Iteration 1.0 Powers Ranger Distric, Slsklyou National Forest September 1995 SOUTHERN OREGON UNWVERSiTY LIBRARY ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 United Stat. Depaenent of Agnculure Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region 1995 SOUTH FORK COQUILLE WATERSHED ANALYSIS ITERATION 1.0 I have read this analysis and it meets the Standards and Guidelines for watershed analysis required by an amendment to the Forest Plan (Record of Decision dated April 1994). Any additional evidence needed to make a decision will be gathered site-specifically as part of a NEPA document or as an update to this document. SIGNED CoQ 4 DATE q 1T2 letE District Ranger Powers Ranger District Siskiyou National Forest South Fork Coquille Watershed Analysis - September 1995 Developed by Interdisciplinary Team Members: Steve Harbert Team leader Betsy Howell Wildlife Biologist Dave Shea Botantist, Wildlife Biologist Ruth Sisko Forester Cindy Ricks Geologist Chris Parks Hydrologist Max Yager Fish Biologist Kathy Helm Writer-Editor (March-April 1995), BLM Tina Harbert Writer-Editor (May-July 1995), Powers R.D. Joe Hallett Cultural Resource Key Support: Joel King Forest Planner, Siskiyou National Forest Sue Olson Acting District Ranger, Powers R.D. (Jan-May 1995) Carl Linderman District Ranger, Powers R.D. Marshall Foster GIS, Powers R.D. Jodi Shorb Computer Assistant Linda Spencer Computer Support For Further Information, contact: Powers Ranger District Powers, OR 97466 (503) 439-3011 The policy of the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, religion, sex, or disability, familial status, or political affiliation.
    [Show full text]
  • Motor Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest FSEIS
    United States Department of Agriculture FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 1 Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest for the greatest good September 2015 VicinityVicinity Map Map OREGON Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest High Cascades Powers 5 ¨¦§ Grants Pass Wild Rivers Gold Beach Medford I Siskiyou Mountains Wild Rivers OREGON CALIFORNIA The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Lead Agency: TARGET CenterUSDA at Forest(202) 720 Service-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaintIn accordance of discrimination, with Federal write civil to rights USDA, law Director, and U.S. Office Department of of Civil Rights,Rogue 1400 River-Siskiyou Independence Avenue,National S.W., Forest Washington,Agriculture D.C. 20250 -(USDA)9410, or civilcall (800)rights 795 regulations-3272 (voice) and or policies, (202) the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal
    [Show full text]
  • Natural History of Oregon Coast Mammals Chris Maser Bruce R
    Forest Servile United States Depa~ment of the interior Bureau of Land Management General Technical Report PNW-133 September 1981 ser is a ~ildiife biologist, U.S. ~epa~rn e Interior, Bureau of La gement (stationed at Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. Science Center, ~ewpo Sciences Laborato~, Corvallis, Oregon. T. se is a soil scientist, U.S. wa t of culture, Forest Service, Pacific rthwest Forest and ange ~xperim Station, lnst~tute of orthern Forestry, Fairbanks, Alaska. Natural History of Oregon Coast Mammals Chris Maser Bruce R. Mate Jerry F. Franklin C. T. Dyrness Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-133 September 1981 Published in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior Abstract Maser, Chris, Bruce R. Mate, Jerry F. Franklin, and C. T. Dyrness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon coast mammals. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-133, 496 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg. The book presents detailed information on the biology, habitats, and life histories of the 96 species of mammals of the Oregon coast. Soils, geology, and vegetation are described and related to wildlife habitats for the 65 terrestrial and 31 marine species. The book is not simply an identification guide to the Oregon coast mammals but is a dynamic portrayal of their habits and habitats. Life histories are based on fieldwork and available literature. An extensive bibliography is included. Personal anecdotes of the authors provide entertaining reading. The book should be of use to students, educators, land-use planners, resource managers, wildlife biologists, and naturalists.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Natural Areas in Oregon And
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. United States Department of Research Natural Areas in Agriculture Forest Service Oregon and Washington: Pacific Northwest Research Station Past and Current Research General Technical Report PNW-197 and Related Literature November 1986 Sarah E. Greene, Tawny Blinn, and Jerry F. Franklin I Authors SARAH E. GREENE is a research forester. TAWNY BLINN is an editorial assistant. and JERRY F. FRANKLIN is a chief plant ecologist. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Forestry Sciences Laboratory. 3200 Jefferson Way. Corvallis, Oregon 97331. Foreword In 1971, I joined the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Exper- iment Station as Station Director and, among other duties, be- came chainman of the Interagency Committee on Research Natural Areas. It was a chair that I held for 4 years, and it is a - - pleasure to reflect, more than 10 years later, on the progress that has been made. Oregon and Washington already had a vigorous program of preser- vation of Natural Areas for scientific and educational purposes in 1971. In preparation at that time were several publications important to identifying and protecting Natural Areas, including a description of natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington (Franklin and Dyrness 1973), an inventory of Federal Research Natural Areas in Oregon and Washington (Franklin and others 1972),1/ and a comprehensive inventory of Natural Areas rec- ognized by the Society of American Foresters (Buckman and Quintus 1972). The Interagency Committee, with participation from The Nature Conservancy and the States of Oregon and Washington then asked, "What should a well-balanced program of Research Natural Area preservation include?" This led to the publication, "Research Natural Area Needs in the Pacific Northwest: A Contribution to Land-Use Planning" (Dyrness and others 1975).
    [Show full text]
  • IN OREGON Abstract Approved: E
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF ERIC FORSMAN for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE presented on October 22, 1975 Title: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE SPOTTED OWL IN OREGON Abstract approved: E. Charles Meslow Between 1970 and 1974, data were collected on the distribution and biology of the spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) in Oregon. One- hundred and sixteen pairs and seven single birds were located. Spotted owls occurred throughout the mountains of western Oregon and on the east slope of the Cascade Range at least as far east as Badger Butte, Hood River County; Abbot Butte, Jefferson County; and Swan Lake Point, Klamath County. The upper elevational limits of the species increased from about 1,350 meters in northern Oregon to 1,770 meters in southern Oregon. Although spotted owls were not uncommon in some areas, evidence indicated that the population was declining as a result of habitat loss. A total of 2,647 prey items were identified from 42 pairs of owls. Prey species included 29 mammals, 20 birds, 2 reptiles, a crayfish, a terrestrial snail, and 26 genera of insects. Mammalian prey comprised over 90 percent of the biomass consumed. The flying squirrel (Glaucomvs sabrinus) was the principal prey species (13-48 percent of total biomass consumed), except in dry forest areas, where wood rats (Neotoma fuscipes and N. cinerea became most important (7-78 percent of total biomass). Other important prey included snow- shoe hares (Lepus americanus), red tree voles (Phenacomvs longi- caudus), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), western red-backed voles (Clethrionomys occidentalis), Mazama pocket gophers (Thomomvs mazama), pikas (Ochotona princeps), and small birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Natural Areas Plan
    Portland State University PDXScholar Institute for Natural Resources Publications Institute for Natural Resources - Portland 2010 Oregon Natural Areas Plan Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory Council Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/naturalresources_pub Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Citation Details Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory Council. 2010. Oregon Natural Areas Plan. Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources – Portland, Portland State University, Portland, OR. 198pp. This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Institute for Natural Resources Publications by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Oregon Natural Areas Plan 2010 Natural Heritage Advisory Council to the State Land Board State Land Board Kate Brown Ted Kulongoski Ted Wheeler Secretary of State Governor State Treasurer Natural Heritage Advisory Council Voting Members Richard Brown Robert Chandler Stuart Garrett Charles Carter Alan Dickman Cathy Macdonald Ex-Officio Members Agriculture Director: Katy Coba, represented by Rebecca Currin Fish and Wildlife Director: Roy Elicker, represented by Holly Michaels Forestry Director: Marvin Brown, represented by Andrew Yost Higher Education Chancellor: George Pernsteiner, represented by Scott Heppell Parks and Recreation Director: Tim Wood,
    [Show full text]
  • I"' It;T Harbor" Provisions for Wetlands
    i"' it;t BEFORE THE BOARD OF COI-INTY COMMISSIONERS FOR COLUMBIA COLINTY, OREGON In the Matter of Amending the Columbia County ) Comprehensive Plan and ZonrngOrdinance Under ) Periodic Review Work Program Task IV, Goal 5 ) ORDINANCE NO. 2OO3-5 Sensitive Lands ) The Board of County Commissioners for Columbia County, Oregon, ordains as follows: SECTION 1. TITLE. This Ordinance shall be known as Ordinance No. 2003-5. SECTION 2. AUTHORITY. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to ORS 203.035, ORS 197.628 through 197.646, and, OAR Chapter 660, Division 23. SECTION 3. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Ordinance is to comply with Periodic Review Work Task IV, Goal 5 Sensitive Lands to revise wetland and riparian protection measures to comply with state ,,safe harbot" rules, as well as to adopt updated resource maps, and update proviiions for threatened and endangered species, sensitive plants, and natural areas. SECTION 4 HISTORY In 2001, the Department of Land Conservation and Development approved Columbia County's Amended Periodic Review Work Program for Goal 5 "sensitive Lands and Habitat,,. Work Task IV required the County to address five particular areas, as follows: l) Develop ,.safe harbor" provisions for Riparian Corridors pursuant to OAR 660-023-090; 2) Develop ,,safe harbor" provisions for wetlands pursuant to OAR 660-023-100; 3) Review and update Comprehensive Plan Policies and Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding threatened and endangered species; 4) Review and update Comprehensive Plan Policies and Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding sensitive plants, and 5) review and update Comprehensive Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding natural areas. In response to the Work Program, the County sent proposed text amendments to all of the County Citizen Planning Advisory Conimissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Southernmost Coast Section of Oregon Chart 5 Human Use and Management Chart Series
    Human Use and Management Chart Series Southernmost Coast Section of Oregon Chart 5 125°0'W 124°55'W 124°50'W 124°45'W 124°40'W 124°35'W 124°30'W 124°25'W 124°20'W 124°15'W 124°10'W 124°5'W A30 -25 Floras Lake -250 542 N ' 5 5 ° 2 4 N ' 0 5 5 -2 ° Floras Lake 2 Blacklock Point / Tower Rock 4 State Park 0 5 - Castle and Gull Rocks Powers R C A 1 Cape Blanco 0 0 0 5 S f 2 m i - x e Cape Blanco s R State Park iv e Blanco Reef r 250 0 5 - - 2 5 -1 0 0 0 0 -5 N ' 0 El k 0 0 - Ri 2 ve 5 5 r ° - 5 2 4 N ' 5 Orford Reef 4 ° 5 2 2 - 4 A31 Big Tree SIA -500 - 5 0 0 0 0 0 -5 0 -1 00 -5 -5 0 0 0 -50 0 0 0 5 0 - 5 Port Orford - The Heads 251 Nellie's & Tichenor Cove Battle Port Orford Head Rock Grassy Knob Wilderness State Wayside N Port Orford Cedar RNA ' 5 4 ° 2 4 N ' 0 0 10 4 - Rocky & Coal Points ° 2 - 1 4 0 0 Humbug Mountain -100 State Park -2 5 - 1 5 Coquille River Falls RNA 0 -7 0 Redfish & Island Rocks 5 2 - 5 7 - -2 5 A32 - 1 0 Humbug Mountain 0 Iron Mountain SIA -75 0 5 - N Lookout Rock ' 0 4 ° 2 4 N ' 5 3 ° 2 4 Rogue River - 1 0 0 -75 Arizona Beach -125 -125 Sister's Rocks 00 5 5 2 -1 1 - 0 5 -7 -250 Devil's Backbone - 1 0 2 5 5 2 0 - 5 - N ' -125 5 3 ° 0 2 0 4 1 - A33 N ' 0 3 ° 2 4 00 -1 101 -100 00 -1 - 2 -75 5 0 -5 -2 5 Lobster Grove SIA Nesika Beach Preserve - 1 5 Nesika Head 0 -2 0 Hubbard Mound Rocks - - 125 1 0 N ' 0 - 0 1 - 1 3 2 0 ° 5 0 2 -7 Rogue Reef 4 -2000 -1 5 Y e N 0 ' 0 a Otter Point Otter Point 5 r 5 2 - R ° 2 State Wayside 2 1 o - 4 u n 0 d 5 - 0 5 -1 - 00 - 7 5 5 - 7 1 - Rogue River 0 - 0 7 5 A34 -1 0 0 -1 25 5 2 1 - -
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Natural Areas Plan
    Oregon Natural Areas Plan 2010 Natural Heritage Advisory Council to the State Land Board State Land Board Kate Brown Ted Kulongoski Ted Wheeler Secretary of State Governor State Treasurer Natural Heritage Advisory Council Voting Members Richard Brown Robert Chandler Stuart Garrett Charles Carter Alan Dickman Cathy Macdonald Ex-Officio Members Agriculture Director: Katy Coba, represented by Rebecca Currin Fish and Wildlife Director: Roy Elicker, represented by Holly Michaels Forestry Director: Marvin Brown, represented by Andrew Yost Higher Education Chancellor: George Pernsteiner, represented by Scott Heppell Parks and Recreation Director: Tim Wood, represented by Noel Bacheller State Lands Director: Louise Solliday, represented by Cyndi Wickham Transportation Director: Matt Garrett, represented by Bill Warncke This is the first Oregon Natural Areas Plan It is based on the Oregon Natural Heritage Plan, first published in 1981 and revised in 1988, 1993, 1998 and 2003 by the Natural Heritage Advisory Council and by the staff of the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center: Jimmy Kagan - Director/Ecologist Lindsey Koepke Wise – Data Manager Sue Vrilakas – Botanist and Data Manager Eleanor Gaines – Zoology Projects Manager John Christy – Wetlands Ecologist / Bryologist Chapters 4-7 from the 2009 Interagency Strategy for the Pacific Northwest Natural Areas Network, by Todd M. Wilson, Reid Schuller, Russ Holmes, Curt Pavola, Robert A. Fimbel, Cynthia N. McCain, John G. Gamon, Pene Speaks, Joan I. Seevers, Thomas E. DeMeo, and Steve Gibbons Cover Photograph: Starvation Creek, by Miles Hemstrom. State Ecoregion Maps by John Bauer, Chapter Ecoregional Maps by Melissa Whitman Cite this document as: Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory Council. 2010. Oregon Natural Areas Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Coquille Action Plan, Without Appendices
    South Fork Coquille Watershed Action Plan Coquille Watershed Association December 2, 2014 Final i Prepared by the South Fork Coquille Technical Advisory Committee Editor/Writer Denise Dammann List of Contributors Name Discipline Affliliation Pam Blake South Coast Basin Oregon Department of Coordinator Environmental Quality Dan Carpenter Hydrologist USDI Bureau of Land Management Karla Cottom Fisheries Biologist USDA U.S. Forest Service Denise Dammann Writer/Editor/Hydrologist USDA U.S. Forest Service Bruce Follansbee Resource Advisor Coquille Watershed Association Barbara Grant Conservation Reserve Curry Soil and Water Conservation Enhancement Program District (SWCD) (CREP) Technician for Coos and Curry Counties Jeff Jackson Habitat Restoration Oregon Department of Fish and Biologist Wildlife Pat Jones Soil Conservationist USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Stephanie Messerle Fisheries Biologist Bureau of Land Management Jim Muck Fisheries Biologist NOAA - Fisheries Caley Sowers Watershed Technical Coos SWCD Specialist Ron Steiner Senior Wildlife Biologist Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc. Madeleine VanderHeyden Fish and Wildlife Biologist USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Amy Wilson District Conservationist USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service ii This action plan is dedicated in memoriam to Kristle Warren-Volin. Kristle’s vision and dedication to the South Fork Coquille River was instrumental in producing the Inter-Fluve, Inc. report and this action plan. Kristle’s vision for the South Fork was that the watershed condition,
    [Show full text]
  • Place Keyword List (Preferred Words Only) 12 June 2007
    Place Keyword list (Preferred words only) 12 June 2007 ANTARCTICA AUSTRALIA 1 Southeastern Australia 1 Victoria BRAZIL 1 Rondonia CHINA 1 Chang Bai Biosphere Reserve FINLAND FRANCE GUATEMALA 1 Northern Guatemala ICELAND ITALY JAPAN 1 Hokkaido 1 Uryu Experimental Forest 2 Karuushinai River NEW ZEALAND NORTH AMERICA 1 Canada 2 British Columbia 3 University of British Columbia, Canada 2 Manitoba 3 Northern Manitoba 1 Central America 2 Costa Rica 3 LaSelva Biological Station, Costa Rica 3 Monte Verde, Costa Rica 3 Talamanca Mountain Range 2 Panama 3 Barro Colorado Island, Panama 1 Mexico 2 Boques de Cancun, Quintana Roo 2 Los Tuxtlas Experimental Forest, Unam, Veracruz, Mexico 2 Yucatan 3 Puerto Morelos 1 1 United States 2 Alaska 3 Arctic LTER site 3 Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest 3 Chitina River 3 El Outlet 3 Juneau, Alaska 3 Prince William Sound 3 Prince of Wales Island 3 Southeast Alaska 3 Tanana River 2 Arizona 3 Bill Williams River Wildlife Reserve 3 Lake Havasu City 3 Sycamore Creek 2 Arkansas 3 Ouachita Mountains 2 California 3 Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest 3 Blodgett State Research Park, California 3 California Coast 4 Caspar Creek Experimental Watersheds 4 Humboldt Redwoods State Park 5 Bull Creek 4 Redwood Creek Watershed 4 Redwood National Park 3 Kings Canyon National Park 3 Klamath Basin California 3 Mt. Shasta 3 Northern California 3 Northwest Sacramento 3 Sequoia National Park 4 Giant Forest 4 Sequoia National Park Reference Stands 3 Shasta County 4 Shasta Lake 3 Siskiyou County 2 Colorado 3 Arapaho National Forest 4 Fraser Experimental Forest 5 Rocky Mtn.
    [Show full text]
  • South Coast Section of Oregon Chart 4 Human Use and Management Chart Series
    Human Use and Management Chart Series South Coast Section of Oregon Chart 4 125°5'W 125°0'W 124°55'W 124°50'W 124°45'W 124°40'W 124°35'W 124°30'W 124°25'W 124°20'W 124°15'W 124°10'W 124°5'W A24 d n N A25 ' u o 0 R 3 - ° r a 3 e 4 Y N ' 5 2 ° 3 0 Coos Bay OPT 4 - 0 1 -1 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 - d 0 1 0 n 0 u 00 o R -5 - - r 1 a 0 e 0 Y -1 0 25 0 - -500 -1 00 m C - f 125 0 o 0 3 0 o 1 A - C s R B a y N ' North Bend 5 0 North 5 2 - ° Spit 101 3 540 4 00 N -5 ACEC ' y 0 2 a ° B 3 4 s 540 o o C ound ar-R 0 Ye 5 7 - - - -125 5 25 0 0 W Fk Millacoma 0 0 0 241 -5 Coos Bay 5 7 - 101 -125 Coos - County Park 1 Gregory Point/Squaw Island 101 0 0 0 Sunset Bay Sunset Beach Shore Acres State Park Park - -125 10 00 101 r South e Cape Arago iv North Cove Cape Arago N Slough R ' Intertidal Research Reserve 0 s 2 o ° o 3 C 4 - Cape Arago 0 5 N ' 0 0 Middle Cove Cape Arago 5 5 - 0 - 5 State Park 1 0 ° 0 3 4 5 South Cove 7 - Cape Arago - 0 1 0 2 -1 5 m f 101 0 5 -1 0 2 0 1 0 1 - 101 A C R - 42 1 2 - South Slough NERR 5 5 0 -125 0 Chin a US Se A26 gment N 42 TPC 5 - Segm 2 -5 ent J1 50 0 A27 m f 0 - 0 7 2 5 COOS A C R 5 TPC -7 5 Segm N ent T1 ' 5 1 ° 3 0 4 0 1 N ' - 0 Five Mile Point 1 China US ° Segment E 3 - 4 5 0 0 - 1 -10 0 00 5 0 7 d - n u 0 o Y 0 e 0 R 1 - a - r r - - a 1 R e 0 o Y 0 u n d 0 0 -1 - 5 1 2 0 -1 0 - 1 0 - 2 -12 0 5 5 0 Coquille - 2 r 5 0 Bullards Beach e 0 -25 iv State Park R e ill -100 u q N o ' C 0 1 ° 5 3 BANDON MARSH 4 2 - 5 N 2 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ' - 5 ° - 3 50 4 0 5 - 2 5 - 0 42S South Jetty -25 0 0 Coquille Point and Rocks -25 County
    [Show full text]