SAB Fall Chinook

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

SAB Fall Chinook HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN (HGMP) Hatchery Program: SAB Fall Chinook Species or Fall Chinook Stock-52 (Rogue stock) Hatchery Stock: Agency/Operator: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Clatsop Economic Development Council (CEDC) Watershed and Region: Lower Columbia River and Estuary Date Submitted: September 28, 2005 Date Last Updated: September 27, 2005 SECTION 1. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 1.1) Name of hatchery or program. Select Area Bright (SAB) Fall Chinook Salmon 1.2) Species and population (or stock) under propagation, and ESA status. The SAB fall chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) stock (stock 052) in the lower Columbia River (LCR) originated from Rogue River stock egg transfers to Big Creek Hatchery in 1982 and to CEDC’s South Fork Klaskanine Hatchery in 1983. The wild population of fall chinook in the lower Columbia River is part of the Lower Columbia River Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), which contains both fall and spring chinook. This ESU was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1999 (Federal Register Notice 1999). The SAB program fall chinook are not considered part of the Lower Columbia River chinook ESU. 1.3) Responsible organization and individuals Primary management responsibility: Name (and Title): John Thorpe, Chief of Fish Propagation Organization: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Address: 3406 Cherry Avenue, NE, Salem, OR 97303-4924 Telephone: (503) 947-6000 Fax: (503) 947-6202 Email: [email protected] Name (and title): Alan Meyer, Hatchery Manager, Big Creek Hatchery Agency or Tribe: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Address: 92892 Ritter Road, Astoria, OR 97103 Telephone: (503) 458-6512 Fax: (503) 458-6529 Email: [email protected] Name (and title): Alan Meyer, Hatchery Manager, Klaskanine Hatchery Agency or Tribe: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Address: 82635-202 Hatchery Road, Astoria, OR 97103 Telephone: (503) 325-3653 Fax: (503) 325-2476 Email: [email protected] Name (and title): Tod Jones, Hatchery Manager, SF Klaskanine Hatchery Agency or Tribe: Clatsop Economic Development Council (CEDC) Address: 2001 Marine Drive, Rm. 253, Astoria, OR 97103 Telephone: (503) 325-6452 Fax: (503) 325-2753 SAFE Fall Chinook Salmon HGMP 2 Email: [email protected] Name (and title): John North, ODFW Ocean Salmon/Col. River Asst. Fisheries Manager Agency or Tribe: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Address: 17330 SE Evelyn St, Clackamas, OR 97035 Telephone: (503) 657-2000 ext 251 Fax: (503) 657-2095 Email: [email protected] Other agencies, Tribes, co-operators, or organizations involved, including contractors, and extent of involvement in the program: ODFW R&E: 100% funding for SAB production at Big Creek Hatchery and approximately 50% at North Fork Klaskanine Hatchery BPA: Provides partial project funding (CEDC and ODFW-Big Creek/Klaskanine Hatcheries) WDFW: Co-manager of Columbia River fisheries under the Columbia River Compact Note: ODFW R&E funding for the 2005-2007 biennium was reduced by 50%. In addition, a water right request recently submitted by CEDC to obtain August- September water rights for the South Fork Klaskanine Hatchery was recently denied. These two recent developments may force relocation of the SAB broodstock program from North Fork Klaskanine Hatchery to the South Fork facility. The potential program change is currently being evaluated. Most of the descriptions and data presented herein represent the recent past and current program and do not reflect potential program modifications. 1.4) Funding source, staffing level, and annual hatchery program operational costs. Funding Sources: BPA - Approximately 75% funding for CEDC SAB Program (staff/production costs) - 50% funding for North Fork Klaskanine SAB Program ODFW R&E - 100% funding for SAB production at Big Creek Hatchery and approximately 50% of SAB funding at North Fork Klaskanine Hatchery - Approximately 25% funding for CEDC SAB Program (acclimation component) State of Oregon - additional funding for SAB program Voluntary Commercial Fishery Assessment Program - Partial funding for CEDC rearing Operational Information: Full time equivalent staff: CEDC: 7 FTE Klaskanine: 1.5 FTE Big Creek: 8 FTE SAFE Fall Chinook Salmon HGMP 3 Annual operating cost: CEDC: $743,800 Klaskanine: $382,534 Big Creek: $628,377 Comments: Funding and staffing levels for Big Creek and Klaskanine hatcheries and CEDC are for the entire facility and/or project and are not specific to the SAB fall chinook program. 1.5) Location(s) of hatchery and associated facilities. 1) Klaskanine Hatchery is at RM 3.0 on the North Fork Klaskanine River in the Columbia Estuary watershed, Clatsop County, Oregon. SAB program functions include: Primary broodstock source Broodstock collection Adult holding Spawning Juvenile rearing/acclimation 2) South Fork Klaskanine Hatchery is at RM 3.0 on the South Fork Klaskanine River in the Columbia Estuary Watershed, Clatsop County, Oregon. SAB program functions include: Broodstock source Broodstock collection Adult holding Spawning Incubation Juvenile rearing/acclimation Release location 3) Big Creek Hatchery is at RM 3.3 on Big Creek in the Columbia Estuary Watershed, Clatsop County, Oregon. SAB program functions include: Incubation Juvenile rearing 4) Youngs Bay Net Pens at RM 1.5-1.7 in Youngs Bay in the Columbia Estuary Watershed, Clatsop County, Oregon. SAB program functions include: Juvenile rearing Release location 5) Tidewater section of Youngs and Klaskanine Rivers at RM 8.0/0.0 on the Youngs and Klaskanine rivers, Columbia Estuary Watershed, Clatsop County, Oregon. SAB program functions include: Broodstock collection SAFE Fall Chinook Salmon HGMP 4 1.6) Type of program. Isolated Harvest 1.7) Purpose (Goal) of program. The primary goal of the program is to provide higher quality fall chinook for harvest in LCR Select Area commercial and recreational fisheries than the traditional tule chinook hatchery stock. Select Area fisheries provide harvest of hatchery-produced salmon released from and returning to Select Areas with minimal interception of non-SAFE salmon stocks. Thus, fishing opportunities can be maintained while helping to conserve naturally-produced native stocks. A secondary goal is to supplement harvest in Oregon commercial troll, Oregon ocean recreational, and Columbia River mainstem commercial and recreational fisheries. Select Area fisheries are managed to provide broodstock for the Klaskanine Hatchery SAB program (a separate HGMP). 1.8) Justification for the program. Select Area fisheries for SAB fall chinook provide harvest of a high quality hatchery-produced salmon released from and returning to Select Areas with minimal interception of non-SAFE salmon stocks. Select Area bright fall chinook are less mature and in prime condition upon return to the Columbia River estuary, compared to lower river tule stock fall chinook which are rapidly maturing and have poor flesh quality. Therefore, SAB fall chinook have a higher market value and provide greater economic benefit to local fisheries. In addition, because SAB fall chinook are Rogue River stock, they migrate south of the Columbia River when released, thereby providing opportunities for harvest in Oregon ocean commercial and recreational fisheries whereas tule fall chinook contribute to fisheries north of the Columbia River. Currently all (100%) smolts released are mass-marked with a left-ventral (LV) fin clip to facilitate identification and provide accountability in harvest, straying, and spawning programs. A 100% marking rate allows for selective harvest of hatchery fish while minimizing impacts on wild populations. The program was initially established at Big Creek and South Fork Klaskanine hatcheries but was eventually relocated to the North Fork Klaskanine Hatchery in 1996 to minimize straying of the stock which occurred with Big Creek releases. Straying is currently low and harvest rates have increased substantially since fish now migrate through the Youngs Bay Select Area fishery. 1.9) List of program “Performance Standards”. See Section 1.10 SAFE Fall Chinook Salmon HGMP 5 1.10) List of program “Performance Indicators”, designated by "benefits" and "risks." 1.10.1) “Performance Indicators” addressing benefits. Benefits Performance Standards Performance Indicators Monitoring & Evaluation Contribute hatchery fish to Harvest of SAB fall Fish buyer and dock-side target fisheries. chinook in LCR Select Area creels, recoveries of CWT commercial and recreational marked fish from fisheries. commercial and recreational sampling programs. Successfully maintain a Achieve a smolt to adult Marking and tagging of brood stock of SAB fall survival rate and specific release groups, plus chinook. escapement adequate to sampling of adult catch and collect 900 female escapement. broodstock. Design and implement Projects are identified, Research and monitoring projects that improve the reviewed, and implemented programs have and continue quality of the SAB fall that aim to increase survival to be incorporated into chinook program. of program fish while project designs. Examples minimizing impacts on wild of projects include: fish. rearing/release studies and feeding studies. See Section 12. Release groups that are Type and number of With the exception of the sufficiently marked for program marked fish, both 1987-1989 brood years, all proper identification. fin clips (mass marking) SAB fall chinook smolts and tags (group id.). have been uniquely
Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • SAFE Draft Biop 4.30.21
    Biological Opinion Select Area Fisheries Enhancement (SAFE) Spring Chinook and Coho Salmon Hatchery Programs Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Select Area Fisheries Enhancement (SAFE) Spring Chinook Salmon and Coho Salmon Programs NMFS Consultation Number: WCRO-2020-02145 Action Agencies: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Program Operators: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Clatsop County Fisheries (CCF) Affected Species and Determinations: Is Action Is Action Is Action Likely to Likely To Likely To Adversely Jeopardize Destroy or Affect Species the Species? Adversely ESA-Listed Species Status or Critical Modify Critical Habitat? Habitat? Lower Columbia River coho salmon T Yes No No (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Lower Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss) T Yes No No Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon (O. T Yes No No tshawytscha) Columbia River chum salmon (O. keta) T Yes No No Upper Willamette Spring Chinook Salmon (O. Yes No No T tshawytscha) Upper Willamette Winter Steelhead (O. mykiss) T No No No Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook E No No No salmon (O. tshawytscha) Snake River spring/summer run Chinook T Yes No No salmon (O. tshawytscha) 1 Biological Opinion Select Area Fisheries Enhancement (SAFE) Spring Chinook and Coho Salmon Hatchery Programs Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon (O. T No No No tshawytscha) Middle Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss) T No No No Upper Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss) T No No No Snake River Basin steelhead (O.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical and Geochemical Analyses of Selected Miocene Coastal Basalt Features, Clatsop County, Oregon
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1980 Geophysical and geochemical analyses of selected Miocene coastal basalt features, Clatsop County, Oregon Virginia Josette Pfaff Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geochemistry Commons, Geophysics and Seismology Commons, and the Stratigraphy Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Pfaff, Virginia Josette, "Geophysical and geochemical analyses of selected Miocene coastal basalt features, Clatsop County, Oregon" (1980). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3184. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.3175 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]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Virginia Josette Pfaff for the Master of Science in Geology presented December 16, 1980. Title: Geophysical and Geochemical Analyses of Selected Miocene Coastal Basalt Features, Clatsop County, Oregon. APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE: Chairman Gi lTfiert-T. Benson The proximity of Miocene Columbia River basalt flows to "locally erupted" coastal Miocene basalts in northwestern Oregon, and the compelling similarities between the two groups, suggest that the coastal basalts, rather than being locally erupted, may be the westward extension of plateau
    [Show full text]
  • Wallooskee-Youngs Confluence Restoration Project
    B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Wallooskee-Youngs Confluence Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment December 2014 DOE/EA-1974 This page left intentionally blank � Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................................................. i � Tables v � Figures ............................................................................................................................................................... vi � Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................... vi � Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 � Purpose of and Need for Action ............................................................................................................. 1-1 � 1.1 Need for Action .................................................................................................................................. 1-3 ­ 1.2 Purposes ............................................................................................................................................... 1-3 ­ 1.3 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1-4 ­ 1.3.1 Statutory Context .............................................................................................................
    [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]
  • 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
    [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]
  • Pacific Lamprey 2017 Regional Implementation Plan Lower
    Pacific Lamprey 2017 Regional Implementation Plan for the Lower Columbia/Willamette Regional Management Unit Lower Columbia Sub-Unit Submitted to the Conservation Team June 2017 Primary Authors Primary Editors J. Poirier, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service This page left intentionally blank I. Status and Distribution of Pacific lamprey in the RMU A. General Description of the RMU The Lower Columbia Sub-Unit within the Lower Columbia River/Willamette Regional Management Unit (RMU) is comprised of six 4th field HUCs that are situated within four EPA Level III ecoregions: the Coast Range, Willamette Valley, Puget Lowland, and Cascades (https://www.epa.gov/eco- research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states). Watersheds within the Lower Columbia River Sub-Unit range in size from 1,753 to 3,756 km2 and include the Lower Columbia-Sandy, Lewis, Upper and Lower Cowlitz, Lower Columbia-Clatskanie, and Lower Columbia River (Table 1). The spatial arrangements of these HUCs are displayed in Figure 1. A list of major tributaries within each HUC can be found in Appendix A. Figure 1. Map of watersheds within the Lower Columbia/Willamette RMU, Lower Columbia Sub-Unit. Lower Columbia Sub-Unit - Draft RIP Lower Columbia/Willamette RMU June 2017 Page 1 Table 1. Drainage Size and Level III Ecoregions of the 4th Field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Watersheds located within the Lower Columbia Sub-Unit. HUC Drainage Watershed Number Size (km2) Level III Ecoregion(s) Lower Columbia-Sandy 17080001 2,263 Willamette Valley, Cascades Lewis 17080002 2,719 Puget Lowland, Willamette Valley, Cascades Upper Cowlitz 17080004 2,654 Puget Lowland Lower Cowlitz 17080005 3,756 Puget Lowland, Cascades Lower Columbia-Clatskanie 17080003 2,349 Coast Range, Willamette Valley Lower Columbia 17080006 1,753 Coast Range B.
    [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]
  • Salmon Spawning Survey Procedures Manual 2012
    SALMON SPAWNING SURVEY PROCEDURES MANUAL 2012 OREGON ADULT SALMONID INVENTORY AND SAMPLING (OASIS) PROJECT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife October 2012 Coho Spawning Survey Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Page THE OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON AND WATERSHEDS .............................................................................. 1 OREGON ADULT SALMONID INVENTORY AND SAMPLING PROJECT ................................................... 2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Coho Salmon ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Chinook Salmon .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Chum Salmon ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Steelhead ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 COASTAL CHINOOK RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROJECT ............................................................... 4 SUPPLY LIST FOR SPAWNING SURVEYORS ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]