DOCSLIB.ORG

1938-2000 STATUS REPORT Columbia River Fish Runs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1938-2000 STATUS REPORT Columbia River Fish Runs 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. Many of these duties are carried out in cooperation with the Columbia River treaty Indian tribes, the United States, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Contents Page INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................2 Hydro Development ..............................................................................................2 Hatchery Development .........................................................................................6 Fishery Development............................................................................................6 FISHERIES ...................................................................................................................11 Introduction.........................................................................................................11 Regulations.........................................................................................................11 Columbia River Compact .........................................................................11 Columbia River Fish Management Plan...................................................13 Endangered Species Act .........................................................................13 Management Agreements........................................................................13 In-season Management ...........................................................................14 Water Conditions ................................................................................................14 Non-Indian Commercial Fishery .........................................................................18 Treaty Indian Fishery ..........................................................................................22 Non-Indian Recreational Fishery ........................................................................25 Lower Columbia Fishery ..........................................................................25 Buoy 10 Fishery .......................................................................................26 FISH RUNS ...................................................................................................................28 Spring Chinook Salmon ......................................................................................28 Biology .....................................................................................................28 Historic Status..........................................................................................28 Summer Chinook Salmon...................................................................................29 Biology .....................................................................................................29 Historic Status..........................................................................................29 Fall Chinook Salmon...........................................................................................30 Biology .....................................................................................................30 Historic Status..........................................................................................30 Sockeye Salmon.................................................................................................32 Biology .....................................................................................................32 Historic Status..........................................................................................32 Coho Salmon......................................................................................................33 Biology .....................................................................................................33 Historic Status..........................................................................................33 Chum Salmon.....................................................................................................34 Biology .....................................................................................................34 Historic Status..........................................................................................34 Winter Steelhead ................................................................................................35 Biology .....................................................................................................35 Historic Status..........................................................................................35 Summer Steelhead.............................................................................................36 Biology .....................................................................................................36 Historic Status..........................................................................................36 Smelt ..................................................................................................................37 Biology .....................................................................................................37 Historic Status..........................................................................................37 Shad ...................................................................................................................38 Biology .....................................................................................................38 Historic Status..........................................................................................38 White Sturgeon...................................................................................................39 Biology .....................................................................................................39 Historic Status..........................................................................................39 Green Sturgeon ..................................................................................................41 Biology .....................................................................................................41 Historic Status..........................................................................................41 Walleye...............................................................................................................42 Biology .....................................................................................................42 Historic Status..........................................................................................42 RUN STATUS AND HARVEST .....................................................................................43 Spring Chinook ...................................................................................................43 Lower River Run ......................................................................................43 Status ............................................................................................43 Non-Indian Commercial Harvest ...................................................43 Non-Indian Recreational Harvest ..................................................46 Upriver Run..............................................................................................47 Status ............................................................................................47 Non-Indian Commercial Harvest ...................................................49 Treaty Indian Commercial Harvest ................................................50 Treaty Indian Ceremonial and Subsistence Harvest .....................52 Non-Indian Recreational
Load more

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]
  • 2015 Proceedings
    Day 1: Tuesday December 1st 9:00am Registration Begins 1:10pm Welcome: Scott Patterson (ODFW) 1:20pm Welcome: Curt Melcher (ODFW) 1:40pm Keynote Speaker, Steve Williams Session #1: Aquaculture in Fisheries Management Session Chair: Ryan Queen (ODFW) 2:10pm Kyle Bratcher (Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife) Getting 66th Annual Northwest Fish Culture paid to fish? Using a tag-reward model to evaluate a Concepts: stocked trout fishery in Wallowa Lake, Oregon 2:30pm Michelle Scanlan (Oregon State University) Trans-located Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): Using geomagnetic A Workshop for Fish Culturists orientation responses for invasion risk assessment “Angling for Sustainability” 2:50pm Andy Dittman (NWFSC, NMFS) Effects of hatchery-rearing practices on olfactory imprinting in Pacific salmon 3:10pm Afternoon Break December 1 – 3, 2015 3:40pm Door Prize Drawing Holiday Inn Portland South 3:50pm Garth Wyatt (Portland General Electric (PGE)) “Hey you, Wilsonville, Oregon get your hands off me!” An overview of PGE’s new hands- free adult fish sorting facility at the North Fork Dam on the Clackamas River near Estacada, Oregon Hosted by: 4:10pm Todd Alsbury (Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife) The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Controlling stray hatchery fish with various styles of weirs 4:30pm Terry Shrader (Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife) Use of fluorescent grit marking as a means of mass marking salmonids 4:50pm Hall of Fame Induction 5:00pm Announcements/Door Prize Drawing/Adjourn 5:30-9:00pm Poster Session/Vendor Social Day 2: Wednesday
    [Show full text]
  • Stop Catching Aleutian Cod • Good Prices for Halibut
    LEARN HOW TO DROWN EFFECTIVELYY COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN’S FESTIVAL See Page 22 www.pacifi cfi shing.com THE BUSINESS MAGAZINE FOR FISHERMENN ■ SEPTEMBERSEPE TETEMBERR 201020010 BBigig mmoneyoney fforor ssalmonalmon US $2.95/CAN. $3.95 • BBiOp:iOp: SStoptop ccatchingatching AAleutianleutian ccodod 09 • GGoodood ppricesrices fforor hhalibutalibut 63126 • DDirectirect mmarketingarketing ffromrom yyourour bboatoat The first wholesale value of Alaska salmon reached $1,069,400,000, and the price paid to fishermen reached a 13-year high, boosting state and local economies and the private sector. Photo: © Steve Lee Photo: © Steve Lee Alaska Ex-Vessel Value, Alaska Salmon Value Growth: Key Commercial Species Ex-Vessel and First Wholesale $2,000 $1,200 $1,000 $1,600 $800 $1,200 $600 $800 2007-2008 $400 $400 Increase 14.4% Value ($ millions) Value ($ millions) $200 $0 $0 2003 2004 2005 20062007 2008 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: ADF&G, NMFS, SMIS estimates Ex-Vessel First Wholesale Value, selected products Combined value of salmon, pollock, P-cod, sablefish & halibut, Source: ADF&G, AK Dept. of Revenue shellfish, other groundfish Selected products: fresh and frozen H&G, fresh and frozen fillet, salmon roe, canned salmon Check out the industry e-newsletter Newsbrief on the Seafood Industry portion of the ASMI website, www.alaskaseafood.org. Subscribe to Newsbrief and Seafood Market Information Service. Check out Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute on Facebook, where you’ll find a link to a new 60-second video on You Tube about Alaska bears, whales and fishermen. iversar nn y A h t 0 1980-2010 3 IN THIS ISSUE Editor's note ® THE BUSINESS MAGAZINE FOR FISHERMEN Crapped up INSIDE: Don McManman Once, in my checkered career, I held a position of sobriety and trust.
    [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]
  • Okanogan Summer/Fall Chinook
    Harvest Framework for Non-treaty Fisheries directed at Salmonids originating above Priest Rapids Dam April 2006 Prepared by Heather Bartlett and Bill Tweit Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capital Way N. Olympia, WA 98501 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii List of Figures................................................................................................................................. ii Purpose............................................................................................................................................ 1 Stakeholder Involvement ................................................................................................................ 2 Upper Columbia summer/fall Chinook........................................................................................... 3 Background –.............................................................................................................................. 3 ESA listing status –..................................................................................................................... 3 Management strategy -................................................................................................................ 4 Escapement objective - ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Chinook Juvenile Sampling and Adult Monitoring in the Mid-Columbia
    CRITFC TECHNICAL REPORT 06-5 503.238.0667 www.critfc.org Summer Chinook Juvenile Sampling and Adult Monitoring in the Mid-Columbia 2005 Progress and Final Report to Southeast Sustainable Salmon Fund Projects No. 45060 and 45289: A Stock Assessment and Research Plan For Mid-Columbia River Summer Chinook, Parts I and II Peter F. Galbreath, Peter E. Barber, Shawn R. Narum, Dani Evenson, and 729 NE Oregon, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97232 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Saang-Yoon Hyun October 24, 2006 Summer Chinook Juvenile Sampling and Adult Monitoring in the Mid-Columbia 2005 Progress and Final Report to Southeast Sustainable Salmon Fund Projects No. 45060 and 45289: A Stock Assessment and Research Plan For Mid-Columbia River Summer Chinook, Parts I and II Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Technical Report 06-5 Peter F. Galbreath1, Peter E. Barber2, Shawn R. Narum3, Dani Evenson1 and Saang-Yoon Hyun1 1 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 729 NE Oregon, Portland OR 97232 2 Yakama Nation Fisheries, Methow Field Office, Twisp WA 98856 3 Collaborative Center for Applied Fish Science 3059-F National Fish Hatchery Road, Hagerman ID 83332 October 24, 2006 Please cite as: Galbreath, P. F., P. E. Barber, S. R. Narum, D. Evenson and S.-Y. Hyun. 2006. Summer Chinook Juvenile Sampling and Adult Monitoring in the Mid-Columbia. Southeast Sustainable Salmon Fund Project Numbers: 45060 and 45289, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Technical Report 06-4, Portland, Oregon (http://www.critfc.org/tech/tech_rep.html). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    [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]