DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Columbia River Fisheries and Escapement Evaluation in Southwest Washington, 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lower Columbia River Fisheries and Escapement Evaluation in Southwest Washington, 2010 STATE OF WASHINGTON December 2014 Lower Columbia River Fisheries and Escapement Evaluation in Southwest Washington, 2010 Edited by Dan Rawding, Bryce Glaser, and Thomas Buehrens Washington Department of FISH AND WILDLIFE Fish Program FPT 14-10 Lower Columbia River Fisheries and Escapement Evaluation in Southwest Washington, 2010 Dan Rawding, Bryce Glaser and Thomas Buehrens, editors Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2108 Grand Blvd., Vancouver, WA 98661 November 2014 Executive Summary In 2010, The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) began implementation of an expanded monitoring program for Chinook and coho salmon populations in the Lower Columbia River (LCR) region of Southwest Washington (WDFW’s Region 5) and fishery monitoring in the lower mainstem of the Columbia River. The focus of this expanded monitoring was to 1) gather data on Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters – spawner abundance, including proportion of hatchery origin spawners (pHOS), spatial distribution, diversity, and productivity and 2) to increase the Coded Wire Tag (CWT) recovery rate from spawning grounds to meet regional standards, and 3) to evaluate the use of PIT tags to develop harvest rates for salmon and steelhead populations by having fishery samplers recovery PIT tags from fish being sampled for CWT in existing fisheries monitoring programs. Monitoring protocols and analysis methods utilized were intended to produce unbiased estimates with measurements of precision in an effort to meet NOAA monitoring guidelines (Crawford and Rumsey 2009). Funding for this program came from multiple sources: 1) the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) through the Lower Columbia Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Recovery Project (BPA Project #: 2010-036-00) ; 2) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) via Mitchell Act Monitoring, Evaluation and Reform (MA MER) funds; 3) NOAA via Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds (PCSRF) (administered thru the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO); 4) Washington State; 5) PacifiCorp (Lewis River Basin) and 6) Tacoma Power (Cowlitz River Basin). Lower Columbia River Fisheries and Escapement Evaluation November 2014 in Southwest Washington, 2010 This report is structured into four components: 1) Fall Chinook Salmon Escapement Estimates and Coded-Wire-Tag Recoveries in Washington’s Lower Columbia River Tributaries in 2010 • Key Results o Adult fall Chinook abundance was estimated using weir counts, open and closed mark-recapture models, Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC), redd counts, and peak count expansion depending on resources and survey conditions. o We estimated 38,460 adult Tule, 65 adult Rogue River Bright hatchery, 9,612 adult Lewis River Bright natural origin , and 1,657 adult Bonneville (BON) Pool Bright fall Chinook salmon in the Washington portion of the LCR ESU. o For Tules and BON Brights the proportion of marked adults was 79% and 58%, respectively. Age structure varied by population but most Tule Chinook salmon were age 3 or 4. o For Tules most populations were comprised primarily of hatchery fish except the Coweeman (70% unmarked), Lewis (73% unmarked), Lower Gorge (77% unmarked), and the White Salmon (73% unmarked). o A total of 184 snouts were collected from the field and examined for CWT. CWT recoveries were uploaded to the regional coded-wire-tag database (RMIS). Unexpanded CWT recoveries indicate most Tule hatchery fish returned to the basin of release or an adjacent basin. o BON Brights are not native to this ESU and are successfully spawning in the Upper Gorge and White Salmon populations. Rogue River Brights, also not native to this ESU, are successfully spawning in the Grays River. 2) Coho Salmon Escapement Estimates and Coded-Wire-Tag Recoveries in Washington’s Lower Columbia River Tributaries in 2010 • Key Results o The adult coho salmon population monitoring program used trap and haul census counts, mark-recapture, smolt expansion, and redd-based methods to monitor adult coho salmon. o We estimated a mean escapement of 57,666 (95% CI 48,240 - 70,751) adults and 4,428 jacks (95%CI 3,522 - 5,816) for the Washington portion of this ESU below Bonneville Dam excluding the mainstem Lower Cowlitz, mainstem Lower North Fork Lewis, mainstem Toutle/ lower North Fork Toutle (below the Sediment Retention Structure), and Salmon Creek populations. o The total mean estimate of unmarked coho salmon adults was 25,942 (95%CI 19,430 – 35,510). Lower Columbia River Fisheries and Escapement Evaluation November 2014 in Southwest Washington, 2010 o As expected, populations with an operating coho salmon hatchery, including the Grays, Elochoman, Upper Cowlitz/Cispus, Green, Kalama and Washougal rivers, had high proportions of hatchery spawners—(mean = 81%, 73%, 87%, 60%, 99%, and 44%, respectively). The converse was true for populations without hatcheries, such as the Mill-Abernathy-Germany, Lower Cowlitz, Coweeman, and South Fork Toutle populations, where we observed low percentages of marked adults—(mean = 12%, 15%, 10%, and 21%, respectively). o From carcass recoveries on stream surveys, a total of 84 CWTs were recovered from coho salmon in 2010. 3) Detection Probabilities for Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) Tags in Adult Salmon and Steelhead with Hand Held Scanners • Key Results o We completed a study to evaluate detection rates for PIT tags in adult salmonids in a fisheries sampling setting using a variety of tag scanner types under conditions similar to those expected in sampling of fisheries catch. o From 45 trials, the mean detection rate among all species using either a Destron Fearing FS2001F-ISO Reader Base Unit (DF) with racquet antenna or All Flex Model RS601-3 (AF) was 99.4% (95% CI = 98.5% - 100.0%), and was >99% for each species-reader type combination. o Short-term PIT tag retention estimates were approximately 98% for all three species (Chinook, coho and steelhead). 4) Estimates of Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Harvest Rates for the 2010 Fall Commercial and Treaty Fisheries based on Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) Tags • Key Results o The fall commercial fishery below Bonneville Dam (BON) and the fall treaty fishery above BON were sampled in 2010. Estimates of harvest rates below BON in the commercial fishery were less precise than above BON due to lower tagging rates of stocks caught in these fisheries and smaller numbers of tag recoveries in this area, in addition to a late start in sampling for PIT tags. o For the treaty fishery, coho salmon harvest rate estimates were similar for four hatchery groups and provided a precise estimate for the aggregate of ‘early’ coho salmon (17% with a 95%CI from 14% to 20%). Using a mixture model we estimated the harvest rate for the ‘late’ coho salmon group (4% with a 95%CI from 2% to 4%). o For steelhead, a total of 26 individual population and multiple DPS harvest estimates were calculated. Our harvest estimate for Snake Group B steelhead (8%) was lower than the Columbia River Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Lower Columbia River Fisheries and Escapement Evaluation November 2014 in Southwest Washington, 2010 estimate (15%), while our wild Snake Group A estimate (5%) and TAC’s Group A estimate (4%) were similar, but we noticed variation in Distinct Population Segment (DPS) estimates. For example, our Middle Columbia River DPS estimate was 3%, while our Upper Columbia River DPS estimate was 10%. o Our estimated Chinook salmon harvest rates were higher for Tule fall Chinook (64%) and lower for Snake River fall Chinook (9%), compared to the TAC estimates (51% and 18%, respectively). o We detected size selectivity in the fishery catch relative to the escapement based on PIT tag analysis. Since we did not estimate harvest rates by age or size, our harvest rate estimates were likely biased low for adults and large fish and biased high for jacks and smaller fish due to higher catch rates of larger fish in fisheries. Lower Columbia River Fisheries and Escapement Evaluation November 2014 in Southwest Washington, 2010 Relationship to the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion Work conducted by the BPA Lower Columbia River CWT Recovery Project (#2010-036-00) supports the following Reasonable and Prudent Actions (RPA) as identified in the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (FCRPS BiOp). http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/hydropower/fcrps_opinion/federal_columbia_river_power_system.html RPA: 50.4: Fund pilot studies in Wenatchee/Methow/Entiat Fund status and trend monitoring as a component of the pilot studies in the Wenatchee, Methow, and Entiat river basins in the Upper Columbia River, the Lemhi and South Fork Salmon river basins, and the John Day River Basin to further advance the methods and information needed for assessing the status of fish populations. (Initiate in FY 2007-2009 Project Funding) Relationship: This project provided PIT tag-based estimates of run timing and fishery-specific harvest rates for these salmon and steelhead populations at hierarchical spatial scales. 50.5: Provide additional status monitoring of SR B-Run Steelhead populations Provide additional status monitoring to ensure a majority of Snake River B-Run Steelhead populations are being monitored for population productivity and abundance. (Initiate by FY 2009) Relationship: This project provided PIT tag-based estimates of run timing and fishery-specific harvest rates for wild and hatchery B-run steelhead populations at hierarchical spatial scales. 50.6: Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring
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]
  • 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]
  • Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership : Jphoto Report on the Estuary
    ander Maten 2010 udy V Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership : JPhoto Report on the Estuary Investing for Results What’s Inside: ur 2010 Report on the Estuary for threatened and endangered what is in the system, contaminant is a five-year assessment of salmonids. EPA, USGS and NOAA sources, and impacts on wildlife and Oour progress to improve the completed several one-time studies human health to direct actions to overall health of the lower Columbia that improve our understanding of reduce contamination. Investment in River. It gives us the opportunity contaminants. EPA designated the habitat restoration needs to include to take a broad look at the state of Columbia Basin a Great Water Body. In all aspects of projects and link to the river so we can focus future February, Congressman Blumenauer toxics reduction. Water Quality investments where they can be and Senator Merkley introduced the Pollutant Level Trends . 2 most effective. Columbia River Restoration Act of We need to acknowledge that results Land Use come slowly; earth systems measure 2010 to formally raise the stature of Land Cover Trends . 6 We track five measures: pollutant the Columbia to that of the Chesapeake time in thousands of years, not a levels, land cover trends, citizen Bay and other great water bodies. human lifetime and certainly not Stewardship engagement, habitat restoration and two or four year cycles. Results may Education Program Trends . 8 Citizen Volunteering Trends . .9 endangered species. The Estuary There have been challenges. come from one or two large actions; Partnership is involved with all Investment in the Columbia lags far more likely it will be the accumulation Reference these efforts, sometimes supporting behind other major water bodies of many actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Analysis Report
    PACIFIC COUNTY Grant No. G1400525 Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County Prepared for: Pacific County 1216 W. Robert Bush Drive PO Box 68 South Bend, WA 98586 Prepared by: STRATEGY | ANALYSIS | COMMUNICATIONS 2025 First Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle WA 98121 110 Main St # 103 Edmonds, WA 98020 Drafted June 2014, Public Draft September 2014, Revised January 2015, This report was funded in part Final June 2015 through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology. The Watershed Company Reference Number: 130727 Cite this document as: The Watershed Company, BERK, and Coast and Harbor Engineering. June 2015. Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County. Prepared for Pacific County, South Bend, WA. Acknowledgements The consultant team wishes to thank the Pacific County Shoreline Planning Committee, who contributed significant comments and materials toward the development of this report. The Watershed Company June 2015 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Page # Readers Guide .................................................................................. i 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ............................................................................. 1 1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction ................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 4 2 Summary of Current Regulatory Framework
    [Show full text]
  • A. Chinook Salmon Background and History of Listings
    A. CHINOOK SALMON A.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF LISTINGS Primary contributor: James M. Myers (Northwest Fisheries Science Center) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Walbaum), also commonly referred to as king, spring, quinnat, Sacramento, California, or tyee salmon, is the largest of the Pacific salmon (Myers et al. 1998). The species historically ranged from the Ventura River in California to Point Hope, AK in North America, and in northeastern Asia from Hokkaido, Japan to the Anadyr River in Russia (Healey 1991). Additionally, chinook salmon have been reported in the Mackenzie River area of Northern Canada (McPhail and Lindsey 1970). Chinook salmon exhibit very diverse and complex life-history strategies. Healey (1986) described 16 age categories for chinook salmon, seven total ages with three possible freshwater ages. This level of complexity is roughly comparable to sockeye salmon (O. nerka), although sockeye salmon have a more extended freshwater residence period and utilize different freshwater habitats (Miller and Brannon 1982, Burgner 1991). Two generalized freshwater life-history types were initially described by Gilbert (1912): “stream-type” chinook salmon reside in freshwater for a year or more following emergence, whereas “ocean-type” chinook salmon migrate to the ocean predominately within their first year. Healey (1983, 1991) has promoted the use of broader definitions for “ocean-type” and “stream-type” to describe two distinct races of chinook salmon. This racial approach incorporates life-history traits, geographic distribution, and genetic differentiation and provides a valuable frame of reference for comparisons of chinook salmon populations. For this reason, the BRT has adopted the broader “racial” definitions of ocean- and stream-type for this review.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018-2027 United States V. Oregon MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
    Case 3:68-cv-00513-MO Document 2607-1 Filed 02/26/18 Page 1 of 120 2018-2027 United States v. Oregon Management Agreement Case 3:68-cv-00513-MO Document 2607-1 Filed 02/26/18 Page 2 of 120 2018-2027 United States v. Oregon MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE .................................................................................................................................. 1 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 A. PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................................. 1 B. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT ................................................................................................. 2 1. Nature of Agreement ........................................................................................................ 2 2. ESA Section 7 and NEPA Processes................................................................................ 3 3. Party Positions .................................................................................................................. 4 4. Court Technical Advisor .................................................................................................. 4 5. Availability of Funds ........................................................................................................ 5 6. Management Precision ..................................................................................................... 5
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) Concurrence Request
    Commanding Officer 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N United States Coast Guard Oakland, CA 94612-5203 Civil Engineering Unit Oakland Staff Symbol: EMB Phone: (510) 637-5567 5090 12 May 2021 Deanna Caracciolo State-Federal Relations Coordinator, Oregon Coastal Managemment Program Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2540 Re: Coastal Consistency Determination for Coast Guard Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal Project Dear Ms. Caracciolo: The US Coast Guard (CG) is submitting this Coastal Consistency Determination for the CG Station Cape Disappointment Maintenance Dredge and Disposal project. In accordance with Section 930.35(d) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Federal Consistency Regulations (15 CFR 930), submittal of this Coastal Consistency Determination reflects CG’s commitment to comply, to the maximum extent practicable, with enforceable coastal policies and goals of the State of Oregon. The CG has determined that the proposed activity would be consistent with enforceable policies and goals under the Oregon Coastal Management Plan (OCMP) and would result in no adverse environmental impacts. In accordance with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, Section 307(c)(1), the enclosed Coastal Consistency Determination demonstrates that the proposed activity will be undertaken in a manner to minimize effects on coastal uses and resources. The CG respectfully requests your concurrence with its determination for the proposed project. When completed, please email a letter of concurrence to Mr. William Robinson, at [email protected]. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Source Watershed Control Plan at Least Every Six Years
    Source Watershed Control Plan City of Ilwaco September 2015 Ilwaco Source Water Control Plan 2015 Prepared for: PO Box 548 Ilwaco, WA 98624 Prepared by: Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce 818 Commercial Street, Suite 203 Astoria, OR 97103 Prepared with funding from: Washington State Department of Health Special thanks to the following contributors: Rick Gray, City of Ilwaco Daryl Gardner, City of Ilwaco Dave Mckee, City of Ilwaco Nadia Gardner, Columbia Land Trust Darin Stringer, Pacific Stewardship LLC Tom Kollasch, The Nature Conservancy Nick Somero, USDA NRCS Ilwaco Source Water Control Plan 2015 Table of Contents 1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 2 Source Water System .......................................................................................................... 3 3 Delineation ......................................................................................................................... 4 4 Geography ........................................................................................................................... 5 5 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 7 6 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 9 7 Land Use and Activities .................................................................................................... 11 8 Source Water Vulnerability .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]