DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment of the Status of Oregon Populations of Natural Coho Salmon Spawners in the Lower Columbia River, 2002 E. T. Brown S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment of the Status of Oregon Populations of Natural Coho Salmon Spawners in the Lower Columbia River, 2002 E. T. Brown S Assessment of the Status of Oregon Populations of Natural Coho Salmon Spawners in the Lower Columbia River, 2002 E. T. Brown S. E. Jacobs D. A. Kreager Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3406 Cherry Drive N. E. Salem, Oregon 97303 September 2003 This work was financed in part by the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program (Mitchell Act) administered by NOAA Fisheries, Project NA17FH1628. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 1 MONITORING DESIGN............................................................................................ 2 METHODS................................................................................................................ 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 6 Assessment of Survey Conditions........................................................................ 6 Spawn Timing ......................................................................................................... 8 Spawning Distribution.......................................................................................... 13 Coded-Wire Tag Recoveries ................................................................................ 15 Trends In Spawner Abundance ........................................................................... 17 Estimates of Spawner Abundance ...................................................................... 19 PLANS FOR 2003 .................................................................................................. 22 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... 23 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX A.......................................................................................................... 25 Randomly Selected Spawning Surveys, 2002 .................................................... 25 INTRODUCTION Natural populations of coho salmon inhabiting the lower Columbia River (LCR) are listed as Endangered under the State of Oregon’s Endangered Species Act and are a candidate species for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/cohoswwa.htm). The State of Oregon has developed a plan to recover populations of LCR coho inhabiting tributaries within the state (Chilcote 2003). This plan calls for enhanced efforts to monitor the status and trends of these stocks by providing rigorous annual estimates of spawner abundance. This work is intended to provide a framework for future adult spawner assessment and expansion of monitoring to include juvenile abundance estimates and habitat assessment beginning in 2003. This report describes work accomplished during the first season of enhanced spawner abundance monitoring. BACKGROUND Since 1949, peak counts from spawning fish surveys conducted in ten standard index areas have been used to assess trends of naturally spawning populations of LCR coho salmon. The geographic boundaries for each of these populations are presented in Table 1 and Figure 1. In addition to the index streams, supplemental surveys were conducted between 1959 to1974 to obtain a wider perspective on LCR coho escapement and productivity (Ollerenshaw 2003). Peak counts have trended downward since the early seventies, and in July 1999 the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) listed wild (naturally produced) LCR coho salmon as an endangered species. Table 1. Lower Columbia River coho salmon population complex boundary descriptions. Population Stream Spawn Complex Boundary Description Miles Miles All Columbia tributaries from mouth upstream to, and Astoria 383 71 including, the Gnat Creek basin. All Columbia tributaries upstream of Gnat Creek to and Clatskanie 172 35 including the Clatskanie River Basin. All Columbia River tributaries upstream of Clatskanie Scappoose River to but not including the mouth of the Willamette 323 71 River The Clackamas River basin and all tributaries of the 704a 261a Clackamas Willamette River downstream of Willamette Falls 314b 116b All Columbia River tributaries upstream of the mouth of 431a 108a Sandy the Willamette River to and including the Sandy River 169c 21c basin. All Columbia River tributaries upstream of the Sandy Bonneville 325 8 River to and including the Hood River. a Entire basin. b Downstream from North Fork Dam. c Downstream from Marmot Dam. 1 Six population complexes were tentatively identified as independent wild populations and provided the framework for a LCR coho Recovery Plan (Chilcote, 1999). Only two of these complexes, the Sandy and the Clackamas, were believed to harbor self- sustaining wild coho populations. In 2001 funds were appropriated to develop a systematic monitoring program to more comprehensively assess each of the complexes. Figure 1. Geographic boundaries of the six population complexes for coho salmon in the lower Columbia. MONITORING DESIGN The monitoring design for LCR coho was based upon the design developed and used for coastal Oregon coho salmon monitoring efforts (Jacobs et al., 2002), which utilized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Monitoring Assessment protocol (EMAP) (Stevens, 2002). The selection frame was created by adapting Stream Net’s 1:1000k Geographic Information System (GIS) coho coverage (http://www.streamnet.org) to identify coho spawning and rearing habitat. Figure 2 depicts the coverage used as a sampling frame. Potential survey sites were selected following EMAP protocol with the goal of establishing 90 spawning survey sites over the entire study area. Points were geographically balanced within each of the six complexes. To allow for contingencies, 124 sites were selected. The geographic locations of randomly selected sites and their outcomes are illustrated in Figure 3. Landownership was determined using County assessors’ databases to reconcile site maps with tax lot information. In cases of absentee or corporate ownership, permission request letters were mailed. In June, biologists 2 assessed selected sites to determine habitat quality and accessibility. All landowners on those sites deemed suitable were contacted. Upon receiving landowner permission, verification crews conducted additional assessments to ensure survey validity in accordance with the Coastal Salmonid Inventory Project protocol (Jacobs and Nickelson, 1998). Spawning survey signs were placed at the boundaries of each survey, and a description was written which included maps and a database of site statistics and information. Landowner information was similarly entered into a database. Figure 2. Map (1:100K) of sampling frame showing areas considered to be coho salmon spawning habitat for the lower Columbia. Some of the1:24K stream reaches selected as spawning habitat included in the sampling frame are not depicted. Spawning habitat upstream from dams is not included in the sampling frame. Ninety of the 124 selected sites (72%) were ultimately verified as suitable for inclusion in the sampling (Table 2 and Appendix A). The geographic distribution of verification sites and their status is shown in Figure 3. The database of spawning habitat and GIS coverage of spawning distribution was revised to reflect the results of field verification. An additional ten standard surveys and one supplementary survey were added to the sample to continue trend information, and are detailed in Table 3. 3 Table 2. Spawning survey site selection by population complex, 2002. Population Spawning Potential Sites Sites Standard Complex Miles Sites Verified Dropped Sites Astoria 71 27 15 12 2 Clatskanie 35 18 16 2 2 Scappoose 71 28 22 7 4 Clackamas 116 41 29 11 2 Sandy 21 5 4 1 0 Bonneville 8 5 4 1 1a Total 322 124 90 34 11 a Supplemental survey site. Figure 3. Outcome of summer of 2002 site verification. Sites that were classified as dropped, inaccessible, or access denied were not surveyed in 2002 but may be randomly selected in the future. Sites that were classified assumed zero are thought to include no spawning habitat, and will be excluded from future site selection. 4 Table 3. Standard and supplemental surveys conducted in the Lower Columbia River, 2002. Seg- Subasin Reach ID ment Survey Name Type Miles Main Stem 30089.00 2 Youngs River Standard 0.3 Main Stem 30171.00 3 Little Creek Standard 1.2 Main Stem 30303.00 1 Carcus Creek Standard 1.3 Upper Clatskanie River Main Stem 30308.50 2 Standard 0.9 (Wilark Unit) Milton Creek 30802.00 2 Salmon Creek Standard 0.3 Milton Creek 30803.00 3 Milton Creek Standard 0.3 S. Scappoose Cr. 30824.00 1 Raymond Creek Standard 1 Sierks Creek N. Scappoose Cr. 30831.00 1 Standard 0.3 (Deep Creek) Main Stem 30896.00 2 Tickle Creek Standard 1.6 Main Stem 30901.00 4 Deep Creek Standard 2 Multnomah Creek 33607.00 1 Multnomah Creek Supplemental 0.1 METHODS Surveys were divided geographically between two two-person crews based in Astoria and Sauvie Island, and one three-person crew based in Clackamas. Surveys were performed within a ten-day rotation, beginning in the second week of October and ending in the third week of January (after two consecutive weeks of zero live counts). Live coho observations were tallied as fin-clipped (adipose), unmarked, unknown mark adults; or as jacks (< 43 cm MEPS length).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pacific Lamprey 2018 Regional Implementation Plan for the Lower Columbia/Willamette Regional Management Unit Lower Columbia Sub-Unit
    Pacific Lamprey 2018 Regional Implementation Plan for the Lower Columbia/Willamette Regional Management Unit Lower Columbia Sub-Unit Submitted to the Conservation Team August 6th, 2018 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 River sub-unit within the Lower Columbia River/Willamette Regional Management Unit includes watersheds that drain into the Columbia River mainstem from Bonneville Dam at Rkm 235, west to confluence of the Columbia River with the Pacific Ocean. It is comprised of six 4th field HUCs ranging in size from 1,753−3,756 km2 (Table 1). Watersheds within the Lower Columbia River sub-unit include the Lower Columbia-Sandy, Lewis, Upper and Lower Cowlitz, Lower Columbia-Clatskanie, and Lower Columbia River (Figure 1). Figure 1. Map of watersheds within the Lower Columbia/Willamette RMU, Lower Columbia sub-unit. 1 Lower Columbia sub-unit – Regional Implementation Plan August 6, 2018 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. Status of Species Conservation Assessment and New Updates Current Pacific Lamprey distribution in the Lower Columbia sub-unit is greatly reduced from historical range (Table 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II
    Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II Chum 211 Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II Coastal Chum Existing Populations Chum salmon found along the Oregon Coast are at the southern end of the species’ range. There is limited information on the historic distribution of chum salmon, which has made it difficult to determine how many historic populations there were and where they were located. The identification of thirteen historical populations was based on historical records of commercial landings of chum from bay and river fisheries (Table 80). Only occasional records were found to substantiate the existence of the five most southern populations. In the Alsea and Coos basins, there continue to be occasional sightings of chum salmon during fall chinook and coho spawning surveys. It is possible the occasional historic landings and current sightings in the southern basins were the result of non-native chum entering these bays or misidentification. For this report, we have identified the five southern-most populations as either extinct or presumed extinct (see “Population Details” below). A more thorough examination of the evidence during the development of a conservation plan for the Coastal Chum SMU may determine that there were no historical populations south of the Yaquina River. Effects of historical fisheries on existing populations are unclear but it is possible that the current distribution and status of populations has been shaped by historical fisheries. Table 80. Population list and existence status for the Coastal Chum SMU. Exist Population Description Yes Necanicum Necanicum River basin plus ocean tributaries south to Cape Falcon. Yes Nehalem Nehalem River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Geophysical Study of the North Scappoose Creek, Alder Creek, Clatskanie River Lineament, Along the Trend of the Portland Hills Fault, Columbia County, Oregon
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1982 A geophysical study of the North Scappoose Creek, Alder Creek, Clatskanie River lineament, along the trend of the Portland Hills fault, Columbia County, Oregon Nina Haas Portland State University Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geology Commons, and the Tectonics and Structure Commons Recommended Citation Haas, Nina, "A geophysical study of the North Scappoose Creek, Alder Creek, Clatskanie River lineament, along the trend of the Portland Hills fault, Columbia County, Oregon" (1982). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3254. 10.15760/etd.3244 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. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Nina Haas for the Master of Science in Geology presented December 15, 1982. Title: A Geophysical Study of the North Scappoose Creek - Alder Creek - Clatskanie River Lineament, Along the Trend of the Portland Hills Fault, Columbia County, Oregon. APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE: Chairman Giibett • Benson The Portland Hills fault forms a strong northwest trending lineament along the east side of the Tualatin Mountains. An en echelon lineament follows North Scappoose Creek, Alder Creek, and the Clatskanie River along the same trend, through Columbia County, Oregon. The possibility that this lineament follows a fault or fault zone was investigated in this study. Geophysical methods were used, with seismic 2 refraction, magnetic and gravity lines run perpendicular to the lineament.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Restoration for Native Fish Populations Clackamas Partnership
    Watershed Restoration for Native Fish Populations Clackamas Partnership Strategic Restoration Action Plan July 2018 Strategic Restoration Action Plan Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Clackamas Partnership ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Fish Populations and Geographic Focus ..................................................................................................................... 3 Restoration and Conservation Emphasis.................................................................................................................... 7 2. Ecological Outcomes: Restored Aquatic Habitat and Watershed Processes ...................................................... 9 2025: Targeted Restoration Outcomes .................................................................................................................... 11 3. Scope, Vision, and Guiding Principles ............................................................................................................ 15 Geographic Scope ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 Partner Geographic Coverage .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Columbia/Willamette Regional Management Unit Lower Columbia Sub-Unit
    Pacific lamprey 2015 Regional Implementation Plan for the Lower Columbia/Willamette Regional Management Unit Lower Columbia Sub-Unit First Draft Submitted to the Conservation Team June 1, 2015 Primary Authors Primary Editors XXX C. Wang, YYY H. Schaller, R. Rhew ZZZ This page left intentionally blank I. Status and Distribution of Pacific lamprey in the RMU A. General Description of the RMU Lower Columbia Sub-Unit: Within the Lower Columbia River/Willamette Regional Management Unit (RMU) the Lower Columbia River Sub-Unit includes the Sandy, Lewis, Upper and Lower Cowlitz, Clatskanie, and Lower Columbia watersheds. It is comprised of four Level III Ecoregions described by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm). The watersheds within this sub- regions range in size from 1,740 to 3,781 km2 for the 6 HUCs. The spatial arrangements of these HUCs are displayed in Figure 1 and sizes of HUCs are in Table1. Figure 1. Map of watersheds within the Lower Columbia River/Willamette Region (taken directly from the USFWS Conservation Assessment, Luzier et al. 2011). Lower Columbia River Sub‐Unit ‐ Draft RIP Lower Columbia/Willamette RMU June 11, 2015 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 2,875 Willamette Valley, Cascades Lewis 17080002 2,797 Puget Lowland, Willamette Valley, Cascades Upper Cowlitz 17080004 2,668 Puget Lowland Lower Cowlitz 17080005 3,781 Puget Lowland, Cascades Lower Columbia-Clatskanie 17080003 2,321 Coast Range, Willamette Valley Lower Columbia 17080006 1,740 Coast Range B.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas Volume 1 of 1
    COLUMBIA COUNTY, OREGON AND INCORPORATED AREAS VOLUME 1 OF 1 COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER CLATSKANIE, CITY OF 410035 COLUMBIA CITY, CITY OF 410036 COLUMBIA COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS 410034 PRESCOTT, CITY OF 410037 RAINIER, CITY OF 410038 SCAPPOOSE, CITY OF 410039 ST. HELENS, CITY OF 410040 VERNONIA, CITY OF 410041 Effective: November 26, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study Number 41009CV000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for the community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g. floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone New Zone A1 through A30 AE V1 through V30 VE B X (shaded) C X (unshaded) Part or all of this FIS report may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS report may be revised by a Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. This FIS report was revised on November 26, 2010. User should refer to Section 10.0, Revision Descriptions, for further information.
    [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]
  • Real Estate Auction
    REAL ESTATE AUCTION 3,028± Acre Lower Columbia River Hybrid Poplar Tree Farm Columbia County, Oregon • 2,000± acres of investment-grade poplar plantations, with near-term asset growth • Significant water rights for irrigation, providing conversion opportunity to higher value crops • Potential conservation and recreation values due to strategic location within Pacific Flyway, along Columbia and Clatskanie Rivers, and proximity to Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge, and Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for Columbian White-Tailed Deer SEALED BIDS DUE NOVEMBER 13, 2019 www.rmnw-auctions.com Preferred Lender Washington Auction License #1917 REALTY MARKETING / NORTHWEST, Broker 522 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 725, Portland, Oregon 97204 This 3,028± acre tree farm is one of the largest private land portfolios for sale along the lower Columbia River, with combination of agriculture, recreation, and conservation value components. The portfolio is owned by an investment fund, and is being offered for the first time in this Sealed Bid Auction in bulk, and also in twelve individual parcels which range from 54± to 817± acres, ex- panding the base of prospective buyers. The 2,000± acres of investment-grade hybrid poplar plantations will provide significant asset growth within five years, and potential for cash flow from improved domestic and export markets for hard- wood chips. An estimated 68,055 BDT (bone dry tons) can be generated from the entire tree farm, based on age class of the plantations, by 2025. Water rights for irrigation cover 1,398± acres, or 46% of the portfolio. Located in the eastern section of the tree farm near Port Westward Industrial Park, the water rights provide opportunity for conver- sion to post-harvest higher value crops on a commercial scale, including for blueberries, mint, and hemp.
    [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]
  • Discoveryour Fun! Movies in the Park Recmobile Summer Camps and More!
    summer 2017 GUIDE . Discoveryour fun! movies in the park recmobile summer camps and more! TEAR-OUT SUMMER FUN GUIDE INSIDE! | NCPRD.COM DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE Summer is finally here and the sunshine and warmer weather bring endless possibilities for fun and adventure.As you start planning your summer activities and outdoor excursions, we hope you’ll use this Discovery Guide to explore the many benefits of living and playing in North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District. eW invite you to take advantage of the many programs, classes, and special events available to you and your family this season. NCPRD has something fun for all ages and interest levels, including parks and trails, summer camps, Movies in the Park, RecMobile, Big Surf! at North Clackamas Aquatic Park, and much more! At NCPRD, we believe that everyone should have access to nature, parks, and recreation programming. That’s why we’re constantly striving to better serve our community and help enrich the lives of District residents. Our strategic partnership with North Clackamas School District aims to do just that and would provide new parks and recreation opportunities throughout the District, especially where they’re needed most. As part of the agreement, NCPRD would exchange Hood View Park in Happy Valley for the Concord Elementary School and former NCSD Administration Building in Milwaukie, and appromimately $16M cash. NCSD would get the needed sports complex for their new high school at the Rock Creek campus, and NCPRD would utilize funds from the agreement to pay off debt, freeing up District operating funds. This partnership is a true win-win for the community.
    [Show full text]