DOCSLIB.ORG

5 Analysis of Ecological Characteristics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. While there certainly is spatial heterogeneity in the uses and ecology of the Coastal Ocean AU, the boundaries that define the distinct activities are dynamic. The following criteria were used to determine reach break locations for marine, riverine, estuarine, and lacustrine shorelines (Table 5-1). In many locations in Pacific County, the precise transition between estuarine and riverine characteristics cannot be determined by mapping alone, therefore, in areas of limited development, a single reach may encompass areas with both estuarine and freshwater riverine characteristics. Land use (e.g., adjacent land use patterns, shoreline uses, vegetation coverage, and shoreline modifications) was weighted heavily in determining reach break locations, in recognition that 124 The Watershed Company May 2015 the intensity and type of land use will affect shoreline ecological conditions. Furthermore, functional analysis outcomes will be more relevant for future determination of appropriate shoreline environment designations if the reach breaks occur at possible transition points in environment designations. In addition to land use, physical drivers of shoreline processes were used to establish an overall framework for determining reach break locations. Regardless, reaches have been created for informational purposes only and are not intended to represent regulatory boundaries. While reach scale analysis of ecological functions is one aspect of evaluating appropriate environment designations, several other inventory elements, including land use characteristics, also play a significant role. The total number of reach breaks by AU is described in Table 5-2. Table 5-1. Criteria for Determining Reach Breaks Marine/Estuarine Riverine Lacustrine4 Changes in land use1 Changes in land use1 Changes in land use1 Changes in vegetation Change in shore type Stream/River confluences (coverage and type) Changes in vegetation Changes in channel confinement Significant wetland areas2 (coverage and type) and upland topography Creek/River mouths Tributary confluences Changes in topography Changes in vegetation Artificial barriers (levees, dikes) (coverage and type) 1. Reach breaks were generally identified at the nearest parcel boundary, except with large parcels, where physical or ecological factors changed notably within a single parcel. 2. In general, reach breaks were positioned to avoid dividing large wetlands. Table 5-2. Summary of Reaches per Assessment Unit Assessment Unit Number of Reaches 1- North River 13 2- Willapa River 22 3- Middle Bay 9 4- Naselle River 17 5- Upper Chehalis Basin 3 6- Grays River 4 7- Columbia River 7 8-Willapa Bay 21 9- Long Beach Peninsula 13 10- Pacific Coast- North 3 11- Coastal Ocean 1 In order to evaluate salt marsh and eelgrass vegetation, as well as aquaculture activities that occur below the ordinary high water mark, reach boundaries were extended waterward using the GIS Euclidean Allocation tool. Euclidean Allocation divides the non-source space (for example, Willapa Bay) into zones based on closest proximity to the shoreline reach. Because 125 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report these zones are determined according to Euclidean, or straight-line, distances, boundaries were adjusted to better represent natural breaks, such as channel centerlines in Willapa Bay (Figure 5- 1). Generally, associated wetlands were included in the reach functional analysis when any portion of the wetland fell within 200 feet of a shoreline. For the analysis, reach boundaries were also extended to include areas of associated wetlands that occur west of SR 103 on the Long Beach Peninsula and west of SR 105 on the North Pacific Coast, as past studies and management approaches have confirmed hydrologic connectivity of these wetland areas. Figure 5-1. Example of estuarine zones created through the Euclidean Allocation process. Approach The analysis of reach functions was based on the four major function categories identified in the Department of Ecology’s guidelines: hydrologic, hyporheic, shoreline vegetation, and habitat. The four primary functional categories were further broken down into relevant functions identified in WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(i). Table 5-3 provides a brief description of each function, potential effects of land use, and potential indicators for each function from available spatial data, as well as areas of typical human disturbance. 126 The Watershed Company May 2015 Table 5-3. Summary of Shoreline Ecological Functions Shoreline Processes Functions, Impacts, and Indicators Type Storage of peak flows is provided by floodplains, off channel areas and large wetland complexes; these features help reduce peak flows and contribute to summer low flows. Whereas landslides and bank failures typically contribute sediment in steep upper reaches; overbank flooding, localized bank erosion, and bedload transport represent the major sediment transport processes in lower reaches. Land use impacts: Vegetation removal alters the water/sediment balance and destabilizes slopes resulting Riverine in excess bed or bank erosion and disconnected floodplains. Encroachment into floodplains and floodways by structures or fill reduces the local flood storage capacity, resulting in increased flood heights and velocities. Shoreline armoring limits local bank erosion. Dams affect hydrologic processes at a watershed scale. Available Data Indicators: Floodplains, Floodways, Armoring, Road density, Dams, Wetlands Water storage functions of lakes can help attenuate the severity of downstream flooding. Sediment storage functions alter downstream sediment budgets. Water and Land use impacts: Artificial dams alter the seasonal storage of water and limit sediment transport Lacustrine downstream. sediment processes Hydrologic Available Data Indicators: Dams Sediment transport processes are affected by freshwater inputs, tides, waves, and wind. Sediment erosion and accretion processes are responsible for the formation of estuarine and marine habitats including salt marshes and sand dunes. Land use impacts: In-water structures and shoreline armoring alter sediment transport processes. Dikes restrict tidal exchange and tidegates result in muted exchange. Armoring of natural bluffs restricts natural erosion, which would otherwise contribute to the sediment balance within the bay or drift cell. Development Marine/ can affect groundwater recharge rates by concentrating and channelizing stormwater and filling wetlands. Estuarine Groundwater well withdrawals can also affect groundwater levels. Dredging and dredge disposal alters water flow and sediment transport processes. Incidental structures related to boating and commercial and recreational fishing can also alter sediment transport processes. These incidental structures include things such as shipwrecks, derelict gear, and other fixed structures. Available Data Indicators: Armoring, Dikes, (Comprehensive tidegate data not available) 127 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report Shoreline Processes Functions, Impacts, and Indicators Type Floodway and floodplain areas and riverine wetlands provide a transition between upland and riverine habitats. Vegetated uplands help to desynchronize flooding impacts downstream. Broad, vegetated floodplains help slow and disperse flood flows. Riverine Land use impacts: Armored or leveed shorelines tend to accelerate flow, increasing erosional forces downstream. Available Data Indicators: Floodplains, Floodways, Forested vegetation in floodplain, Armoring, Levees Shallow gradient shorelines help attenuate wave energy, limiting shoreline erosion and providing sheltered, shallow-water habitat. Emergent and woody vegetation helps attenuate wave energy. Land use impacts: Armored shorelines create a steep shoreline gradient, and tend to reflect wave energy Lacustrine Energy toward adjacent shoreline areas or the lake bed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Klickitat Spring Chinook Production Program Klickitat Hatchery Complex
    Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Klickitat Spring Chinook Production Program Klickitat Hatchery Complex Updated January 2018 1 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation This page is intentionally blank. Updated January 2018 2 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN (HGMP) Final Draft Klickitat Spring Chinook Production Program- Hatchery Program Klickitat Hatchery Species or Chinook Salmon Hatchery Stock (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Agency/Operator Yakama Nation Watershed Klickitat River, Columbia Gorge and Region Date Submitted January, 2018 Date Last Updated September 2017 (updated tables) Updated January 2018 3 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Section 1: General Program Description 1.1 Name of hatchery or program. Klickitat Spring Chinook Production Program- Klickitat Hatchery 1.2 Species and population (or stock) under propagation, and ESA status. Klickitat Spring Chinook Salmon (Onchorynchus tshawtscha) ESA Status: Not listed and not a candidate for listing 1.3 Responsible organization and individuals. Name (and title): Jason Rau (Klickitat Hatchery Complex Manager) Bill Sharp (YKFP Klickitat Coordinator) Agency or Tribe: Yakama Nation Address: PO Box 151 Toppenish WA 98948 Telephone: (509) 865-5121 Fax: (509) 865-6293 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Other agencies, Tribes, co-operators, or organizations involved, including contractors, and extent of involvement in the program. Co-operators Role WDFW Hatchery Specialist 1 USFWS Fish Health Services 1.4 Funding source, staffing level, and annual hatchery program operational costs. Funding Sources Mitchell Act Contract Number Operational Information NA06NMF4360230 Full time equivalent staff 4.0 Estimated Annual operating cost (dollars) $280,000 Updated January 2018 4 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation 1.5 Location(s) of hatchery and associated facilities.
    [Show full text]